alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 21.1



|                                                    |  |                              |  |                     
|--------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------- |  | --------------------
|Name of Subsidiary                                  |  | Jurisdiction of Organization |  | Percentage Ownership
|Kewaunee Labway Asia Pte. Ltd.                      |  | Singapore                    |  | 51%                 
|Kewaunee Labway India Pvt. Ltd.                     |  | India                        |  | *                   
|Kewaunee Scientific Corporation India Pvt. Ltd.     |  | India                        |  | 100%                
|Kewaunee Scientific Corporation Singapore Pte. Ltd. |  | Singapore                    |  | 100%                



|* | Kewaunee Labway India Pvt. Ltd. is 91% owned by Kewaunee Labway Asia Pte. Ltd.
|- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### PAUL v CITY OF MIAMI BEACH

Case No. 87-080 AP

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Appellate Division, Dade County

October 30, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Stuart L. Simon for petitioner.

Arnold M. Weiner for the city of Miami Beach.

Joseph Z. Fleming, pro se, and Joseph Z. Fleming, P.A., for respondent, Joseph Z. Fleming.

Before TENDRICH, GREENBAUM, KORNBLUM, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Petitioner, David Paul owns three contiguous parcels of land on a *155residential island on Miami Bech. In 1984, Petitioner applied for and received a variance to construct a dock beyond the city’s 40 foot limit to moor his 97 foot yacht. The pilings for the dock extend 76 feet beyond the sea wall into Biscayne Bay. In 1987, Petitioner wanted to build another dock with the exact specifications of the existing dock on an adjacent parcel of land. This lot is the subject of the subsequent variance application and this action. After the Miami Beach City Commission denied the application for variance, Mr. Paul filed the instant Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

It is widely accepted that riparian rights can be regulated as long as the action is reasonable. *Ferry Pass Inspector’s and Shipper’s Association v. White’s River Inspector’s and Shipper Association,*57 Fla. 399, 48 So. 643 (Fla. 1909). Petitioner Paul is not complaining, however, of the city’s authority to regulate, indeed, he enjoyed the fruits of such prior governmental regulation with the construction of his first dock. Rather, Petitioner contends that the city’s denial of the 1987 variance was arbitrary and capricious. We do not agree.

The basis for the City Commission’s denial was admittedly aesthetics. There is ample authority that the city’s concern for aesthetics is valid consideration in denying the application. *Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas,*416 U.S. 1, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed 2d 797 (1974).

In this case such consideration has even more validity considering the manner in which the residents of LaGorce Island have developed and maintained it.

This Court is unable to say that the Miami Beach City Commission’s granting of one and denial of another variance application constitutes a denial of equal protection of the law. Petitioner cites no authority to support this contention.

The purpose of the dock was to moor Petitioner’s vessel. The existing dock satisfies Petitioner’s needs and therefore he has not been denied equal protection.

Petition DENIED.

TENDRICH, J.,

Dissents:

I respectfully dissent from the majority decision. I find that the action of the City of Miami Beach to be arbitrary and capricious. There is no logical basis upon which to conclude that this variance should not have been granted.
§ 2700.4 Parties, intervenors, and amici curiae. ( a ) *Party status.* A person, including the Secretary or an operator, who is named as a party or who is permitted to intervene, is a party. In a proceeding instituted by the Secretary under section 105(c)(2) of the Act, 30 U.S.C. 815(c)(2), the complainant on whose behalf the Secretary has filed the complaint is a party and may present additional evidence on his own behalf. A miner, applicant for employment, or representative of a miner who has filed a complaint with the Commission under section 105(c)(3) or 111 of the Act, 30 U.S.C. 815(c)(3) and 821, and an affected miner or his representative who has become a party in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, are parties.
( b ) *Intervention* — ( 1 ) *Intervention by affected miners and their representatives.* Before a case has been assigned to a Judge, affected miners or their representatives shall be permitted to intervene upon filing a written notice of intervention with the Executive Director, Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 520N, Washington, DC 20004-1710. If the case has been assigned to a Judge, the notice of intervention shall be filed with the Judge. The Commission or the Judge shall mail forthwith a copy of the notice to all parties. After the start of the hearing, affected miners or their representatives may intervene upon just terms and for good cause shown.
( 2 ) *Intervention by other persons.* ( i ) Motions by other persons for leave to intervene shall be filed before the start of a hearing on the merits unless the Judge, for good cause shown, allows a later filing. The motion shall set forth: ( A ) The interest of the movant relating to the property or events that are the subject of the proceeding;
( B ) The reasons why such interest is not otherwise adequately represented by the parties already involved in the proceeding; and
( C ) A showing that intervention will not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the issues.
( ii ) Such intervention is not a matter of right but of the sound discretion of the Judge. In denying a motion to intervene, the Judge may alternatively permit the movant to participate in the proceeding as amicus curiae.
( c ) *Procedure for participation as amicus curiae.* Any person may move to participate as amicus curiae in a proceeding before a Judge. Such participation as amicus curiae shall not be a matter of right but of the sound discretion of the Judge. A motion for participation as amicus curiae shall set forth the interest of the movant and show that the granting of the motion will not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the issues. If the Judge permits amicus curiae participation, the Judge's order shall specify the time within which such amicus curiae memorandum, brief, or other pleading must be filed and the time within which a reply may be made. The movant may conditionally attach its memorandum, brief, or other pleading to its motion for participation as amicus curiae.
[58 FR 12164, Mar. 3, 1993, as amended at 67 FR 60862, Sept. 27, 2002; 77 FR 48430, Aug. 14, 2012]
# EUR-Lex - 31997D0001 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31997D0001

