alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Office of Pesticide Programs Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P) Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, D.C . 20460 NOTICE OF PE STICIDE: .1L Registration Reregistration (under FIFRA, as amended) Nam e and Address of Regi strant (include Z IP Code): EPA Reg. Number: Date of Issuance : 89600-2 

### NOV 1 2 2014

Term of Is suance: Unconditional Name of Pesticide Product: Bioceres Anatis Bioprotection Inc. 278, rang Saint-Andre, St.-Jacques-le-Mineur Quebec, JOJ 

### lZO, Canada Technology Sciences Group, Inc. 712 Fifth St., Suite A Davis, CA 95616 On the basis of information furnished by the registrant
. the above named pesticide is hereby regist. ered/reregistered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. Regi stration is in no way to be construed as an endorsement or recommendation ofthis product by the Agency. In order to protect health and the environment, the Administrator, on his motion, may at any time suspend or cancel the registration of a pesticide in accordance with the Act. The acceptance of any name in connection with the registration of a product under this Act is not to be const rued as giving the registrant a right to exclusive use of the name or to its use if it has been covered by others. This registration does not eliminate the need for continual reasses sment ofthe pesticide. If EPA determines, at any time, that additional data are required to maintain in effect an existing regi stration , the Agency will require submission of such data under section 3(c)(2)(B) ofFIFRA. This product is registered in accordance with FIFRA section 3(c)(5) and is subject to the following terms and conditions: I. Submit/cite all data required for registration ofyour product under FIFRA section 3(c)(5) when the Agency requires all registrants of similar products to submit such data. 2. Revise the EPA Reg. No. entry to read, "89600
-2" on the final printed label. 3. Submit two (2) copies ofthe revised final printed labeling before you release the product for shipment. Refer to the A-79 enclosure fo r a further description offinal printed labeling. Failure to comply with these terms will subject the registration to cancellation, in accordance with FIFRA sec. 6. Your release for shipment of the product constitutes acceptance ofthese terms. A sta mped copy ofthe label is enclosed for your record s.

Date:



# Sig"'N~:A~Of~ **~** 

# .

**Robert~cNally**

**,** Director Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division EPA Form 8570-6
----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.3894 — Unicredito/HVB)

(2005/C 235/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

(1)OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

----
[ARTICLE] 5
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   YEAR
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          SEP-30-2001
[PERIOD-END]                               SEP-30-2000
[CASH]                                               0
[SECURITIES]                                         0
[RECEIVABLES]                                        0
[ALLOWANCES]                                         0
[INVENTORY]                                          0
[CURRENT-ASSETS]                                     0
[PP&E]                                               0
[DEPRECIATION]                                       0
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                                       0
[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]                              400
[BONDS]                                              0
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                                0
[PREFERRED]                                     944524
[COMMON]                                      (944524)
[OTHER-SE]                                       (400)
[TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY]                         0
[SALES]                                              0
[TOTAL-REVENUES]                                     0
[CGS]                                                0
[TOTAL-COSTS]                                        0
[OTHER-EXPENSES]                                     0
[LOSS-PROVISION]                                     0
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                                   0
[INCOME-PRETAX]                                      0
[INCOME-TAX]                                       200
[INCOME-CONTINUING]                                  0
[DISCONTINUED]                                       0
[EXTRAORDINARY]                                      0
[CHANGES]                                            0
[NET-INCOME]                                     (200)
[EPS-BASIC]                                          0
[EPS-DILUTED]                                        0
</TABLE>
§ 412.46 Medical review requirements. ( a ) *Physician acknowledgement.* ( 1 ) *Basis.* Because payment under the prospective payment system is based in part on each patient's principal and secondary diagnoses and major procedures performed, as evidenced by the physician's entries in the patient's medical record, physicians must complete an acknowledgement statement to this effect.
( 2 ) *Content of physician acknowledgement statement.* When a claim is submitted, the hospital must have on file a signed and dated acknowledgement from the attending physician that the physician has received the following notice: Notice to Physicians: Medicare payment to hospitals is based in part on each patient's principal and secondary diagnoses and the major procedures performed on the patient, as attested to by the patient's attending physician by virtue of his or her signature in the medical record. Anyone who misrepresents, falsifies, or conceals essential information required for payment of Federal funds, may be subject to fine, imprisonment, or civil penalty under applicable Federal laws.
( 3 ) *Completion of acknowledgement.* The acknowledgement must be completed by the physician at the time that the physician is granted admitting privileges at the hospital, or before or at the time the physician admits his or her first patient. Existing acknowledgements signed by physicians already on staff remain in effect as long as the physician has admitting privileges at the hospital.
( b ) *Physician's order and certification regarding medical necessity.* No presumptive weight shall be assigned to the physician's order under § 412.3 or the physician's certification under Subpart B of Part 424 of the chapter in determining the medical necessity of inpatient hospital services under section 1862(a)(1) of the Act. A physician's order or certification will be evaluated in the context of the evidence in the medical record.
[78 FR 50965, Aug. 19, 2013]
#### § 566.501 General and specific licensing procedures.

