alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006227EN.01000901.xml

| 21.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 227/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 227/9

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4333 — NIBC/NPM/DELI UNIVERSAL)

(2006/C 227/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 30 August 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://ec.europa.eu/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://ec.europa.eu/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 32006M4333. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4333. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)

---
# U n i te d S t a te s C o u r t o f A ppe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

### N o . 0 9 - 1 3 1 8 S e p t e m b e r T e r m 2 0 1 0 EPA -74FR66 412 Filed O n: Janu ary21 , 20 11 Arkem a In c., Pe titione r
v
. Environme nta l Prote ction Agency,

Respo nde nt

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Conso lidate d with 09-1 335
BEFORE: Sen telle, Chief Jud ge, an d Gin sburg, Hen derso n, Ro gers, Ta tel, Garlan d, B row n, G riff ith, a nd Kavana ugh, Circuit Ju dges

O R D E R Respo nde nt’s p etition for rehe aring en ban c an d th e join t resp onse the reto w ere circulated to the f ull cou rt, an d a vote was requested . T here af ter, a m ajority of

the judges e lig ible to pa rticipate did notvote in favor of the pe tition. Upo n co nside ration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED tha t th e p etition be de nied

. FOR THE COURT: Mark J. La nger, Clerk BY: /s/ Michael C. McGrail Depu ty Cl erk USCA Case #09-1318 Document #1289396 Filed: 01/21/2011 Page 1 of 1
42322.

#### DOBBINS v. THE STATE.

Deen, Judge.

By *Code Ann.*§ 15-302 the State of Georgia ceded jurisdiction to lands acquired by the United States “for all purposes except service upon such lands of all civil and criminal process of the courts of this State. . . The State retains its civil and criminal jurisdiction over persons and citizens in said ceded territory . . . except as to any ceded territory owned by the United States and used by the Department of Defense. . .” However, Congress, in providing for the acquisition of lands in the various states, stipulated by statute (40 U.S.C. § 255 and 50 U.S.C. § 178) as follows: “Unless and until the United States has accepted jurisdiction over lands hereafter to be acquired as aforesaid, it shall be conclusively presumed that no such jurisdiction has been accepted,” and that the manner of indicating acceptance of such jurisdiction on behalf of the United States shall be by filing a notice with the Governor of the State in which the land is situated.

No such acceptance of exclusive criminal jurisdiction over the land known as Dobbins Air Force Base in Cobb County has been made by the United States. Following the well considered opinion in People v. Sullivan, 151 Col. 434 (378 P2d 633), which involves the identical point, we hold that, construing these two statutes in pari materia, the state statute amounts to an offer to cede criminal jurisdiction to the United States, *404which, to become effective, must be accepted in the proper manner by the latter entity, and that the burden of showing-such acceptance rests with the defendant in a criminal case who contends that the state court is without jurisdiction to try him for an offense against state laws allegedly committed within the confines of the military installation. See also 22 CJS 371, Criminal Law, § 139; 21 AmJur2d 408, Criminal Law, § 389. Indubitably, the United States has not accepted such jurisdiction as to Dobbins Air Force Base, and accordingly the Civil and Criminal Court of Cobb County had jurisdiction to try and convict the defendant of the offense of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicants within the area.

Argued September 12, 1966

Decided September 29, 1966.

*Atkins & Atkins, Dorothy D, Atkins,*for appellant.

*Lawrence B. Custer, Solicitor, D. R. McDonald,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Hall, J., conawr.*
#### §§ 39.86-39.99 [Reserved]
Exhibit 99.6



Certification of Principal Executive Officer
and Principal Financial Officer Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350



As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In
connection withthis Amendment No.1 to the annual report on Form 40-F of Glass House Brands Inc., a corporation organized
under the laws of British Columbia (the “Company”), for the period ending December 31, 2022 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|   |                                                                                                                                                      |  |  | 
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  | 
|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.



|Dated: April 3, 2023 | /s/ Kyle Kazan                                       
|-------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------
|                     | Kyle Kazan                                           
|                     | Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer)
|                     |                                                      
|Dated: April 3, 2023 | /s/ Mark Vendetti                                    
|                     | Mark Vendetti                                        
|                     | Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer)
42218.

#### EKBERY v. BOLLENBACH.

Deen, Judge.

