alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000814458
<NAME>                        Healthcare Properties, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         11,324,744
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,171,302
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (331,042)
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         34,120,794
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (13,870,035)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 32,806,996
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     25,575,781
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   32,806,996
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,354,135
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,836,987
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               26,384
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             160,423
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                330,341
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   330,341
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Bradley J Carver, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of GlycoGenesys, Inc. 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate 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; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and Iare responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15(e) for the registrant and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared; 

 

**(b)****[Paragraphreserved pursuant to SEC Release 33-8238];**

 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlsover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date:March 30, 2005
# C_2015221EN.01001201.xml

| 6.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/12

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — adidas v OHIM — Shoe Branding Europe (Two parallel stripes on a shoe)

(Case T-145/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community position mark consisting of two parallel stripes on a shoe - Community and national figurative marks and earlier international registration representing three parallel stripes applied to shoes and clothing - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 221/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: adidas AG (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented initially by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers, and subsequently by I. Fowler, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock and N. Bambara, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (Oudenaarde, Belgium) (represented by J. Løje, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 November 2013 (Case R 1208/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between adidas AG and Shoe Branding Europe BVBA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 28 November 2013 (Case R 1208/2012-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 28 November 2013 (Case R 1208/2012-2);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by adidas AG; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by adidas AG;

| 3. | Orders Shoe Branding Europe BVBA to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Shoe Branding Europe BVBA to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.

1

---
§ 556.741 Tripelennamine. ( a ) [Reserved]
( b ) *Tolerances.* The tolerances for tripelennamine are: ( 1 ) *Cattle.* ( i ) Edible tissues (excluding milk): 200 ppb.
( ii ) Milk: 20 ppb.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( c ) *Related conditions of use.* See § 522.2615 of this chapter.
#### § 582.50 Certain other spices, seasonings, essential oils, oleoresins, and natural extracts.

Certain other spices, seasonings, essential oils, oleoresins, and natural extracts that are generally recognized as safe for their intended use, within the meaning of section 409 of the act, are as follows:

| Common name | Derivation |
| --- | --- |
| Ambergris | *Physeter macrocephalus* L. |
| Castoreum | Castor fiber L. and C. *canadensis* Kuhl. |
| Civet (zibeth, zibet, zibetum) | Civet cats, *Viverra civetta* Schreber and *Viverra zibetha* Schreber. |
| Cognac oil, white and green | *Ethyl oenanthate,* so-called. |
| Musk (Tonquin musk) | Musk deer, *Moschus moschiferus* L. |
# C_2016016EN.01003601.xml

| 18.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2015 — Jaguar Land Rover v OHIM (Shape of a car)

(Case T-629/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark - Shape of a car - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 016/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Jaguar Land Rover Ltd (Coventry, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Delord and R. Grewal, Solicitors)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: I. Harrington, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 April 2014 (Case R 1622/2013-2) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a car as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 24 April 2014 (Case R 1622/2013-2) in so far as it refused registration of the mark applied for as regards ‘vehicles for locomotion by air and water’ in Class 12; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 24 April 2014 (Case R 1622/2013-2) in so far as it refused registration of the mark applied for as regards ‘vehicles for locomotion by air and water’ in Class 12;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders Jaguar Land Rover Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay nine-tenths of those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM); |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Jaguar Land Rover Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay nine-tenths of those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

| 4. | Orders OHIM to bear one-tenth of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders OHIM to bear one-tenth of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.