For provisions relating to licensing procedures, see part 501, subpart E of this chapter. Licensing actions taken pursuant to part 501 of this chapter with respect to the prohibitions contained in this part are considered actions taken pursuant to this part. General licenses and statements of licensing policy relating to this part also may be available through the Counter Terrorism Sanctions page on OFAC's Web site: *www.treasury.gov/ofac.*
Home2019 Treaties and Agreements...Czech Republic (19-516) – Protocol Extending and Amending Agreement for Scientific and Technological Cooperation

# 									Czech Republic (19-516) – Protocol Extending and Amending Agreement for Scientific and Technological Cooperation							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

Scientific and Technical Cooperation

Signed at Prague April 27, 2018; entered into force May 16, 2019.  With effect from May 2, 2018.

Extension and amendment of agreement signed September 6, 2007: TIAS 08-502.
Download Agreement						 [1 MB]

Tags

Czech RepublicScientific and Technological CooperationTreaties

Back to Top
Exhibit 10.49


 


Description
of Mathai Mammen Long-Term Cash Bonus Arrangement


 


In 2004, in connection
with entering into Theravance’s strategic alliance with GlaxoSmithKline plc
under which Theravance was obligated to discover a number of product candidates
within a specified time frame, Theravance entered into a bonus arrangement with
Mathai Mammen.  The bonus was contingent
upon both the number of product candidates that achieved proof-of-concept prior
to September 2007 and Dr. Mammen’s continued employment.  Two product candidates achieved
proof-of-concept within the specified time frame, and therefore Dr. Mammen
became eligible for a bonus of 2.5 times his then-current salary in September 2007,
before he was promoted to the executive officer level in January of
2008.  The bonus is paid in three equal
installments at the end of 2007, 2008 and 2009, provided Dr. Mammen
remains in Theravance’s employ through the payment date. Pursuant to this
arrangement, Dr. Mammen earned and was paid a bonus of $208,938 in the
final pay cycle in each of December 2007 and December 2008 and will
earn and be paid the same bonus amount in the final pay cycle of December 2009
if he remains in our employ through that time.
HomeIndependent States in the World...Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty

# 									Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty							

Fact Sheet

Bureau of Intelligence and Research

January 17, 2024

						Download Independent States and Dependencies						(csv)						[38 KB]

See also: Independent States in the World

**!**New change, since previous list
**Exhibit 23.2**
INFORMATION REGARDING CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
     As previously disclosed in Omega Financial Corporation’s Form 8-K filed onApril 11, 2002 , Omega dismissed Arthur Andersen LLP as its independent publicaccountants and announced that Omega had appointed Ernst & Young LLP to replaceArthur Andersen LLP as its independent public accountants.
     Andersen has closed its Lancaster, Pennsylvania office. Solely due to theclosure of Andersen’s Lancaster, Pennsylvania office, after reasonable efforts,Omega was unable to obtain the written consent of Andersen to incorporate byreference its report dated January 18, 2002.
     The absence of this consent may limit recovery against Andersen underSection 11 of the Securities Act. In addition, as a practical matter, theability of Andersen to satisfy any claims (including claims arising fromAndersen provision of auditing and other services to Omega and Andersen otherclients) may be limited due to recent events regarding Andersen, includingwithout limitation its conviction on federal obstruction of justice chargesarising from the federal government’s investigation of Enron Corp.
9
#### Lymon O’STEEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. II-498.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 30, 1979.

