alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|    |                                                                                           |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Rexford Industrial Realty, Inc.; and |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |

|                        |
|------------------------|
|                        |  |  |  |
| February 28, 2019 |   | By: | /s/ Adeel Khan |
|                   |   |   | Adeel Khan |
|                   |   |   | Chief Financial Officer |
§ 862.3 Definitions. ( a ) *Air delivery.* Delivering or retrieving a person or object by airborne means, including but not limited to, aircraft.
( b ) *Aircraft.* A manned a unmanned device or any portion thereof, that is commonly used or intended to be used for flight in the air, including powerless flight. Such devices include but are not limited to any parachute, hovercraft, helicopter, glider, airplane or lighter than air vehicle.
( c ) *Boundary.* A delineation on a map of Federal interest in land or water utilized by DOE pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended: ( 1 ) Authorized by Congress, or
( 2 ) Published pursuant to law in the Federal Register, or
( 3 ) Filed or recorded with a State or political subdivision in accordance with applicable law.
( d ) *Designated site.* An area of land or water identified in accordance with § 862.7 of this part.
( e ) *Downed aircraft.* An aircraft that is on a designated site due to emergency landing or for any other reason.
( f ) *Manager of Operations.* The manager of a DOE field office, the Manager of the Pittsburgh Naval Reactors Office, the Manager of the Schnectady Naval Reactors Office and, for designated sites administered directly by DOE Headquarters, the Chief Health, Safety and Security Officer.
[52 FR 29838, Aug. 12, 1987, as amended at 71 FR 68734, Nov. 28, 2006]
`[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 924 Reported in House (RH)]







                                                 House Calendar No. 215
109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 924

                          [Report No. 109-578]

   Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 2754) to derive human 
pluripotent stem cell lines using techniques that do not knowingly harm 
                                embryos.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 18, 2006

   Mr. Gingrey, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
   Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 2754) to derive human 
pluripotent stem cell lines using techniques that do not knowingly harm 
                                embryos.

    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the 
House the bill (S. 2754) to derive human pluripotent stem cell lines 
using techniques that do not knowingly harm embryos. The bill shall be 
considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as 
ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion except: 
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; 
and (2) one motion to recommit.
                                                 House Calendar No. 215

109th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 924

                          [Report No. 109-578]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

   Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 2754) to derive human 
pluripotent stem cell lines using techniques that do not knowingly harm 
                                embryos.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 18, 2006

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed`
2007-2275.

#### State ex rel. Metcalfe v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 06AP-830, 2007-Ohio-6180.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7596

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RONALD LANTHRON,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 02-6002

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RONALD LANTHRON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief

District Judge. (CA-01-465-5-BO)
2

Submitted: February 28, 2002 Decided: March 13, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Lanthron, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

On consolidated appeals, Ronald Lanthron seeks to appeal the

district court’s orders denying his motion, filed on a form pertaining to motions under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001), but

that we construe as a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241

(1994). He also challenges the district court’s order denying his

motion for a certificate of appealability. Because Lanthron’s

challenge to a court martial is properly addressed under § 2241,

Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137 (1953), the district court erred in

dismissing the petition based on the time limits applicable to

motions under § 2255. However, as the district court correctly

noted in its denial of Lanthron’s motion for a certificate of

appealability, Lanthron did not meet the custody requirement

applicable to habeas corpus petitions. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); see

Garlotte v. Fordice, 515 U.S. 39, 40 (1995). Accordingly, we

affirm the denial of relief on the basis that Lanthron was not in

custody, depriving the district court of jurisdiction over the

petition. We grant Lanthron’s motion to supplement the record. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
§ 1.725 What are the consequences of not paying a user fee under this subpart on time? ( a ) An application for recognition or renewal of recognition will not be considered complete for the purposes of § 1.631(a) until the date that FDA receives the application fee. An application for direct accreditation or for renewal of direct accreditation will not be considered complete for the purposes of § 1.671(a) until FDA receives the application fee.
( b ) A recognized accreditation body that fails to submit its annual user fee within 30 days of the due date will have its recognition suspended. ( 1 ) FDA will notify the accreditation body electronically that its recognition is suspended. FDA will notify the public of the suspension on the Web site described in § 1.690.
( 2 ) While an accreditation body's recognition is suspended, the accreditation body will not be able to accredit additional third-party certification bodies. The accreditation of third-party certification bodies that occurred prior to an accreditation body's suspension, as well as food or facility certifications issued by such third-party certification bodies, would remain in effect.
( 3 ) If payment is not received within 90 days of the payment due date, FDA will revoke the accreditation body's recognition under § 1.634(a)(4)(iii), and provide notice of such revocation in accordance with § 1.634.
( c ) An accredited third-party certification body that fails to submit its annual fee within 30 days of the due date will have its accreditation suspended. ( 1 ) FDA will notify the third-party certification body that its accreditation is suspended, electronically and in English. FDA will notify a recognized accreditation body, electronically and in English, if the accreditation of one if its third-party certification bodies is suspended. FDA will notify the public of the suspension on the Web site described in § 1.690.
( 2 ) While a third-party certification body's accreditation is suspended, the third-party certification body will not be able to issue food or facility certifications. A food or facility certification issued by a third-party certification body prior to the suspension of the auditor/certification body accreditation will remain in effect.
( 3 ) If payment is not received within 90 days of the payment due date, FDA will withdraw the third-party certification body's accreditation under § 1.664(a)(4), and provide notice of such withdrawal in accordance with § 1.664.
#### In re COCHRANE.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 8, 1915.)

