alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 52007BP0107(01) - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007BP0107(01)

**1. European Parliament decision of 24 April 2007 on the discharge for implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2005, Section IV - Court of Justice (C6-0467/2006 - 2006/2073(DEC)) **

*
Official Journal 074 E , 20/03/2008 P. 0160 - 0161 *

1.

European Parliament decision of 24 April 2007 on the discharge for implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2005, Section IV — Court of Justice (C6-0467/2006 — 2006/2073(DEC))

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the European Union general budget for the financial year 2005 [1],

- having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Communities for the financial year 2005 — Volume I (C6-0467/2006) [2],

- having regard to the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors on implementation of the budget for the financial year 2005 and the Court of Auditors' special reports, together with the audited institutions' replies [3],

- having regard to the statement of assurance as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors pursuant to Article 248 of the EC Treaty [4],

- having regard to Articles 272(10), 274, 275 and 276 of the EC Treaty,

- having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities [5], and in particular Articles 50, 86, 145, 146 and 147 thereof,

- having regard to Rule 71 of and Annex V to its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A6-0109/2007),

1. Grants the Court of Justice's Registrar discharge for implementation of the Court of Justice budget for the financial year 2005;

2. Sets out its observations in the resolution below;

3. Instructs its President to forward this decision and the resolution that forms an integral part of it to the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions, the European Ombudsman and the European Data Protection Supervisor, and to arrange for their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

[1] OJ L 60, 8.3.2005.

[2] OJ C 264, 31.10.2006, p. 1.

[3] OJ C 263, 31.10.2006, p. 1.

[4] OJ C 263, 31.10.2006, p. 10.

[5] OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1995/2006 (OJ L 390, 30.12.2006, p. 1).

--------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 10.24


 


Loan
Agreement


 


[Unofficial
Translation]


  


This
Loan Agreement (the “Agreement”) was executed on December 2, 2014, by and between Mr. Zhenyong Liu (the Lender,
or “Party A”) and Hebei Baoding Orient Paper Milling Co., Ltd (the Company, or “Party B”), whereas
Mr. Zhenyong Liu agree to transfer a loan of RMB60,000,000 yuan (RMB Sixty Million Yuan) to the Company to long term loan. Both
parties further agree on the following terms:


  


	1.	Amount and Terms of the Loan.
    Party A loaned RMB60,000,000 yuan (RMB Sixty Million Yuan) to Party B with a three year term.




 


	2.	Usage of the Loan. The loan
    can only be used in the production and operation of the Company, such as purchasing raw material and equipment. It cannot
    be used in any other respects of the Company.




 


	3.	Repayment Date. Repayment date
    will be three years starting from the receipt of the loan. The loan carries an annual interest rate based on the People’s
    Bank of China. Interests shall be paid at the end of each year.




 


	4.	Liabilities. During the performance
    of this Agreement, any event of default by either party, which results in an adverse effect to the other party, shall assume
    corresponding liabilities according to the Contract Law.




 


	5.	Effectiveness. This Agreement
    is executed in two copies when the signatures or seals are made by both parties, one of which held by Party A, and the other
    held by Party B, are equally authentic. Any other matters not expressly stated herein, will be resolved through negotiation.





 


Party
A: Mr. Zhenyong Liu


 





/s/
Zhenyong Liu


 





December
2, 2014


 


 


Party
B: Hebei Baoding Orient Paper Milling Co., Ltd


 


Seal


 


December
2, 2014
No. 65560.

#### Metasco, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 59/32414 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of enlargers with lenses the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Manca, Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 271, C.D. 1874), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

_________________________________________

DEFENDANT MIKE H. MARK DBA WEI WEI CHINESE RESTAURANT’S

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY Page 1

James B. Macy [SBN 071777]

LAW OFFICES OF JAMES B. MACY

Attorney at Law

7309 Stockton Boulevard, Suite B

Sacramento, CA 95823

916-392-5685

916-392-5687 (FAX)

Attorney for MIKE H. MARK dba

WEI WEI CHINESE RESTAURANT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

 

--oo0oo--

 

SCOTT N. JOHNSON, Case No. 04-2712 EJG DAD

Plaintiff, SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

v.