*845Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender and Louis G. Carres, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and A. S. Johnston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

O’Steen was adjudged to be a mentally disordered sex offender pursuant to Chapter 917, Florida Statutes (1975), on December 7, 1976. The committing court was notified by the clinical director of the North Florida Evaluation and Treatment Center that O’Steen had undergone complete evaluation and treatment and that, as reported in the clinical summary, he had reached full benefits and was ready for return to the court’s jurisdiction. At the hearing on January 20, 1978, the court relied upon the letter and the clinical summary as concluding that' treatment had been exhausted. However, the clinical summary recommended that O’Steen be transferred to South Florida State Hospital and be placed in a particular program which would be more suitable for treating O’Steen. Therefore, we find this case is controlled by *Washington v. State,*355 So.2d 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) wherein this court stated:

> The testimony at the hearing clearly revealed that treatment which might be beneficial to the appellant was available within the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, although such treatment would require the transfer of the appellant to another facility. Thus the testimony showed that the department had not exhausted all treatment for the appellant, and therefore the appellant did not meet the statutory criteria for discharge. Under these circumstances, the court was required to recommit the appellant pursuant to Section 917.20, Florida Statutes.

Therefore, the sentence imposed by the trial court is vacated and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

MILLS, Acting C. J., and SMITH and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
# C_2006092EN.01001202.xml

| 20.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/12

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4007 — Reckitt Benckiser/Boots Healthcare International)

(2006/C 92/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 6 January 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4007. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4007. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
- Office Home
- Key Topics

HomeDirect Line for American Business...Direct Line for American Business: Upcoming and Past Events

# 						Direct Line for American Business: Upcoming and Past Events					

							With 96 percent of global consumers living outside the United States, exports are a great way to increase jobs and income here at home. Successful exporting requires accurate and up-to-the minute information on opportunities and market conditions abroad. The Direct Line program provides a unique opportunity for American businesses, particularly small- and medium-sized enterprises, to engage directly via webcast with U.S. Ambassadors overseas.						

		Subscribe		

27 items
Clear All Filters

## View collection by:

Select a Year2024202320222021

Select a MonthJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember

Select a LocationAlgeriaAndorraBahrainBotswanaCabo VerdeChileColombiaDenmarkEgyptFijiGreenlandHong KongItalyKazakhstanKyrgyzstanLatviaMaltaPanamaSan MarinoSloveniaTajikistanTunisiaUzbekistan

Select a Release TypeDirect Line Event

Select a Bureau/OfficeBureau of African AffairsBureau of Economic and Business AffairsCounselor of the Department

          -    Direct Line Event  		Regtech and Fintech Opportunities in Hong Kong	  October 7, 2021 
          -    Direct Line Event  		Investment Opportunities in Egypt’s Processed Foods Industry	  July 8, 2021 
          -    Direct Line Event  		Bahrain Oil & Gas Upstream Business Opportunities	   
          -    Direct Line Event  		Opportunities in Iraqi Kurdistan Agricultural Sector	  June 15, 2021 
          -    Direct Line Event  		Opportunities in Algeria’s Renewable Energy Sector	  May 18, 2021 
          -    Direct Line Event  		Logging into Senegal’s Digital Sector	  April 6, 2021 
          -    Direct Line Event  		Growing the Fiji Brand: U.S. Services Needed	  March 24, 2021 

previous page123

Back to Top
Consent of Independent Auditors




     We  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in (i) the  Registration
Statement  (Form S-8 No.  2-86405)  pertaining to the 1983 Key Employees'  Stock
Option Plan and 1972 Key  Employees'  Stock Option Plan of Merrimac  Industries,
Inc. and (ii) the  Registration  Statement (Form S-8 No. 2-96014)  pertaining to
the Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Merrimac Industries, Inc. and in the related
Prospectuses  of  our  report  dated  February  21,  1994  with  respect  to the
consolidated  financial  statements and schedule of Merrimac  Industries,  Inc .
incorporated  by reference in this Annual  Report (Form  10-KSB) for each of the
two years in the period ended January 1, 1994.