1

---
§ 74.1334 D&C Red No. 34. ( a ) *Identity.* ( 1 ) The color additive D&C Red No. 34 is principally the calcium salt of 3-hydroxy-4-[(1-sulfo-2-naphthalenyl)azo]-2-naphthalene-carboxylic acid.
( 2 ) Color additive mixtures for drug use made with D&C Red No. 34 may contain only those diluents that are suitable and that are listed in part 73 of this chapter as safe for use in color additive mixtures for coloring externally applied drugs.
( b ) *Specifications.* D&C Red No. 34 shall conform to the following specifications and shall be free from impurities, other than those named, to the extent that such other impurities may be avoided by good manufacturing practice: Sum of volatile matter (at 135 °C) and chlorides and sulfates (calculated at sodium salts), not more than 15 percent. 2-Amino-1-naphthalenesulfonic acid, calcium salt, not more than 0.2 percent. 3-Hydroxy-2-naphthoic acid, not more than 0.4 percent. Subsidiary colors, not more than 4 percent. Lead (as Pb), not more than 20 parts per million. Arsenic (as As), not more than 3 parts per million. Mercury (as Hg), not more than 1 part per million. Total color not less than 85 percent.
( c ) *Uses and restrictions.* The color additive D&C Red No. 34 may be safely used for coloring externally applied drugs in amounts consistent with good manufacturing practice.
( d ) *Labeling.* The label of the color additive and any mixtures prepared therefrom intended solely or in part for coloring purposes shall conform to the requirements of § 70.25 of this chapter.
( e ) *Certification.* All batches of D&C Red No. 34 shall be certified in accordance with regulations in part 80 of this chapter.
§ 522.82 Aminopropazine. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each milliliter of solution contains aminopropazine fumarate equivalent to 25 milligrams (mg) aminopropazine base.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 000061 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use* — ( 1 ) *Dogs and cats* — ( i ) *Amount.* 1 to 2 mg per pound of body weight, repeated every 12 hours as indicated, by intramuscular or intravenous injection.
( ii ) *Indications for use.* For reducing excessive smooth muscle contractions, such as occur in urethral spasms associated with urolithiasis.
( iii ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
( 2 ) *Horses* — ( i ) *Amount.* Administer 0.25 mg per pound of body weight, repeated every 12 hours as indicated, by intramuscular or intravenous injection.
( ii ) *Indications for use.* For reducing excessive smooth muscle contractions, such as occur in colic spasms.
( iii ) *Limitations.* Do not use in horses intended for human consumption. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[79 FR 16183, Mar. 25, 2014]
1

July 29th, 2016

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Amendment to Exemption #11305, Docket ID FAA-2014-1017

Dear Sir or Madam:

Flying Cross Aerial Productions was issued Exemption #11305 for the purpose of 

operating UAS for filming and photography. We are requesting that an additional aircraft 

be added to the Exemption, which is not currently in the blanket list of approved aircraft.

The additional aircraft has similar flight and operating characteristics as the originally 

exempted models, and shall be operated under the same terms and conditions contained 

in the Exemption. We therefore believe good cause exists not to publish this amendment 

request in the Federal Register.

The additional aircraft is: Hexacrafter HXS-900 (hexacopter) .

Flying Cross Aerial Production’s Operations Manual(s) will be updated to reflect 

operation and maintenance of the new aircraft. 

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Scott Hess, Owner

Flying Cross Aerial Productions

P.O. Box 26203

Austin, TX 78755
Clean Air Pierce County

http://www.cleanairpiercecounty.org/ [11/26/2012 12:38:35 PM] 

### Sign Up For Updates Pierce County's Air Quality Fine particle pollution and why it's a problem 

### Clean Air Task Force Locally-recommended actions to reduce pollution 

### Resource Library Reports, videos and weblinks 

### Public Input Feedback received to date 

### FAQs Common questions about wood smoke, burn bans and nonattainment 

### Contact Us Provide feedback or request information 

### Burn Ban Status

Featured video Pierce County TV News -- Feb 9, 2012 -- Burn Bans 

# More> Pierce County has an air pollution problem In 2009, most of Pierce County was designated a "nonattainment area" for fine particle pollution (soot). This means that fine particle pollution levels too frequently exceeded the national limit, posing public health risks. Solving the problem takes the whole community. Check in with us often to learn more – and participate. With your help, we'll enjoy clean, healthy air together.


## Clean Air Task Force Releases Recommendations Fine particles are tiny pieces of pollution. When inhaled, these tiny particles travel deeply into your lungs and even into your bloodstream where they can trigger health problems. More» 

## Public Input The Clean Air Task Force received feedbackfrom over 600 people on their draft pollutionreducing strategies. More » 

## What's the problem? Simply put, ‘nonattainment' means that air quality in Tacoma and most of Pierce County does not meet (or attain) federal health standards. More» 

## In the wintertime, you may be breathing unhealthy levels of fine particle pollution. Do your part to help clear the air:

Don't burn during a Burn Ban — it's the law. Consider cleaner ways to heat. Use only dry wood that has been split and stacked for one year. Consider recycling or replacing your old wood stove or fireplace insert. New program begins Nov. 2012. Connect with us , stay informed. 

