alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014253EN.01001801.xml

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/18

---

Action brought on 20 May 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-244/14)

2014/C 253/23

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2004/49/EC in so far as it failed to fully to transpose Articles 3(k), 10(5), 11(2), 17(1), 19(2), 22(3) and 25(3) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2004/49/EC in so far as it failed to fully to transpose Articles 3(k), 10(5), 11(2), 17(1), 19(2), 22(3) and 25(3) of that directive;

| — | order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Following an examination of the legal position in the Republic of Austria, the Commission expressed concerns regarding the correct transposition of some of the provisions of Directive 2004/49/EC (1). The concerns relate essentially to provisions concerning safety certification and safety authorisation, national safety authorities, investigations, the investigation body and safety recommendations.

1

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 164, p. 44.

1

---
§ 507.215 Special requirements applicable to a written assurance. ( a ) Any written assurance required by this part must contain the following elements: ( 1 ) Effective date;
( 2 ) Printed names and signatures of authorized officials;
( 3 ) The applicable assurance under: ( i ) § 507.36(a)(2);
( ii ) § 507.36(a)(3);
( iii ) § 507.36(a)(4);
( iv ) § 507.130(c)(2);
( v ) § 507.130(d)(2); or
( vi ) § 507.130(e)(2).
( b ) A written assurance required under § 507.36(a)(2), (3) or (4) must include: ( 1 ) Acknowledgement that the facility that provides the written assurance assumes legal responsibility to act consistently with the assurance and document its actions taken to satisfy the written assurance; and
( 2 ) Provision that if the assurance is terminated in writing by either entity, responsibility for compliance with the applicable provisions of this part reverts to the manufacturer/processor as of the date of termination.
EX-10.33



 Exhibit 10.33 

AMENDMENT TO 

2014 STOCK OPTION/STOCK ISSUANCE PLAN 

This Amendment (this “Amendment”), dated as of April 27, 2017 (the “Effective Date”), hereby amends
that certain Veritone, Inc. 2014 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan (the “Plan”). All capitalized terms used in this Amendment but not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective meanings ascribed to such terms in the Plan. 

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of Veritone, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”) approved the amendments
to the Plan set forth below to increase the authorized shares available for issuance under the Plan, which amendments were subsequently approved by the Corporation’s stockholders on April 27, 2017; 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 
  

	 	1.	Section V. A. of Article One of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows: 

  

	 	A.	The stock issuable under the Plan shall be shares of authorized but unissued or reacquired Common Stock. The maximum number of shares of Common Stock that may be issued over the term of the Plan shall not exceed Four
Million Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Five Hundred Eighty-Five (4,450,585) shares, subject to adjustment from time to time pursuant to Section V. D. of this Article One. 


 

	 	2.	Amendment to Section V. C. of Article One of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows: 

  

	 	C.	The maximum number of shares of Common Stock which may be issued under the Plan pursuant to Incentive Options shall not exceed Four Million Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Five Hundred Eighty-Five (4,450,585) shares in
the aggregate, subject to adjustment from time to time pursuant to the provisions of Section V. D. of this Article One. 

   

	 	3.	Except as amended hereby, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
§ 522.2112 Sometribove zinc suspension. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each single-dose syringe contains 500 milligrams (mg) sometribove zinc in a prolonged-release suspension.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 086106 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* Inject 500 mg every 14 days starting during the 9th or 10th week (57 to 70 days) after calving and continue until the end of lactation.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* To increase production of marketable milk in healthy lactating dairy cows.
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Use in lactating dairy cows only. Safety to replacement bulls born to treated dairy cows has not been established. Inject subcutaneously. Avoid injections within 2 weeks of expected slaughter to minimize injection site blemishes on carcass. There is no milk discard or preslaughter withdrawal period. Use may reduce pregnancy rates and increase days open. Treated cows are at an increased risk for mastitis and higher milk somatic cell counts. Use care to differentiate increased body temperature due to use of this product from an increased body temperature that may occur due to illness. Cows treated with this product may have more enlarged hocks and disorders of the foot region. Use may reduce hemoglobin and hematocrit values during treatment. Human warning: Avoid prolonged or repeated contact with eyes and skin.
[58 FR 59947, Nov. 12, 1993, as amended at 67 FR 18085, Apr. 15, 2002; 68 FR 62006, Oct. 31, 2003; 74 FR 53164, Oct. 16, 2009; 81 FR 48702, July 26, 2016; 85 FR 4208, Jan. 24, 2020]
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     EXHIBIT 5.1