*Code Ann.*§ 6-802 of the new Appellate Practice Act (Ga. L. 1965, pp. 18, 20) provides that the notice of appeal shall contain “a concise statement of the judgment, ruling or order entitling the appellant to take an appeal.” The notice of appeal here recites that the order appealed from is one “denying defendant’s motion to strike the plaintiff’s amendment,” which is neither a final judgment nor one *563which would have been final if rendered as contended by the appellant. *Spence v. Sports Arena, Inc.,*108 Ga. App. 658 (134 SE2d 504). It follows that the appeal must be

Submitted September 12, 1966

Decided November 3, 1966.

*Samuel L. Eplan,*for appellant.

*Dismissed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Hall, J., concur.*
#### TOONE V. THE STATE.

(Decided May 14, 1912.

Rehearing denied. June 29, 1912.)

Appeal from Limestone Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. D. W. Speake.

Kyle & Hutson, and M. K. Clements, for appellant. R. C. Brickell, Attorney General, W. L. Martin, Assistant Attorney General, and W. R. Walker, for the State.

de Graffenried, J. —

Reversed and rendered on the authority of *Toone v. The State,*59 South. 665.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of CKX, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSBfor the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas P. Benson,Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

Dated:  August 8,2005
|   | By:    |  /s/  Thomas P. Benson                  |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Thomas P. Benson                             |
|   |   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial |
|   |   | Officer (Principal Financial Officer)        |

 

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-QSBpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, orotherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form with the electronicversion of this written statement required by Section 906, has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
###### Editorial Note on Part 36

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 36 appear at 61 FR 7217, Feb. 27, 1996, and 86 FR 51275, Sept. 15, 2021.

#### § 36.4524 Sale of loans.

In the event a direct loan is purchased from the Department of Veterans Affairs at any time pursuant to the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 3711(g), the Department of Veterans Affairs may issue a guaranty in connection therewith within the maximums applicable to loans guaranteed under 38 U.S.C. 3710 and such loans shall thereafter be subject to the applicable provisions of the regulations governing the guaranty or insurance of loans to veterans, and such part of the regulations concerning direct loans to veterans as may be inconsistent therewith or variant therefrom shall no longer govern the subsequent disposition of the rights and liabilities of any interested parties.

[24 FR 2659, Apr. 7, 1959]
#### Golda Rosenbaum, Appellant, *v.*Jacob Greenbaum, Respondent.

Appeal from judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York, borough of Manhattan.

Emil A. Klein (Abraham B. Schleimer, of counsel), for appellant.

Sam’l S. Koenig, for respondent.

*Per Guriam.*

The defendant conceded an indebtedness to the plaintiff for the rent of the premises in question in a sum less *788than the amount claimed, and alleged a tender of such sum to the plaintiff. It appears, however, that the tender was not made good by deposit of the money with the clerk of the court. The justice, therefore, erred in dismissing the complaint. He should at least have awarded judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the conceded amount. The judgment must, therefore, be reversed.

Present: Beekman, P. J., Giegerioh and O’Gorman, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
#### § 1024.13 [Reserved]
Exhibit 10.1
 OSI PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
CONSULTING AND CONFIDENTIAL DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
 Agreement Effective Date OSI Consultant ,
 1. Nature of Consulting Services. Field Services
 2. Delivery of Consulting Services.
 (a)
 (b)
 3. Compensation and Reimbursement.
 (a)
 (b)
 4. Confidentiality.
 (a) Confidential Information




---



##### 



(b)
 (i)
 (ii)
 (iii)
 (iv)
 (c)
 (i)
 (ii)
 (iii)
 (d)
 (e)
 (f)
 (g)
 2




---



##### 



5. Intellectual Property. IP Rights
 6. Publication.
 7. Representation and Warranties.
 (a)
 (b)
 (c)
 (d)
 (e)
 8. Indemnification. Losses
 9. Waiver and Release
 3




---



##### 



10. Term and Termination.
 (a)
 (b)
 (c)
 (d)
 (e)
 (f)
 11. General.
 (a)
 (b)
 (c)
 OSI:
    
    OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
At the address set forth at the beginning of this Agreement
Attention: General CounselConsultant:
    
    Bob Pinedo, MD, PhD
At the address set forth at the beginning of this Agreement
 (d)
 4




---



##### 



(e)
 (f)
 (g)
 (h)
 (i)
 5




---



##### 



CONSULTANT
    
    
    
    OSI PHARMACEUTICALS, INC./s/ H.M. PINEDO, M.D., Ph.D.
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ BARBARA A. WOODH.M. (Bob) Pinedo, M.D., Ph.D.
    