In the matter of the application of Samuel B. Cochrane for admission to the bar.

No opinion. Application granted, and order signed.
#### § 1200.437 What method do I use to communicate to a participant the requirements described in the OMB guidance at 2 CFR 180.435?

To communicate to a participant the requirements described in 2 CFR 180.435 of the OMB guidance, you must include a term or condition in the transaction that requires the participant's compliance with subpart C of 2 CFR part 180 and requires the participant to include a similar term or condition in lower-tier covered transactions.
#### § 415.7 Federal interagency coordination.

The Secretary, to the extent practicable, consults with and seeks advice from all other substantially affected Federal departments and agencies in an effort to assure full coordination between such agencies and the Department regarding programs and activities covered under these regulations.
# EUR-Lex - 31993D0455 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31993D0455

**93/455/EEC: Commission Decision of 23 July 1993 approving certain contingency plans for the control of foot-and-mouth disease **

*
Official Journal L 213 , 24/08/1993 P. 0020 - 0020 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 52 P. 0042 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 52 P. 0042 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 23 July 1993 approving certain contingency plans for the control of foot-and-mouth disease

(93/455/EEC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 90/423/EEC of 26 June 1990, amending Directive 85/511/EEC introducing Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease, Directive 64/432/EEC on animal health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine and Directive 72/462/EEC on health and veterinary inspection problems upon importation of bovine animals and swine and fresh meat products from third countries (1), and in particular Article 5 (4) thereof,

Whereas the Commission has already laid down criteria to be applied when drawing up contingency plans for the control of foot-and-mouth disease by Decision 91/42/EEC (2);

Whereas certain Member States have submitted for approval national contingency plans; whereas, after examination these plans permit the desired objective to be attained and fulfil all the criteria laid down in Decision 91/42/EEC;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The contingency plans for the control of foot-and-mouth disease submitted by Member States listed in Annex 1 are approved.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 23 July 1993.

For the Commission

René STEICHEN

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 224, 13. 8. 1990, p. 13.

(2) OJ No L 23, 29. 1. 1991, p. 29.

ANNEX

The contingency plans for the control of foot-and-mouth disease of the following Member States are approved:

Belgium

Denmark

Germany

Greece

Spain

France

Ireland

Italy

Luxembourg

Portugal

United Kingdom
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM JASON
INCORPORATED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 26, 1997, AND CONSOLIDATED
INCOME STATEMENT FOR THE NINE MONTH PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 26, 1997.  AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000813471
<NAME> JASON INCORPORATED
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-26-1997
<CASH>                                            2631
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    56956
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                      38449
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                124529
<PP&E>                                          158333
<DEPRECIATION>                                   74582
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  297103
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            78373
<BONDS>                                          98531<F2>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         34957
<OTHER-SE>                                       67761
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    297103
<SALES>                                         359588
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                359588
<CGS>                                           289118
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   289118
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                7442
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  12675
<INCOME-TAX>                                      4943
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               7732
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      7732
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F3>
<FN>
<F1>COMPANY PRESENTS RECEIVABLES ON A NET BASIS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 10
REGULATION S-X.
<F2>INCLUDES ALL NON-CURRENT PORTION OF DEBT OBLIGATIONS.
<F3>NOT REPORTED.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 21**

 

**SUBSIDIARIESOF SYSTEMAX INC.**

 

DomesticSubsidiaries

 

GlobalComputer Supplies Inc. (a New York corporation)

 

GlobalEquipment Company Inc. (a New York corporation)

 

TigerDirect Inc. (a Florida corporation)

 

NexelIndustries Inc. (a New York corporation)

 

SystemaxManufacturing Inc. (a Delaware corporation)

 

ProfitCenterSoftware Inc. (a New York corporation)

 

GlobalGov’t/Education Solutions, Inc. (a Delaware corporation)

 

PapierCatalogues Inc. (a New York corporation)

 

MiscoAmerica Inc. (a Delaware corporation)

 

MillenniumFalcon Corp. (a Delaware corporation)

 

SYXServices Inc. (a New York corporation)

 

SYXDistribution Inc.  (a Delawarecorporation)

 

OnRebate.comInc.  (a Delaware corporation)

 

WorldwideRebates Inc. (a Florida corporation)

 

UltraProducts Inc. (a Delaware corporation)

 

MiscoGermany Inc. (a New York corporation)

 

CompUSARealty Inc. (a Delaware corporation)