MIKE H. MARK dba

WEI WEI CHINESE RESTAURANT, 

et. al.,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

Defendant MIKE H. MARK dba WEI WEI CHINESE RESTAURANT, in pro se, hereby

substitutes as his attorney of record:

JAMES B. MACY

Attorney at Law

7309 Stockton Boulevard, Suite B

Sacramento, California 95823

916-392-5685

916-392-5687 (FAX)

Case 2:04-cv-02712-DAD Document 15 Filed 05/02/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

_________________________________________

DEFENDANT MIKE H. MARK DBA WEI WEI CHINESE RESTAURANT’S

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY Page 2

Respectively submitted,

DATED: 4/22/05

/S/ AUTHORIZED BY CLIENT ON 4/25/05

____________________________________

MIKE H. MARK dba WEI WEI CHINESE

RESTAURANT, Appearing In Pro Se

I hereby accept this Substitution of Attorney.

DATED: 4/25/05

/S/ ON 4/25/05

________________________________

JAMES B. MACY

Attorney at Law

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 29, 2005.

Ddad1/orders.civil/johnson2712.subatty

Case 2:04-cv-02712-DAD Document 15 Filed 05/02/05 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2159

KAMRAN TAVAKOLI-NOURI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-98- 216-AMD) Submitted: March 11, 1999 Decided: March 17, 1999 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Kamran Tavakoli-Nouri, Appellant Pro Se. Larry David Adams, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The order from which Tavakoli-Nouri appeals was filed on 7-13-98, and entered on the district court's docket on 7-15-98, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and 79(a). See Wilson v. Murray , 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM:Kamran Tavakoli-Nouri appeals the district court’s order dismissing his action filed under the Freedom of Information Act. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Tavakoli-Nouri v. CIA, No. CA-98-216-AMD (D. Md. July 15, 1998). * We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 500 

To reduce Federal spending and the deficit by terminating taxpayer financing 

of Presidential election campaigns. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2023 

Ms. ERNST introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To reduce Federal spending and the deficit by terminating 

taxpayer financing of Presidential election campaigns. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Eliminating Leftover 

5 Expenses for Campaigns from Taxpayers (ELECT) Act 

6 of 2023’’. 

7 SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF TAXPAYER FINANCING OF PRESI8 DENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS. 

9 (a) TERMINATION OF DESIGNATION OF INCOME TAX

10 PAYMENTS.—Section 6096 of the Internal Revenue Code 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 500 IS

1 of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following 

2 new subsection: 

3 ‘‘(d) TERMINATION.—This section shall not apply to 

4 taxable years beginning after December 31, 2022.’’. 

5 (b) TERMINATION OF FUND AND ACCOUNT.— 

6 (1) TERMINATION OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

7 CAMPAIGN FUND.— 

8 (A) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 95 of subtitle 

9 H of such Code is amended by adding at the 

10 end the following new section: 

11 ‘‘SEC. 9013. TERMINATION. 

12 ‘‘The provisions of this chapter shall not apply with 

13 respect to any Presidential election (or any Presidential 

14 nominating convention) after the date of the enactment 

15 of this section, or to any candidate in such an election.’’. 

16 (B) TRANSFER OF REMAINING FUNDS.— 

17 Section 9006 of such Code is amended by add18 ing at the end the following new subsection: 

19 ‘‘(d) TRANSFER OF FUNDS REMAINING AFTER TER20 MINATION.—The Secretary shall transfer the amounts in 

21 the fund as of the date of the enactment of this subsection 

22 to the general fund of the Treasury, to be used only for 

23 reducing the deficit.’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 500 IS

1 (2) TERMINATION OF ACCOUNT.—Chapter 96 

2 of subtitle H of such Code is amended by adding at 

3 the end the following new section: 

4 ‘‘SEC. 9043. TERMINATION. 

5 ‘‘The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to any 

6 candidate with respect to any Presidential election after 

7 the date of the enactment of this section.’’. 

8 (c) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.— 

9 (1) The table of sections for chapter 95 of sub10 title H of such Code is amended by adding at the 

11 end the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 9013. Termination.’’. 

12 (2) The table of sections for chapter 96 of sub13 title H of such Code is amended by adding at the 

14 end the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 9043. Termination.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
No. 48564.

#### Protests 725733-G, etc., of Brenner Bros. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the dogskins in question are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Brachman*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 153, C. D. 389) the claim for free entry was sustained.
Report of Management


We, as members of management of The Provident Bank (Provident), are responsible
for complying with the minimum servicing standards as set forth in the Mortgage
Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage
Bankers (USAP). We are also responsible for establishing and maintaining
effective internal control over compliance with these standards. We have
performed an evaluation of Provident's compliance with the minimum servicing
standards as set forth in the USAP as of December 31, 1999 and for the year then
ended. Based on this evaluation, we assert that during the year ended December
31, 1999, Provident complied, in all material respects, with the minimum
servicing standards set forth in the USAP.