                                     March 26, 1999



INTERLINQ Software Corporation
11980 N.E. 24th Street
Bellevue, Washington  98005

        RE:    REGISTRATION STATEMENT ON FORM S-4

Dear Gentlemen and Ladies:

        We have acted as counsel to INTERLINQ Software Corporation, a Washington
corporation (the "Company"), in connection with the preparation of a
Registration Statement on Form S-4 (the "Registration Statement") under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Act"), which you are filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission relating to the up to 3,403,439 shares of
common stock, $.01 par value per share, of the Company (the "Common Stock").
These shares consist of 2,153,439 shares of common stock to be issued as a
result of the conversion of shares of common stock of Terlin, Inc. (the "Terlin
Shares"), pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated December 28, 1998,
between the Company and Terlin, Inc. (the "Merger Agreement"), and 1,250,000
shares of Common Stock to be retained by the existing shareholders of the
Company (the "Retained Shares") pursuant to the Merger Agreement. We have
examined the Registration Statement and such documents and records of the
Company and other documents as we have deemed necessary for the purpose of this
opinion.

        Based on and subject to the foregoing, we are of the opinion that, upon
the effectiveness of the Registration Statement and the approval of the Merger
Agreement by the shareholders of the Company, (a) the issuance of the Terlin
Shares and the retention of the Retained Shares in accordance with the terms of
the Merger Agreement will have been duly authorized; (b) when the Terlin Shares
are issued in accordance with the terms of the Merger Agreement and the
Registration Statement, the Terlin Shares will  be validly issued, fully paid
and nonassessable; and (c) the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement
will not adversely affect the status of the Retained Shares as validly issued,
fully paid and nonassessable.

        We hereby consent to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit to the
Registration Statement and to the reference to our name under "Legal Matters".
In giving such consent, we do not admit that we are in the category of persons
whose consent is required under Section 7 of the Act.

                                            Very truly yours,



                                            Perkins Coie LLP
# C_2014329EN.01000201.xml

| 22.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Satu Mare (Romania) lodged on 25 June 2014 — Sergiu Lucian Băbășan v Inspectoratul Județean de Poliție Satu Mare

(Case C-305/14)

2014/C 329/02

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunalul Satu Mare

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Sergiu Lucian Băbășan

Appellant:

Respondent: Inspectoratul Județean de Poliție Satu Mare

Respondent:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1) | Are the provisions of Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union, in conjunction with Article 11(1) and Article 12(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, also directly applicable in Romania with respect to EU citizens? |
| --- | --- |

1)

Are the provisions of Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union, in conjunction with Article 11(1) and Article 12(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, also directly applicable in Romania with respect to EU citizens?

| 2) | Must Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union, in conjunction with Article 11(1) and Article 12(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as permitting citizens of the Union to be required to observe provisions of the national law of the Member States, such as the mandatory rules laid down in Article 12(1), together with the penalty provided for in Article 26(1)(a), of Law No 60/1991 of Romania on the organisation and the conduct of public meetings? |
| --- | --- |

2)

Must Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union, in conjunction with Article 11(1) and Article 12(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, be interpreted as permitting citizens of the Union to be required to observe provisions of the national law of the Member States, such as the mandatory rules laid down in Article 12(1), together with the penalty provided for in Article 26(1)(a), of Law No 60/1991 of Romania on the organisation and the conduct of public meetings?

---
FOREST PRODUCTS LABORATORY FOREST SERVICE 

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

IMPROVED HARVESTING METHODS 

EQUIPMENT SURVEY NOTES 

ARCH MOUNTED ON CRAWLER TRACTOR 

A new type of skidder, built locally by a logger, has been observed 

in Iowa. It consists of an arch mounted on a caterpiller tractor (D-4), 

and is used for skidding medium to large-sized hardwood logs. A double 

drumwinch is attached to the rear power takeoff. The arch is mounted on 

the shaft of the large drum, and guyed with steel cable to the front of the 

tractor. At the top of the tubular steel frame, bottom and side guide 

rollers are mounted so that the logs can be pulled or skidded at an angle 

without excessive wear on the cable (fig. 1). The small drum with a light 

cable is used for bunching logs, while the large drum and cable axe used 

for skidding (fig. 2). In bunching and skidding, the pull is from an 

elevated position raising the front end of the logs end increasing the 

capacity of the tractor. Very heavy loads tend to lighten the weight on 

the front of the tractor, but this does not interfere with skidding. The 

logger who built this unit has given it considerable use, and is well 

pleased with its performance. Although embodying several ingenious 

features, it is assumed they are not patented or patentable. However, a 

prospective builder may need to investigate this point. No such attachments are known to be commercially available. The low construction cost 

and type of materials required to assemble the unit are suggested in 

figures 1 and 3. 