# STAGE 1 BURN BAN INClean Air Pierce County

http://www.cleanairpiercecounty.org/ [11/26/2012 12:38:35 PM] About | Contact | Privacy & Terms of Use © 2011 Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. All rights reserved. More Sharing Services Share

.
jec-ex104_105.htm



Exhibit 10.4

 

 

 

 

Form of Notice

To: Holders of outstanding time-based restricted stock unit awards granted by Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. (“Jacobs”)

Date: February 17, 2017

Re: Amendment of restricted stock unit awards

The Human Resources and Compensation Committee of the Jacobs’ Board of Directors (the “Compensation Committee”) has approved certain amendments to outstanding awards of restricted stock units that vest solely based on the passage of time (“RSUs”) under the Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 1999 Stock Incentive Plan to allow the holders of RSUs to participate in any cash dividends paid on shares of Jacobs common stock. The specific terms of the amendments are described below and take effect immediately.

The Compensation Committee has amended all of Jacobs’ outstanding RSU awards to provide that, if Jacobs pays a cash dividend on its outstanding common stock, each holder of RSUs will be credited with a “Dividend Equivalent Right,” which is a dollar amount equal to (1) the per-share cash dividend, multiplied by (2) the total number of RSUs held by such individual on the record date for that dividend. If you are credited with a Dividend Equivalent Right, this right will be subject to the same vesting, payment, and other terms and conditions as the RSUs to which it relates. This means that your Dividend Equivalent Right will vest on the same schedule as the RSU to which it relates vests and will be paid to you in cash at the same time the share of common stock (or, in the case of cash-settled RSUs, the cash) underlying the RSU is delivered to you. You will not be credited with a Dividend Equivalent Right with respect to any RSU that, as of the record date for the relevant dividend, is no longer outstanding for any reason (e.g., because it has been settled in Common Stock or cash, as applicable, or has been terminated), and you will not be entitled to any payment for a Dividend Equivalent Right with respect to any RSU that terminates without vesting. 

Except as expressly set forth above, this notice does not modify any other terms of your awards. In other words, the existing vesting and other provisions of your awards continue in effect. Future awards will be subject to the terms and conditions prescribed at the time of grant of those awards.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 20.4

[LETTERHEAD OF RETRACTABLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.]

July 23, 2002

Dear Shareholder:

I'm writing to alert you to the latest article---"Questioning $1 Million Fee in
a Needle Deal"--- in The New York Times investigative series on hospital group
purchasing organizations (GPOs). This article, which ran July 19 on page one of
the business section, is especially significant because it documents apparently
illegal payments totaling $1.1 million made by Becton Dickinson to Novation, the
largest GPO. As you know, we have suspected for years that BD has paid bribes to
the big GPOs to deny us access to the U. S. acute care hospital market, and this
story strongly corroborates that view. In the article, assistant U. S. Attorney
James Sheehan, who specializes in health care fraud, is quoted as saying that he
had "serious questions" about the legality of these payments. [You can access
the story at www.nytimes.com.]

As I did when The Times' "Medicine's Middlemen" series began this spring, I
strongly urge you to express your concern about these abuses to your
representatives in the house and senate and other key legislators, notably
Senators Herbert Kohl (D-WI) and Mike DeWine (R-OH), Chairman and Ranking
Member, respectively, of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Antitrust
Subcommittee, which has been investigating GPO activities. You might also
consider writing a letter praising the series and expressing your outrage of the
GPO's conduct to the Editor of The New York Times, 229 West 43rd St., New York,
NY 10036-3959. Email: letters@nytimes.com. FAX: (212) 556-3622.

To quickly obtain the addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses of your
legislators, simply go to www.congress.org and type in your zip code number.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions, and many thanks for your
continued loyalty and support.

Sincerely,

/s/ Thomas J. Shaw

Thomas J. Shaw
President & CEO
# C_2015007EN.01005001.xml

| 12.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/50

---

Action brought on 22 September 2014 — ZZ v EMA

(Case F-97/14)

(2015/C 007/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the EMA’s decision, confirming the earlier decision annulled by judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal, not to renew the applicant’s contract.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the decision adopted pursuant to the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 June 2013 in joined cases F-135/11, F-51/12 and F-110/12; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision adopted pursuant to the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 June 2013 in joined cases F-135/11, F-51/12 and F-110/12;

| — | order the EMA to pay EUR 1 50  000 to the applicant by way of compensation for non-material harm suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EMA to pay EUR 1 50  000 to the applicant by way of compensation for non-material harm suffered;

| — | order the EMA to pay EUR 1 to the applicant provisionally by way of compensation for material harm caused; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EMA to pay EUR 1 to the applicant provisionally by way of compensation for material harm caused;

| — | order the EMA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EMA to pay the costs.

---