As of and for this same period, Provident in effect a fidelity bond and errors
and omissions policy in the amount of $27,500,000.


/s/ Richard Gravino                                /s/ Joseph Smith II
Richard Gravino                                    Joseph Smith II
Executive Vice President                           Senior Vice President
Consumer Finance                                   National Servicing Operations



March 31, 2000
No. 52330.

protest 939575-G (San Francisco).

#### Wo Kee & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decisions cited, the protests were sustained as follows: (1) Apricot kernels similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 34104 were held dutiable at 3 cents per pound under paragraph 762; and (2) lotus nuts the same as those involved in *Oy Wo Tong Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 70, C. D. 372) were held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1669 as crude drugs.
#### Colorado Central R. R. Co. *v.*Blake.

Though a demurrer to a special plea is erroneously sustained, yet if under another plea in the record the same defense is available, such error is no ground for reversal; and this court'will presume that such defense was interposed when nothing appears in the record to the contrary.

*Appeal from Probate Court of Arapahoe County.*

This was an action of trespass on the case, brought byappellee, to recover for damages sustained by the building of the appellants’ railroad through Montgomery street, in the city of Denver. Appellee claims to be owner in fee of certain lots abutting on said street,' in Hoyt & Eobinson’s addition to the city of Denver. The defendant filed a plea of not guilty and two special pleas. The second plea sets up the fee of the street in the city of Denver ; permission of the city, by an ordinance duly passed, to the defendant to build and maintain its railroad through Montgomery street.

The third plea sets up fee in the city, permission of the city of Denver to the defendant to build its railroad through the street, and sets out the ordinance in full, under which the defendant claims the right to build its railroad, and alleges that the railroad was constructed in accordance with the provisions of the ordinance, and only such embankment built as was necessary to enjoy the privilege given by the ordinance.

To the second and third pleas, the plaintiff filed a general demurrer, which was sustained by the court. There was a - trial by the court on the general issue, and judgment for the appellee. No bill of exceptions was preserved.

Mr. Y. D. Markham, for appellee.

. Messrs. H. M. & *W.*Teller, for appellant.

Elbert, J.

It is not necessary to go into the question of the sufficiency of the special pleas. The defense sought to be interposed by them was equally available under the gen*418eral issue. 1 Chitty’s Pleadings, 491 (14th Am. ed.); Gould’s Plead. 307-8 (4th ed.); 1 Tidd’s Practice, 651*.

The action of the court below in sustaining the demurrer could not, therefore, have prejudiced the defendant, and is no ground of reversal. Though a court erroneously sustains a demurrer to a special plea, yet if under another plea the same defense is available, the error in sustaining the demurrer is no ground of reversal. This is the doctrine of the cases of *Marr*v. *Wetzel,*and *Brown*v. *The*People, decided at the February term, 1876, and is supported by the current of authority. *Ill. Cent. R. R. Co.*v. Johnson, 34 Ill. 393; *Varden*v. *Ellis,*18 Ark. 355; *Chambers Co.*v. *Clews,*21 Wall. 317.

The ruling of the court did not deprive the defendant of its defense, nor is there any thing in the record to show but what it was given in evidence under the general issue. Nothing appearing to the contrary, it has been held that such is the presumption. *Warren*v. Crane, 20 Ill. 151; *Ill. Cent. R. R. Co.*v. Johnson, 34 id. 317.

The judgment is affirmed with costs.

*Affirmed.*
EX. 4.28 Amendment - Dillahunty






AMENDING AGREEMENT NO. 1
THIS AMENDING AGREEMENT made effective as of the 12th day of March, 2015.
BETWEEN:
ONCOYLYTICS BIOTECH (U.S.), INC.,
("OBUS")
- and -
MARY ANN DILLAHUNTY
(the "Employee")
WHEREAS the Employee is an officer of OBUS whose terms of employment are set forth in the Executive Employment Agreement ("Employment Agreement") dated effective January 22, 2009;
AND WHEREAS OBUS and the Employee wish to amend the Employment Agreement;
NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the mutual covenants contained in this Amending Agreement, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, it is agreed as follows:
Section 1 – Amendments


The Employment Agreement is hereby amended by replacing Section 3(1) with the following:


“Commencing January 1, 2015, OBUS shall pay to the Employee a salary of ONE HUNDRED SIXTY-NINE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY-ONE DOLLARS AND SEVENTY-THREE CENTS ($169,371.73) U.S. DOLLARS per annum, exclusive of bonuses, benefits and other compensation, payable in equal installments of FOURTEEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED FOURTEEN DOLLARS AND THIRY-ONE CENTS ($14,114.31) U.S. DOLLARS on the last day of each month.”