R. H. P. Miller 

E. W. Fobes 

March 1947 

Rept. No. R1637-1 

Maintained at Madison, Wisconsin in cooperation with the University of Wisconsin 
Figure 1.--Rear view showing fair Figure 2.--Skidding a load of hardlead head (one roller missing) wood logs 

ZM 72246 F Figure 3.--Side view showing construction details
§ 211.110 Sampling and testing of in-process materials and drug products. ( a ) To assure batch uniformity and integrity of drug products, written procedures shall be established and followed that describe the in-process controls, and tests, or examinations to be conducted on appropriate samples of in-process materials of each batch. Such control procedures shall be established to monitor the output and to validate the performance of those manufacturing processes that may be responsible for causing variability in the characteristics of in-process material and the drug product. Such control procedures shall include, but are not limited to, the following, where appropriate: ( 1 ) Tablet or capsule weight variation;
( 2 ) Disintegration time;
( 3 ) Adequacy of mixing to assure uniformity and homogeneity;
( 4 ) Dissolution time and rate;
( 5 ) Clarity, completeness, or pH of solutions.
( 6 ) Bioburden testing.
( b ) Valid in-process specifications for such characteristics shall be consistent with drug product final specifications and shall be derived from previous acceptable process average and process variability estimates where possible and determined by the application of suitable statistical procedures where appropriate. Examination and testing of samples shall assure that the drug product and in-process material conform to specifications.
( c ) In-process materials shall be tested for identity, strength, quality, and purity as appropriate, and approved or rejected by the quality control unit, during the production process, e.g., at commencement or completion of significant phases or after storage for long periods.
( d ) Rejected in-process materials shall be identified and controlled under a quarantine system designed to prevent their use in manufacturing or processing operations for which they are unsuitable.
[43 FR 45077, Sept. 29, 1978, as amended at 73 FR 51932, Sept. 8, 2008]
;_ j 

---~ ....... l+l_ ~JZ»s~e /t1/IJ(7W c..X:JaT-6?~..r::r_d..L&~r2 /s 

-----++ii..J-19~· . t ~G~~E ;.s-,L.&/)/_£1 ~.;;17_£2gLZ2Ed5s:i /h'E~--

lj (J&y-4~V/f/L T2;~ ·-/IRE. _kJE ~d=-L!LLJ.LA!T ~_/!/·. &--<J4..r-.J<;K7 ~ t ' 

----'--'--+)+---! l~fl&....lal.cs-- E&Je TP'J5 ;r7e.J9'./I/~~ir.T~T-7ClfiL_&E _ . 1 

...------~-it+-l--.:Jt:f~ucs-:, N ~ .pg a.c:JL.Ej N&Lb.e-sC> · ~e!>_Ll~~ . / 1-? / d d'J Je. 

. !I f':h;i;).::) :1 ;Cf~ s--;'l'z,{lf/7&/J/J; :4' ~A'?~AIN: j'::::rc::J !f'_ J" Qd._C/.c;d_ ;i . . /. . 

lj·£v#e.-T/~flS. ~»WiJ -~N)I·?-~.!9./'eL '.1 TE/71~ ~ 

_____ ;+;j....L·N~JC. ~- i . ...... -.L-E~_LZ -?/e ~/Vs .,/daLer &77~4~.,.'------~--~--

lj Y#c as-L...J-:u)LJ 2CJftn MV~-&Es-~---. _·__..c2~E-· ___ _ ; l . 

; I -Ca u /.1-/-;P'&s--T »~&l'X N ~-,4 ,)(1_£_ · Jr:2~12dC L'ITCJ A-/ il #L8s-kl9 ·/4/£_-.LnY'ES: Fml!f Z7:l;EJ/€ ·.0.1<?-jL-· 

l!~ ~12#~ E_L!L?~..:;_·r-rz~l;__:C?=-..J~V~£= ..... .£.::,4<::..!;. ~=· .·L...;~~····y:-L., _________ • 

~l f0££j.;;t~1?E ~/.~JowJ 7/7'-E -);.../(!J/CJ.2 ~;Es-s£,A-/7ih 

Jll~s ~c$:e£i14T ~-P~i£/2.L!I J/1/G; · Ed?£ T/7' £s-e i { 

~~ J s-;?_ .19~.0 (~& /'--"Z /'1 VA,!/ /EG_ -~ ·c2·E /./Z4.J4s/-c,4 ... 