**97/1/EC: Commission Decision of 4 December 1996 amending Decision 93/693/EC establishing a list of semen collection centres approved for the export to the Community of semen of domestic animals of the bovine species from third countries (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 001 , 03/01/1997 P. 0003 - 0003 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 4 December 1996 amending Decision 93/693/EC establishing a list of semen collection centres approved for the export to the Community of semen of domestic animals of the bovine species from third countries (Text with EEA relevance) (97/1/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 88/407/EEC of 14 June 1988 laying down the animal health requirements applicable to intra-Community trade in and imports of semen of domestic animals of the bovine species (1), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, and in particular Article 9 (1), thereof,

Whereas Commission Decision 93/693/EC (2), as last amended by Decision 96/570/EC (3), establishes a list of semen collection centres approved for the export to the Community of semen of domestic animals of the bovine species from third countries;

Whereas the competent veterinary service of Hungary has forwarded a request for amendment to the list of semen collection centres officially approved for the export of semen of domestic animals of the bovine species to the Community; whereas it is therefore necessary to amend the list of approved centres; whereas guarantees regarding compliance with the requirement specified in Article 9 of Directive 88/407/EEC have been received by the Commission;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In Part 6 of the Annex to Decision 93/693/EC in respect of Hungary the following semen collection centre is added:

'Génbank KFT

5820 Mezóhegyes

Kozma F. u. 30.Pf.24.

Approval code: H 04`.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 4 December 1996.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 194, 22. 7. 1988, p. 10.

(2) OJ No L 320, 22. 12. 1993, p. 35.

(3) OJ No L 250, 2. 10. 1996, p. 17.
Exhibit 10.35(b)





 


	
        Construction Wastes Removal

        QUALIFICATION LICENSE

         

        Certification Serial Number: JZLJ[2012]001

         

        Effective Date: Until October 30, 2032

         

        Issuing Authority: Pingdingshan Construction 

           Wastes Management Office

         

        [Seal of Pingdingshan Construction
        

        Wastes Management Office]

         

        October 15, 2012

         

         
	
        Enterprise Name: Pingdingshan Xulong Renewable

        Resource Co., Ltd.

         

        Entity Type: Limited liability company (invested or 

        controlled
by natural person)

         

        Address: Eastern side
        of Xihuan Road, Xinhua Area, Pingdingshan (premises of Pingdingshan 

Hengji Concrete Co., Ltd.)

         

        Principal Person in Charge:
        ZHU Yulong

         

        Business Scope:
Construction wastes cleaning and transportation within municipal planning zone
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Frederick C. Steup and Chester W. McNally, Appellants.

Argued May 24, 1937;

decided July 13, 1937.

*458
      *James I. Cuff*and *James I. McGuire*for Frederick C. Steup, appellant.

*James I. Cuff*for Chester W. McNally, appellant.

*William Copeland Dodge, District Attorney (Abraham J. Gellinoff*and *Lyon Boston*of counsel), for respondent.

As to each defendant, judgment affirmed. No opinion.

Concur: Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Finch and Rip-pet, JJ. Dissenting: Crane, Ch. J., and Loughran, J.
Order entered April 8, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01485-CR

No. 05-12-01486-CR

No. 05-12-01487-CR

LOUIS HANCOCK DAITCH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F04-44009-J, F11-45639-J, F11-45640-J

ORDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to make findings of fact regarding whether appellant 

has been deprived of the reporter’s record because of ineffective counsel, indigence, or for any 

other reason.

• The trial court shall first determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeals. If 

the trial court determines that appellant does not desire to prosecute this appeals, it shall 

make a finding to that effect.

• If the trial court determines that appellant desires to prosecute the appeals, it shall next 

determine whether appellant is indigent and entitled to proceed without payment of costs 

for the reporter’s record. If appellant is entitled to proceed without payment of costs, the 

trial court shall make a finding to that effect. Moreover, if appellant is indigent, the trial 

court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective 

representation, which may include appointment of new counsel. If the trial court finds 
appellant is not indigent, it shall determine whether retained counsel has abandoned the 

appeals.

• The trial court shall next determine: (1) the name and address of each court reporter who 

recorded the proceedings in this cause; (2) the court reporter’s explanation for the delay 

in filing the reporter’s record; and (3) the earliest date by which the reporter’s record can 

be filed. 

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a supplemental record, containing the written 

findings of fact, any supporting documentation, and any orders, to this Court within THIRTY 

DAYS of the date of this order.

