alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 5

                     [Salvo, Russell and Fichter Letterhead]

                                January 17, 2000

Board of Directors
WorldWater Corp.
Pennington Business Park
55 Route 31 South
Pennington, New Jersey 08534

      Re:   WorldWater, Inc. 1996 Employee Benefit Plans

Ladies and Gentlemen:

      This letter is delivered to you in  connection  with the actions taken and
proposed to be taken by WorldWater Corp., a Nevada  corporation  (formerly known
as, WorldWater, Inc.) ("WorldWater"),  with respect to the WorldWater, Inc. 1996
Incentive  Stock Option Plan (the  "Plan").  As counsel to  WorldWater,  we have
reviewed the registration  statement on Form S-8 (the "Registration  Statement")
to be filed by WorldWater on or about January 20, 2000,  with the Securities and
Exchange Commission to effect the registration of 780,000 shares of common stock
of  WorldWater  under the  Securities  Act of 1933,  as amended  (the "Act") for
issuance under the Plans.

      In this regard,  we have examined the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws
of  WorldWater,  records of proceedings of the Board of Directors of WorldWater,
the Plans and such other  records and  documents as we have deemed  necessary or
advisable in connection with the opinions set forth herein.

      In  addition,  we have  relied,  as to  certain  matters,  on  information
obtained  from  public  officials,  officers  of  WorldWater  and other  sources
believed by us to be reliable.

      Based upon our examination  and inquiries,  we are of the opinion that the
shares which constitute  original issuance securities will, when issued pursuant
to the terms and  conditions  of the Plans,  be validly  issued,  fully paid and
nonassessable.  The  foregoing  opinion  is  limited to the laws of the State of
Nevada  and we  express  no  opinion  as to the  effect of the laws of any other
jurisdiction.

      We hereby  consent  to the  filing of this  opinion  as an  exhibit to the
Registration Statement.

                                                      Very truly yours,

                                                  /s/ Salvo, Russell and Fichter
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                      Salvo, Russell and Fichter
§ 610.42 Restrictions on use for further manufacture of medical devices. ( a ) In addition to labeling requirements in subchapter H of this chapter, when a medical device contains human blood or a blood component as a component of the final device, and the human blood or blood component was found to be reactive by a screening test performed under § 610.40(a) and (b), then you must include in the device labeling a statement of warning indicating that the product was manufactured from a donation found to be reactive by a screening test for evidence of infection due to the identified relevant transfusion-transmitted infection(s).
( b ) FDA may approve an exception or alternative to the statement of warning required in paragraph (a) of this section based on evidence that the reactivity of the human blood or blood component in the medical device presents no significant health risk through use of the medical device.
[66 FR 31164, June 11, 2001, as amended at 80 FR 29897, May 22, 2015]
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Wage Chronology: North American Aviation, Inc.

              																	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*Wage Chronology: North American Aviation, Inc. : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1564*,												Washington, D.C: 								U.S. Dept. of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, 										October 1967,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4896,			accessed on September 26, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
§ 520.1286 Lotilaner. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each chewable tablet contains: ( 1 ) For use in dogs: 56.25, 112.5, 225, 450, or 900 milligrams (mg) lotilaner; or
( 2 ) For use in cats: 12 or 48 mg lotilaner.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 058198 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use* — ( 1 ) *Dogs* — ( i ) *Amount.* Administer orally once a month at the recommended minimum dosage of 9 mg/lb (20 mg/kg).
( ii ) *Indications for use.* Kills adult fleas, and for the treatment and prevention of flea infestations (*Ctenocephalides felis*), and the treatment and control of tick infestations (*Amblyomma americanum* (lone star tick), *Dermacentor variabilis* (American dog tick), *Ixodes scapularis* (black-legged tick), and *Rhipicephalus sanguineus* (brown dog tick)) for 1 month in dogs and puppies 8 weeks of age or older and weighing 4.4 pounds or greater.
( iii ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
( 2 ) *Cats* — ( i ) *Amount.* Administer orally once a month at the recommended minimum dosage of 2.7 mg/lb (6 mg/kg).
( ii ) *Indications for use.* Kills adult fleas, and for the treatment and prevention of flea infestations (*Ctenocephalides felis*) for 1 month in cats and kittens 8 weeks of age and older, and weighing 2.0 pounds or greater; and for the treatment and control of *Ixodes scapularis* (black-legged tick) for 1 month in cats and kittens 6 months of age and older, and weighing 2.0 pounds or greater.
( iii ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[85 FR 18119, Apr. 1, 2020, as amended at 86 FR 61685, Nov. 8, 2021]
# C_2014361EN.01000301.xml

| 13.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 361/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 361/3