.'{., 

! 1 : ' :: • ~-. ; 

.. "·! .. {
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas June 1, 2022
No. 04-22-00284-CR Elijah Walter JOHNSON , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022CR1060 Honorable Catherine Torres-Stahl, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R Appellant Elijah Walter Johnson seeks to appeal the trial court’s judgment of conviction. A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke a court of appeals’ jurisdiction. See Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). The record shows the trial court imposed sentence in accordance with the agreement on February 28, 2022. Because Johnson did not file a motion for new trial, his notice of appeal was due by March 30, 2022 or a notice and motion for extension of time was due fifteen days later. See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 26.2(a)(1), 26.3. Johnson did not file his notice of appeal until April 27, 2022, and he did not file a motion for extension of time. See id. R. 26.3. The record also shows Johnson entered into a plea bargain with the State pursuant to which he pleaded nolo contedere to the offense of theft under $2500 enhanced. The record includes the trial court’s Rule 25.2(a)(2) certification stating “this criminal case is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” This court must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.” Id . R. 25.2(d). The record establishes the punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See id. R. 25.2(a)(2). The record also appears to support the trial court’s certification that Johnson does not have a right to appeal. See Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding that court of appeals should review clerk’s record to determine whether trial court’s certification is accurate). Having reviewed the record, it appears the notice of appeal was untimely filed and Johnson does not have the right to appeal. We therefore order Johnson to file a response, byJuly 1, 2022 , establishing: (1) the notice of appeal was timely filed and (2) an amended

certification showing he has the right to appeal has been made part of the appellate record. See id . T EX

. R. A PP . P. 25.2(d), 37.1; see also Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals , 802 S.W.2d 241 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (out-of-time appeal from final felony conviction may be sought by filing a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure). If a supplemental clerk’s record is required to show the appeal is timely and Johnson has the right to appeal, Johnson must request a supplemental record from the trial court clerk and file a copy of the request with this court. If appellant fails to satisfactorily respond to this order within the time provided, the appeal will be dismissed.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 1st day of June, 2022.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed June 9, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-569

Lower Tribunal Nos. F07-43923; F08-20401

________________

Mitchel Machado,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from 

the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose L. Fernandez, Judge.

Mitchel Machado, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, SCALES, and LOBREE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         In connection with the accompanying amended Quarterly Report on Form
10-QSB of Velocity Asset Management, Inc. for the three months ended March 31,
2006, I, James J. Mastriani, Chief Financial Officer of Velocity Asset
Management, Inc., do hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1) such amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the three months
ended March 31, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) the information contained in such amended Quarterly Report on Form
10-QSB for the three months ended March 31, 2006, fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Velocity
Asset Management, Inc.


                                       /s/ JAMES J. MASTRIANI
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       James J. Mastriani
                                       Chief Financial Officer

May 22, 2006

                                       30
§ 522.522 Danofloxacin. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each milliliter of solution contains 180 milligrams (mg) danofloxacin as the mesylate salt.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 054771 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Related tolerances.* See § 556.169 of this chapter.
( d ) *Conditions of use in cattle* — ( 1 ) *Amount and indications for use.* Administer by subcutaneous injection either: ( i ) 6 mg per kilogram (/kg) of body weight, repeated in 48 hours, for the treatment of bovine respiratory disease (BRD) associated with *Mannheimia haemolytica* and *Pasteurella multocida;* or
( ii ) 8 mg/kg of body weight as a single dose for the treatment of BRD associated with *M. haemolytica* and *P. multocida* and for the control of BRD in beef cattle at high risk of developing BRD associated with *M. haemolytica* and *P. multocida.*
( 2 ) *Limitations.* Animals intended for human consumption should not be slaughtered within 4 days from the last treatment. Do not use in cattle intended for dairy production. A withdrawal period has not been established for this product in pre-ruminating calves. Do not use in calves to be processed for veal. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian. Federal law prohibits the extra-label use of this drug in food-producing animals.
[67 FR 78972, Dec. 27, 2002, as amended at 77 FR 4227, Jan. 27, 2012; 79 FR 16185, Mar. 25, 2014; 79 FR 53136, Sept. 8, 2014]