The appeals are ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. The appeals

shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the supplemental record is 

received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
Exhibit 4.2

 

2019 Notes Unit Agreement Joinder

 

April 1, 2015

 

Dynegy Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) hereby agrees as successor in interest to Dynegy Finance II, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Finance II”), to be bound by the terms and provisions attributable to an Issuer of the Unit Agreement, dated as of October 27, 2014 (as amended, restated, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time, the “2019 Notes Unit Agreement”), among Finance II, Dynegy Finance I, Inc. and Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Unit Agent, and to assume and be bound to perform all obligations of an Issuer thereunder.  By executing and delivering this Unit Agreement Joinder, the Company hereby becomes a party to the 2019 Notes Unit Agreement as an Issuer thereunder.  Unless the context otherwise requires, all references to “Finance II” in the 2019 Notes Unit Agreement shall refer to the Company.

 

[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

 











 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this counterpart as of the date first set forth above.

 

 

	
 
    	
Dynegy   Inc., as an Issuer
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Robert C. Flexon
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Name:
    	
Robert   C. Flexon
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Title:
    	
President &   Chief Executive Officer
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Dynegy   Finance I, Inc., as an Issuer
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Clint C. Freeland
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Name:
    	
Clint   C. Freeland
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Title:
    	
Executive   Vice President & Chief
   Financial Officer
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting: 

*Name:*                         Special Emphasis Panel in Computer-Communications Research (1192).                    

*Date/Time:*                         January 24, 25, 26, and 28; 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.                    

*Place:*                         National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Rooms 365, 380, 360, 370, and 360 Arlington, VA., 22230.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Closed.                    

*Contract Person:*                         Kamal Abdali, Program Director, Numeric, Symbolic & Geometric Computation (NSG), CISE/CCR, Room 1145, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230 (703) 306-1912.                    

*Minutes:*                         May be obtained from the contract person listed above.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate NSG proposals as a part of the selection process for awards.                    

*Reason for Closing:*                         The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information, financial data, such as salaries, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: January 13, 2000.

Karen J. York, 

Committee Management Office.

[FR Doc. 00-1233 Filed 1-18-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
EXHIBIT
32


STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Capitol Federal Financial (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2008, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), we, John B. Dicus, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Kent
G. Townsend, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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 result of operations of the Company
      as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial statements
      included in such Report.














Date:   February
4, 2009  
                                               By:   /s/ John B.
Dicus


John
B. Dicus, Chairman, President and


Chief
Executive Officer











Date:   February
4,
2009                                 
                By:   /s/ Kent G.
Townsend


Kent
G. Townsend, Executive Vice President and


Chief
Financial Officer
§ 2200.207 Pre-hearing conference. ( a ) *When held.* As early as practicable after the employer has received the documents set forth in § 2200.206(a)(1), the Judge may conduct a pre-hearing conference, which the Judge may hold in person or by telephone or electronic means.
( b ) *Content.* At the pre-hearing conference, the parties may discuss the following: Settlement of the case; the narrowing of issues; an agreed statement of issues and facts; all defenses; witnesses and exhibits; motions; and any other pertinent matter. Except under extraordinary circumstances, any affirmative defenses not raised at the pre-hearing conference may not be raised later. At the conclusion of the conference, the Judge will issue an order that may set forth any agreements reached by the parties and that may specify the issues to be addressed by the parties at the hearing.
----

Action brought on 4 May 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-198/04)

(2004/C 168/07)

An action against the French Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 May 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. Patakia and H. Stovlbæk, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The French legislation applicable to the profession of tourist guide makes no provision for a procedure for the recognition of qualifications in accordance with Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC.

----

(1)  Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration (OJ L 19 of 24.01.1989, p. 16).

(2)  Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC (OJ L 209 of 24.07.1992, p. 25).

----
#### STATE ex DIECKROEGGER v CONNORS et

Ohio Supreme Court

No 22158.

Decided May 28, 1930

Kinkade, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>



                                    a21, Inc
                        One Embarcadero Center, Suite 500
                         San Francisco, California 94111
                                 (415) 284-2121

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


In connection with the quarterly report of a21, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Haim Ariav, President
of the Company, certify, 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.


/s/ Haim Ariav
-------------
Haim Ariav, President
(Principal Executive Officer)


                                      -21-
EXHIBIT 32

STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Capitol Federal Financial (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, John B. Dicus, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Neil F. M. McKay, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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) 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 result of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial statements included in such Report.







Date:   May 5, 2005                                    By:   /s/ John B. Dicus
                                                                                     John B. Dicus, President and 
                                                                                     Chief Executive Officer



Date:   May 5, 2005                                   By:   /s/ Neil F. M. McKay
                                                                                     Neil F.M. McKay, Executive Vice President
                                                                                     and Chief Financial Officer







<Index>
[No. 27527-9-II.

Division Two.

December 31, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Jesse T. Mills, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clallam County, No. 01-1-00076-3, Anna M. Laurie, J., entered June 25, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Armstrong, J., concurred in by Hunt, C.J., and QuinnBrintnall, J.