---

Action brought on 18 July 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-346/14)

2014/C 361/03

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and G. Wilms, 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 defendant failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(3) TEU in conjunction with Article 288 TFEU, in so far as by granting permission for the construction of a hydropower plant on the Schwarze Sulm (Black Sulm) it incorrectly applied the provisions of Article 4(1) in conjunction with Article 4(7) of the Water Framework Directive (1) (WFD); |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the defendant failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(3) TEU in conjunction with Article 288 TFEU, in so far as by granting permission for the construction of a hydropower plant on the Schwarze Sulm (Black Sulm) it incorrectly applied the provisions of Article 4(1) in conjunction with Article 4(7) of the Water Framework Directive (1) (WFD);

1

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

—

order Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Austria sees to avoid the prohibition of deterioration which is laid down in Article 4(1) as a fundamental principle and thereby failed to satisfy the conditions for receiving an exception under Article 4(7) WFD.

The application of the directive ratione temporis is based on the Court’s case-law, according to which during the period allowed for transposition of a directive, Member States must refrain from taking any measures liable seriously to compromise the result prescribed by the directive (Article 4(3) TEU in conjunction with Article 288 TFEU).

The defendant bases its new decision solely on an amended assessment of the water status of the Schwarze Sulm. That amended classification (‘good’ water status instead of ‘very good’ water status) is not compatible with the original management plan. Findings and assessments in the management plan may not simply be amended as the result of an ad-hoc administrative decision based on new criteria. Otherwise, fundamental substantive provisions of the Water Framework Directive, such as in this case the prohibition of deterioration, and important procedural provisions, such as those on public participation, could be easily avoided.

---

(1)  Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1).

1

---
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JA NUARY 24, 2020

NO. 03

- 19

- 00822

- CV

Kent

- Shay Brown, Jr., Appellant

v.

Lacey Brown, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, KELLY, AND SMITH

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

Having reviewed the record

, it appears that the C ourt lacks jurisdiction over the appeal

.

Therefore, the C ourt dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction

. The appellant shall pay all

costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
---

---

Exhibit 14.2

[BDO McCabe Lo Limited
Letterhead]

# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-102288 and 333-92491)
pertaining to the Employee Stock Option plans of Ellomay Capital Ltd. (the
Company) and Form F-3 (File Nos. 333-144171, 333-115826, 333-114428, 333-47842 and
333-92493) of the Company and in the related Prospectus of our report dated June 26, 2008
with respect to the financial statements of NUR Asia Pacific Limited included in the
Annual Report on Form 20-F of Ellomay Capital Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 2007.

/s/ BDO McCabe Lo Limited BDO McCabe Lo LimitedCertified Public
Accountants

June 26, 2008



---

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MARK T. STORMS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 622 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 26th day of February, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (1)   | The                Report 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/                Zack Bergreen             |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|   | Zack                Bergreen                 |
|   | Chief                Executive Officer       |
|   | (Principal                Executive Officer) |
|   | March                30, 2006                |
|   |                                         |
|   |                                         |

----
§ 610.62 Proper name; package label; legible type. ( a ) *Position.* The proper name of the product on the package label shall be placed above any trademark or trade name identifying the product and symmetrically arranged with respect to other printing on the label.
( b ) *Prominence.* The point size and typeface of the proper name shall be at least as prominent as the point size and typeface used in designating the trademark and trade name. The contrast in color value between the proper name and the background shall be at least as great as the color value between the trademark and trade name and the background. Typography, layout, contrast, and other printing features shall not be used in a manner that will affect adversely the prominence of the proper name.
( c ) *Legible type.* All items required to be on the container label and package label shall be in legible type. “Legible type” is type of a size and character which can be read with ease when held in a good light and with normal vision.
#### Suchman, etc., v. Parish, etc.

*David J. Conroy*and *James W. Scanlon,*for plaintiff.

*R. Carl Griffiths*and *Esdras F. Howell,*for defendant.

May 9, 1951.

Eagen, J.,

— This is an action in assumpsit upon judgments rendered against defendant in the State of New Jersey. We have before us a motion for judgment upon the pleadings as provided for in Rule 1034 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The question for decision is the legal sufficiencey of defendant’s answer to the complaint.