                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
                                                           ---------------------
                                                               Ernst & Young LLP



MetroPark, New Jersey
March 20, 1996


Exhibit 23(B)
# C_2006056EN.01001102.xml

| 8.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 56/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/11

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4116 — Apax/Tommy Hilfiger Corporation)

(2006/C 56/10)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 28 February 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4116. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4116. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
**Chapter 391 -** **3 -**  **1 Rules for A** **ir Quality Control** 

February 3, 2014 1 of 2 **SYNOPSIS OF PROPOSED A** **MENDMENTS TO THE RULES OF THE DEP** **AR TMENT OF NA**  **TURA L RESOURCES**  **ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTION DIVISION**  **REL ATI**  **NG TO A IR QUA** **LIT Y, CHA** **PTER 391 -** **3 -**  **1**

**Rule 391 -** **3 -**  **1 -** **.02(2)(zz ), “**  **Gasoline Di spensing Facilities** 
**– Stage II”**  is being amended

. Purpose: The purpose of this amendment is to remove the requirement fo r

Gasoline D i spensing Facilities to install Stage II vapor controls , which no longer provides an environmental benefit due to federal vehicle requirements , and provide for a decommissioning schedule and guidance. Ma in Features : Subparagraph (2)(zz)21

. is added to require the decommissioning of

Stage II vapor recovery systems between May 1, 2014 , and April 30 , 2016, and to specify the procedures for decommissioning. Language is added to subparagraphs 4. , 5. , 18., and 19. to remove compliance requirements once the Stage II vapor recovery system has been removed. S ubparagraph 8.(ii i ) has been added to exempt new and recon structed gasoline dispensing facilities that started up after December 31, 2011 from Stage II requirements. Subparagraph 3.(xi) is revised to include the replacement of gasoline dispensers in the definition of “ replacement”. Other changes are added throu ghout the rule to incorporate decommissioning requirements consistent with other provisions of the rule. This rule required gas pumps at gas stations to install vapor recovery systems to control gas vapors. N ew vehicles have vapor controls that can inter fere with the control at the gas pump, resulting in more emissions of gas vapors. Federal rule allows states to no longer require Stage II when certain conditions are met. G eorgia will have met those conditions in 2014

.**Chapter 391 -** **3 -**  **1 Rules for A** **ir Quality Control** 

February 3, 2014 2 of 2 **STA TEMENT OF RA** 

**TI ONA** **LE Rules**  **for A ir Quality** 

**Control Rule 391**  **- 3**  **- 1**  **- .02(2)(zz)** 
**– Gasoline Di**  **spensing Facilities**
**– Stage II**  The basis of

this subparagraph is to require and define the control equipment requirements for fuel vapor recovery fo r gasoline pumps at gasoline stations. T he pu rpose of this revision is to require decommissioning of Stage II systems between May 1, 2014, and April 30 , 2016 , and to provide procedures for decommissioning

. This revision would no longer require fuel suppliers to install and maintain vapor recovery equipment at gas stations in the Atlanta area. This action would result in cost savings fo r the Environmental Protection Division and the regulated industry.
# C_2005257EN.01001501.xml

| 15.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 257/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 257/15

---

Action brought on 4 August 2005 — Cain Cellars v OHIM

(Case T-304/05)

(2005/C 257/29)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties:

Applicant: Cain Cellars, Inc. (St. Helena, United States) (represented by: W.-W. Wodrich, lawyer, and J.K.F. Albrecht, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the defendant (First Board of Appeal) of 23 May 2005 in Case R 0975/2004-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the defendant (First Board of Appeal) of 23 May 2005 in Case R 0975/2004-1;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in the form of a pentagon for ‘Wine’ goods in Class 33 — Application No 3 425 121

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the applicant's appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: It is irrelevant from a legal viewpoint that the mark applied for is a geometric figure, since in respect of the role of trade marks and their capability of working as company signs, only the assessment of the average consumer who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect is relevant. The defendant has breached that principle of assessment in the contested decision. The figure in the form of a pentagon is unusual and striking and therefore has distinctive character and indicates the company origin. Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark does not thereby preclude registration of the mark of the applicant for which protection is sought.

Pleas in law:

---