 

CompUSA.comInc. (a Florida corporation)

 

NewCompUSA Corp. (a Delaware corporation)

 

# **ForeignSubsidiaries**

# ** **

MiscoItaly Computer Supplies S.P.A. (an Italian corporation)

 

HC S Global SA (a French corporation)

 

SystemaxEurope Ltd. (a U.K. corporation)

 

MiscoNetherlands BV (a Dutch corporation)

 

MiscoAB (a Swedish corporation)

 

MiscoIberia Computer Supplies S.A. (a Spanish corporation)

 

----
EX-10.1



 





Exhibit 10.1




AMENDMENT
NO. 3 TO AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF MERGER




     THIS
AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF MERGER
(“Amendment”) is made as of August 3,
2006 among GREAT AMERICAN FINANCIAL RESOURCES, INC., a Delaware corporation (“Parent”), PROJECT
GARDEN ACQUISITION INC., a Delaware corporation (“Acquisition Sub”), and CERES GROUP, INC., a
Delaware corporation (the “Company”).



R E C I T A L S:




     WHEREAS, Parent, Acquisition Sub and the
Company are parties to the Agreement and Plan of Merger
dated as of May 1, 2006 and amended as of May 12, 2006 and
August 2, 2006 (the “Merger Agreement”); and,



     WHEREAS,
the parties hereto desire to amend Section 2.8 of the Merger Agreement in certain
respects, all on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth;



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and agreements contained
hereinafter, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows:



     1. Amendment
to Section 2.8 of the Merger Agreement. Section 2.8 of the Merger Agreement is
hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:




	 	 	“At the Effective Time, by virtue of the Merger and
without any action on the part of the holder thereof, each issued and
outstanding share of capital stock of Acquisition Sub shall be
converted into and become 350,000 validly issued, fully paid and
nonassessable shares of common stock, par value $.01 per share, of
the Surviving Corporation.”





     2. Miscellaneous. Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, the Merger Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect as originally executed and delivered by the parties. Sections 8.4
through 8.10 and Section 8.12 of the Merger Agreement are hereby incorporated by reference in this
Amendment, with “Amendment” to be inserted for “Agreement” in each instance.



 









 





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their respective hands as of the date and year
first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	GREAT AMERICAN FINANCIAL RESOURCES, INC.
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Mark F. Muething
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Name: Mark F. Muething
	 

	 	 	 	Title: Executive Vice President
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	PROJECT GARDEN ACQUISITION INC.
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Mark F. Muething
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Name: Mark F. Muething
	 

	 	 	 	Title: President
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	CERES GROUP, INC.
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Thomas J. Kilian
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Name: Thomas J. Kilian
	 

	 	 	 	Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department



## 737 **CA 11-01970** PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, FAHEY, PERADOTTO, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

STEPHEN NICHOLS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V ORDER
MARIE HACK, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)

NIRA T. KERMISCH, SUDBURY, MASSACHUSETTS, FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., ROCHESTER (PAMELA S.C. REYNOLDS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (David Michael Barry, J.), entered May 12, 2011. The amended judgment dismissed the complaint upon a jury verdict.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs ( see Matter of Eric D. [appeal No. 1], 162 AD2d 1051).

Entered: June 15, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
No. 17,553.

#### Hoskinson *v.*Cavender.

Appellate *Procedure.*— Neto *Trial.*— Newly *Discovered*Evidence.— *Affidavits Not in Record,.*— Alleged error in denying a motion for new trial for newly discovered evidence will not be considered on appeal, where the affidavits in support of such motion are not made a part of the record.

*Same.*— Reversal *of Judgment.*— Weight *of Evidence.*— A judgment will not be reversed in the Supreme Court on the weight of the evidence.

From the Perry Circuit Court.

*W. Henning*and *W. A. Land,*for appellant.

*C. A. Weathers*and *J. H. Weathers,*for appellee.

Monks, J.

Appellee brought this action to contest the will of her father, and revoke the probate thereof. The trial resulted in a finding for appellee; and, over a *2motion for a.new trial, judgment was rendered, setting aside the will and revoking the probate.

Filed December 12, 1895.

Appellant assigns as error that the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

One of the reasons assigned for a new trial was for newly discovered evidence. The affidavits in support of this cause for a new trial are not contained in any bill of exceptions, nor otherwise made a part of the record. This reason for a new trial cannot, therefore, he considered. *Applegate*v. Baxley, 93 Ind. 147 ; *Harper*v. *State, ex rel.,*101 Ind. 109, on page 112.

The other causes for a new trial were, that “the finding is contrary to the evidence,” and also “contrary to the law.” We have carefully read the evidence, and, while we find it conflicting, there is evidence which supports the finding on every material point.

The rule is well settled that this court will not reverse a judgment on the weight of the evidence, although the weight of the evidence might, in our opinion, be against the finding of the trial court. *Lawrence*v. *Van Buskirk,*140 Ind. 481, and cases cited.

Judgment affirmed.