    
    
    
    
    Name:
    
    Barbara A. WoodDate: 3-31-2009
    
    
    
    
    
    Title:
    
    SVP & General CounselDate: March 31, 2009
 6
Holland & Knight 

800 17th Street, NW, Suite 1100 | Washington, DC 20006 | T 202.955.3000 | F 202.955.5564 

Holland & Knight LLP | www.hklaw.com 

Anita M. Mosner 

(202)419-2604 

anita.mosner@hklaw.com 

October 17, 2012 

BY ELECTRONIC MAIL 

Mr. Robert Finamore 

Acting Chief, Foreign Air Carrier Licensing Division (X-45) 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Application of Etihad Airways P.J.S.C. for an Amendment of its Foreign Air Carrier 

Permit and an Exemption (Docket OST-2005-23345) 

Dear Mr. Finamore: 

By Application dated October 11, 2012, Etihad Airways, P.J.S.C. applied for an Amendment of 

its Foreign Air Carrier Permit and an Exemption. 

Etihad Airways has polled all interested parties, and no party has objected to the Application. 

For this reason, the Applicant respectfully requests that the Department promptly grant the 

requested authority. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Holland & Knight, LLP 

Anita M. Mosner 

Attorney for Etihad Airways 

Atlanta | Boston | Chicago | Fort Lauderdale | Jacksonville | Lakeland | Los Angeles | Miami | New York | Northern Virginia | Orlando 

Portland | San Francisco | Tallahassee | Tampa | Washington, D.C | West Palm Beach 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this date served the foregoing letter on the persons identified below 

by causing a copy to be sent by electronic mail. 

robert.wirick@aa.com 

francis.heil@aa.com 

james.kaleigh@aa.com 

jrichardson@johnlrichardson.com (Counsel for Amerijet International) 

anbird@fedex.com 

sllunsford@fedex.com 

matwood@cozen.com (Counsel for Kalitta Air) 

charters@evergreenairlines.com 

rpommer@atlasair.com 

kevin.montgomery@polaraircargo.com 

lachter@starpower.net (Counsel for ASTAR Air Cargo) 

howard.kass@usairways.com 

benjamin.slocum@usairways.com 

anita.mosner@hklaw.com (Counsel for United Parcel Service) 

dan.weiss@united.com 

rbkeiner@crowell.com (Counsel for United Airlines) 

gmurphy@crowell.com (Counsel for United Airlines) 

lhalloway@crowell.com (Counsel for United Airlines) 

mlbenge@zsrlaw.com (Counsel for World Airways) 

rsilverberg@sgbdc.com (Counsel for ABX Air) 

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com 

urskr@state.gov 

john.allen@faa.gov 

todd.homan@dot.gov 

peter.irvine@dot.gov 

Jennifer M. Nowak 

October 17, 2012 

#11732143 vl
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

MALIK ZAMAN , Appellant,

v.

USMAN BUTT , Appellee

.

No. 4D 2 2

- 1645

[ July 13, 2023 ]

Appeal from the C ircuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; John S. Kastrenakes , Judge; L.T. Case No. 502014CA015024

.

Malik Zaman

, Palm Beach Gardens

, pro se

.
Gregory A. Kummerlen of Kummerlen Law, PLLC, Jupiter, for appellee

.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

M AY , C IKLIN and C ONNER , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 11-1215 

________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENSE 

Ground Transit of Cargo 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and UZBEKISTAN 

Signed at Tashkent November 17, 2011 

with 

Annex 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
UZBEKISTAN 

Defense: Ground Transit of Cargo 

 Agreement signed at Tashkent November 17, 2011; 

 Entered into force December 15, 2011. 

 With annex.
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50277 

the public wishing to attend the meeting 

or seeking additional information 

should contact Ms. Farber at (202) 461– 

9728 or Ersie.farber@va.gov. 