Summed up and analyzed, the only defense asserted by defendant in the answer is that the transaction *93upon which the foreign judgments are based was illegal and in violation of the statutes of the United States.

The law in Pennsylvania clearly defines and limits the defenses that may be interposed in an action of this nature. They are: (1) Lack of jurisdiction; (2) legal satisfaction; and, (3) nul tiel record.

> “The judgment of a competent court in another state being final and conclusive on the merits, no, defense can be heard in an action upon it, which goes to the merits of the original controversy . . .”: Stilwell v. Smith, 219 Pa. 36. (syllabus)

The enforcement of the judgment of a sister State is a matter of constitutional law and where no question of subsequent payment, or of jurisdiction of the person or subject matter is involved, full faith and credit must be given to such a judgment. This is so even though the judgment is repugnant to the law and statutes of the State wherein it is sought to be enforced: Engineers National Bank v. Drew et ux., 311 Pa. 59.

Therefore, we conclude that the facts set forth in the answer go to the merits of the controversy and are insufficient to prevent judgment in this action.

Now, May 9, 1951, judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant in the sum of $23,-121.40, with interest thereon from February 3, 1950.
###### Editorial Note on Part 201

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 201 appear at 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004.

#### § 201.2 Drugs and devices; National Drug Code numbers.

The National Drug Code (NDC) number is requested but not required to appear on all drug labels and in all drug labeling, including the label of any prescription drug container furnished to a consumer.

[40 FR 52002, Nov. 7, 1975, as amended at 81 FR 60212, Aug. 31, 2016]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           2,574                   8,291
<SECURITIES>                                    11,539                  23,774
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,378                  33,362
<PP&E>                                           4,267                   3,722
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (2,398)                 (1,746)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  17,345                  35,485
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,558                   2,927
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            13                      12
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,924                  31,753
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    17,345                  35,485
<SALES>                                            355                     137
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   355                     137
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,880                  15,137
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (19,396)                (12,879)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (19,396)                (12,879)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.55)                  (1.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.55)                  (1.04)


</TABLE>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

JUSTIN MURDOCK, ) a/k/a JUSTIN DAVID MURDOCK, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-1745 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed August 29, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Mark D. Kiser and Gregory Holder, Judges. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and William L. Sharwell, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Johnny T. Salgado, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

VILLANTI, SLEET, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF FORTNER, BAYENS, LEVKULICH AND CO., P.C.

                                     EXHIBIT

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



To Board of Directors
Front Range Capital Corporation


         We consent to the use in the Form 10-QSB of Front Range Capital
Corporation for the nine-month period ended September 30, 2001 our report dated
October 11, 2001 relating to the consolidated balance sheet of Front Range
Capital Corporation and subsidiaries as of September 30, 2001 and the related
consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income for the three-month and
nine-month periods then ended and cash flows for nine-month period then ended.







                                  /s/ Fortner, Bayens, Levkulich & Co., P.C.

Denver, Colorado
November 13, 2001
§ 1401.8 Expedited process. ( a ) A request for expedited processing may be made at any time. ONDCP must process requests and appeals on an expedited basis whenever it is determined that they involve: ( 1 ) Circumstances in which the lack of expedited treatment could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual; or
( 2 ) An urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged Federal Government activity, beyond the public's right to know about government activity generally, and the request is made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information.
( b ) A requester who seeks expedited processing must submit a statement, certified to be true and correct, explaining in detail the basis for requesting expedited processing. For example, under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, a requester who is not a full-time member of the news media must establish that the requester is a person who is primarily engaged in information dissemination, though it need not be the requester's sole occupation. Such a requester also must establish a particular urgency to inform the public about the government activity involved in the request, beyond the public's right to know about government activity generally. The existence of numerous articles published on a given subject can be helpful in establishing the requirement that there be an “urgency to inform” the public on the topic. The formality of certification may be waived as a matter of administrative discretion.
( c ) Within 10 days of receipt of a request for expedited processing, ONDCP will decide whether to grant it and will notify the requester of the decision. If a request for expedited treatment is granted, the request will be given priority and will be processed as soon as practicable. If a request for expedited processing is denied, any appeal of that decision will be acted on expeditiously.
§ 582.5464 Manganous oxide. ( a ) *Product.* Manganous oxide.
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.