   


Section 2 – Effective Date


(1)    This Amending Agreement shall be effective from and after January 1, 2015.


(2)    In all other respects the parties confirm that the Employment Agreement, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect.
	
				
	 
	 
	ONCOLYTICS BIOTECH (U.S.), INC.



	Per:
	/s/ Alan J. Tuchman

	 
	 
	 
	Alan J. Tuchman, M.D.
Chief Medical Officer

	 
	 
	Per:
	/s/ Kirk Look

	 
	 
	 
	Kirk Look
Chief Financial Officer






	
			
	/s/ Margaret Kowalczewski
	 
	

/s/ Mary Ann Dillahunty

	WITNESS
	 
	MARY ANN DILLAHUNTY
#### State v. Special Tax School District Number 1 of Santa Rosa County, acting by and through its governing authority, Board of Public Instruction of Santa Rosa.

179 So. 684.

Opinion Filed March 2, 1938.

*E. Dixie Beggs, Jr., State Attorney,*for Appellant;

*Giles J. Patterson*and *T. Franklin West,*for Appellee.

Terrell, J.

The record and brief in this cause have been examined. The question raised and facts influencing its decision are found to be identical with those determining the decision of Special Tax School District Number 7-B of Santa Rosa County, Florida, v. State of Florida, decided this date. Only the party appellee is different.

The judgment below is accordingly affirmed on authority of the last cited case.

Affirmed.

Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
EXHIBIT 23.1  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (No.333-162393) on Form S-8 of IceWEB, Inc. of our report dated December 23, 2009, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of IceWEB, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of September 30, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders' deficit, and cash flows for the years then ended, which report appears in the September 30, 2009 annual report on Form 10-K of IceWEB, Inc. and Subsidiaries.   /s/ Sherb & Co., LLP Certified Public Accountants  Boca Raton, Florida December 29, 2009
# C_2007024EN.01000201.xml

| 2.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/2

---

Communication on the price information system in the sugar sector

(2007/C 24/03)

Under the price information system provided for in Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1), approved sugar producers and refiners and approved sugar users for industrial purposes are to establish their average prices for the sale or purchase of sugar and send them to the Commission.

1

From the date on which this communication is published, the relevant technical rules and forms are available on the Community institutions' website http://circa.europa.eu.

The documents can be accessed by following: ‘Agriculture’, ‘Huile d'olive, olives, fibres naturelles et sucre’, ‘Librairie’, ‘Sucre’, ‘Public information/Information publique’ and ‘Prix/Prices’.

---

(1)  OJ L 58, 28.2.2006, p. 1.

1

---
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

John C. Montue,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 04-2663 GEB PAN P

vs. Order

Teresa A. Schwartz, et al.,

Respondents.

-oOoFebruary 13, 2006, petitioner requested an extension of time

to oppose respondent’s February 6, 2006, motion to dismiss. Good

cause appearing, petitioner’s request is granted and time is

extended until 30 days from the date this order is signed.

So ordered.

Dated: February 14, 2006. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02663-LKK -JFM Document 18 Filed 02/15/06 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Kai Ming Hou, Petitioner, v Norman George, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 1002]

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to compel the Honorable Norman George, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, to render a decision on the petitioner’s motion pursuant to CPL article 440.

Motion by the respondent to dismiss the proceeding.

Upon the petition and papers filed in support of the proceeding, and the papers filed in opposition thereto and in support of the motion, it is

Ordered that the motion is granted; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act, and only when there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought *(see, Matter of Legal Aid Soey. u Scheinman, 53*NY2d 12, *16).*The petitioner here has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Balletta, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.
# C_2007131EN.01000301.xml

| 13.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/3

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on concentrations given at its 146th meeting on 6 December 2006 concerning a draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.4215 — Glatfelter/Crompton Assets

(2007/C 131/03)

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's definitions of the relevant product markets as stated in the draft decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's definitions of the relevant product markets as stated in the draft decision.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's definitions of the relevant geographic markets as stated in the draft decision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's definitions of the relevant geographic markets as stated in the draft decision.

| 3. | The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the concentration as notified does not significantly impede effective competition in the common market or in a substantial part of it. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the concentration as notified does not significantly impede effective competition in the common market or in a substantial part of it.

| 4. | The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified concentration should be declared compatible with the Common Market and with the functioning of the EEA Agreement in accordance with Articles 2(2) and 8(1) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified concentration should be declared compatible with the Common Market and with the functioning of the EEA Agreement in accordance with Articles 2(2) and 8(1) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion.

---