Dated: September 25, 2009. 

By Direction of the Secretary. 

Vivian Drake 

Acting Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–23579 Filed 9–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

Advisory Committee on Prosthetics 

and Special Disabilities Programs; 

Notice of Meeting 

The Department of Veterans Affairs 

(VA) gives notice under Public Law 92– 

463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) 

that a meeting of the Advisory 

Committee on Prosthetics and Special 

Disabilities Programs will be held 

November 3–4, 2009, in Room C–7 at 

VA Central Office, 810 Vermont 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The 

sessions will convene at 8:30 a.m. on 

both days and will adjourn at 4:30 p.m. 

on November 3 and noon on November 

4. The meeting is open to the public. 

The purpose of the Committee is to 

advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

on VA’s prosthetic programs designed to 

provide state-of-the-art prosthetics and 

the associated rehabilitation research, 

development, and evaluation of such 

technology. The Committee also 

provides advice to the Secretary on 

special disability programs which are 

defined as any program administered by 

the Secretary to serve Veterans with 

spinal cord injury, blindness or visual 

impairment, loss of extremities or loss 

of function, deafness or hearing 

impairment, and other serious 

incapacities in terms of daily life 

functions. 

On November 3, the Committee will 

be briefed by the Acting Director, 

Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 

Office of Facilities Management, and the 

Chief of Prosthetics and Clinical 

Logistics. On November 4, the 

Committee will be briefed by a 

representative from the Office of Quality 

and Performance. 

No time will be allocated for receiving 

oral presentations from the public. 

However, members of the public may 

direct questions or submit written 

statements for review by the Committee 

in advance of the meeting to Mr. Larry 

N. Long, Designated Federal Officer, 

Veterans Health Administration, Patient 

Care Services, Rehabilitation Services 

(117D), Department of Veterans Affairs, 

810 Vermont Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20420 or by e-mail at 

lonlar@va.gov. Any member of the 

public wishing to attend the meeting 

should contact Mr. Long at (202) 461– 

7354. 

Dated: September 25, 2009. 

By Direction of the Secretary. 

Vivian Drake, 

Acting Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–23581 Filed 9–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SS.1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the Quarterly Report of IR BioSciences Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the periods ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John N. Fermanis, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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.





IR BIOSCIENCES HOLDINGS, INC.Date: May 24, 2010
By:
/s/ John N. FermanisJohn N. FermanisChief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, an other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Pauline Edelson, as Administratrix, etc., Respondent, *v.*Hyman Epstein, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

May, 1899.)

Municipal Court of the city of New York — Opening default, taken after motion of interpleader has been denied, with leave to renew.

On the day when a summons was returnable in the Municipal Court of the city of- New York a motion, coming on upon an order to show cause why' the defendant should not be allowed to pay the demand in suit into court and interplead a third party, was denied with leave to renew it on proper papers within four days. On the same day the plaintiff was - allowed to take an inquest.

Held, that, if the leave to renew had the effect of postponing the return day of the summons and excusing the default, a motion to open it should have been made before the trial justice, and that an appeal to the Appellate Term should not have been taken in the first instance.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment entered upon an inquest taken in the Municipal Court, fifth district, borough of Manhattan-.

J. Charles Weschler, for appellant.

Max Brown, for respondent.

MacLean, J.

Qn the day before the summons was returnable, the defendant obtained, on affidavits, an order to show cause why he should not be permitted to deposit the money in court and inter-plead another person named. The order to show cause and the summons were returnable on the same day. On that day the motion was heard and denied in an order granting “ leave to renew said motion on proper papers within four days.” On the same day, the justice permitted the plaintiff to take an inquest, and from the judgment entered thereon comes the present appeal, which, however, rests neither upon error of law nor upon error of fact. Burkhard v. Smith, 19 Misc. Rep. 31. As the motion to interplead is to be made before answer (§ 820, Code Civ. Pro.) it may be that the leave to renew within four days was practically a deferment of the return day of the summons, and that the taking *544of the inquest was at least premature, and, therefore, a ground for opening the default, but the application therefor should be made to the justice under section 1367, Cons. Act, which provides'for-.an appeal to this tribunal. The judgment should be • affirmed, with costs. -•' .....

Éreedmaw, P. J., and Lextentritt, J., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to the respondent.