alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FORM 10-Q

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

(Mark One)

[x]	QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003

OR

[ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from ____________ to ___________

Commission file number 0-2666

250 WEST 57th ST. ASSOCIATES L.L.C.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

A New York Limited Liability Company 	13-6083380

(State or other jurisdiction of	(I.R.S. Employer

incorporation or organization)	Identification No.)

60 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10165

(Address of principal executive offices)

(Zip Code)

(212) 687-8700

(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

N/A

(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes [ X ].  No [  ] .

An Exhibit Index is located on Page 14 of this Report.  Number of pages (including exhibits) in this filing:  14 

PART I.  FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1.  Financial Statements.

250 West 57th St. Associates L.L.C.

Condensed Statements of Income

(Unaudited)

	For the Three Months	For the Nine Months

		Ended September 30,	Ended September 30,

	2003	2002	2003	2002

Income:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule Contains Summary Financial Information Extracted From The
Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements As Of March 31, 1999 And For
The Three Months Then Ended And Is Qualified In Its Entirety By Reference
To Such Financial Statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          12,204
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  154,061
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,052,827
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,422,540
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        548,975
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           137
<OTHER-SE>                                     521,930
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,422,540
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               400,648
<CGS>                                          320,161
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  366,672
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,704
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,262
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,723
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,539
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,539
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.06
        

</TABLE>
EPA Listening Sessions on Existing Power Plant Rule 

My name is Sister Mary Elizabeth Clark, a Sister of St. Joseph of Philadelphia. I am here today 

representing the Sisters of St. Joseph and Chestnut Hill College of Philadelphia. I am also an Ambassador 

of the U.S. Catholic Bishops Climate Change Coalition. Speaking from a faith perspective and the moral 

imperative of doing no harm to God's creation, I implore you to write Emission Guidelines for reducing 

carbon pollution from existing fossil fuel power plants that truly make a difference for global climate. 

As Pope Francis has said in his call to us all, "Whenever human beings fail to live up to environmental 

responsibility, whenever we fail to care for creation and for our brothers and sisters, the way is opened 

to destruction and hearts are hardened. "Let us be protectors of creation." 

The tradition of Catholic social teaching offers a developing and distinctive perspective on 

environmental issues. We believe that the following themes drawn from the tradition are integral 

dimensions of ecological responsibility: 

• A God-centered and sacramental view of the universe, which grounds human 

accountability for the fate of the earth; 

• A consistent respect for human life which extends to respect for all creation; 

• A world view affirming the ethical significance of global interdependence and the 

common good; 

• An ethics of solidarity promoting cooperation and a just structure of sharing in the world 

community; 

• An understanding of the universal purpose of created things, which requires equitable 

use of the earth's resources; 

• An option for the poor, which gives passion to the quest for an equitable and 

sustainable world; 

• A conception of authentic development, which offers a direction for progress that 

respects human dignity and the limits of material growth. 

In Centesimus An nus, former Pope Benedict XVI insisted that the state has the task of providing "for the 

defense and preservation of common good such as the natural and human environments, which cannot 

be safeguarded simply by market forces." (#40) You can see that all of these principles apply to your 

decisions about writing emission rules for fossil fuel power plants. 

Today, as you consider providing carbon limits on fossil fuel plants, which are the single largest source of 

climate pollution in the US, most often located in poor communities, I urge you to make sure that those 

limits truly do the job of reducing pollution and global climate change. Although as a member of PA 

Interfaith Power & Light, we do our best to reduce our own carbon footprint, this pales in the presence 

of coal powered plants. We know millions of Americans join us in supporting these limits. Please do the 

right thing. 

7/16/2014 

Mary Elizabeth Clark, SS)., mcla_rk@ssjphila.org, Sisters of Saint joseph Earth Ctr., 9601 Germantown Ave., Phil a, PA 18118
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1824/2004

of 20 October 2004         

determining the world market price for unginned cotton

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Protocol 4 on cotton, annexed to the Act of Accession of Greece, as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1050/2001 (1),

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1051/2001 of 22 May 2001 on production aid for cotton (2), and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The world price for unginned cotton as referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1051/2001 is hereby determined as equalling 19,188 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 21 October 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 20 October 2004.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ            

Agriculture Director-General

----

(1)OJ L 148, 1.6.2001, p. 1.

(2)OJ L 148, 1.6.2001, p. 3.

(3)OJ L 210, 3.8.2001, p. 10. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1486/2002 (OJ L 223, 20.8.2002, p. 3).

----
# C_2015205EN.01002401.xml

| 22.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/24

---

Appeal brought on 27 April 2015 by Tarif Akhras against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 12 February 2015 in Case T-579/11: Tarif Akhras v Council of the European Union

(Case C-193/15 P)

(2015/C 205/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Tarif Akhras (represented by: S. Millar, S. Ashley, Solicitors, D. Wyatt QC, R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | Set aside in part the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 February 2015 in Case T-579/11 Tarif Akhras v Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

Set aside in part the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 February 2015 in Case T-579/11 Tarif Akhras v Council of the European Union;

| — | Annul the measures contested in Case T-579/11 dated 23 March 2012 and later insofar as they apply to the Appellant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the measures contested in Case T-579/11 dated 23 March 2012 and later insofar as they apply to the Appellant;

| — | Order the Council to pay the costs of the appeal and the costs of the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to pay the costs of the appeal and the costs of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the Appellant invokes two grounds.

First, the General Court erred in law in holding that the Council was entitled to apply a presumption that the Appellant benefitted from and/or supported the regime, and the General Court failed to apply the correct test, viz., whether the established facts amounted to a set of indicia sufficiently specific, precise and consistent to establish that the Appellant benefitted from and/or supported the regime.

Second, the General Court erred in law in that it distorted the evidence relevant to the question whether the Appellant benefitted from and/or supported the regime, which, had it not been so distorted, demonstrated that the Appellant did not support or benefit from the regime.

Had the General Court not applied the presumption, and/or had it applied the correct test, and/or had it not distorted the evidence referred to above, it would have annulled the measures contested in Case T-579/11 dated 23 March 2012 and later.

---
Before the Third Division,

January 14, 1941

No. 45171.

#### Protest 952532-G of Browne Vintners Co., Inc. (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the china jars in question are of the same character as those the subject of Abstract 43068. They were therefore held dutiable at one-third the rate of 70 percent ad valorem and 10 cents per dozen pieces under paragraphs 212 and 810 as claimed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-1621

ROGER KEY, 

 Petitioner – Appellant, 

 v. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 

 Respondent – Appellee. 

On Appeal from the United States Tax Court. 

(Tax Ct. No. 06-24110) 

Submitted: October 20, 2009 Decided: October 23, 2009 

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and 

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Roger Key, Appellant Pro Se. John DiCicco, Richard Farber, John 

Schumann, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Roger Key appeals from the tax court’s orders 

dismissing his tax court petition for failure to prosecute and 

denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the tax court. See Key v. Comm’r, IRS, 

Tax Ct. No. 06-24110 (U.S.T.C. Nov. 7, 2008 & filed Feb. 27, 

2009; entered Mar. 4, 2009). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
No. 45166.

#### Protest 17458-K of Hiram Walker & Son, Inc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

From an examination of the papers the court was unable to find anything sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s action. The protest was therefore overruled.
​

Exhibit 4.32
​
​
FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
EXCLUSIVE LICENSE AGREEMENT
by and among
SKINVISIBLE, INC.,
QUOIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
Dated as of October 17, 2019
​
​

​



​

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE EXCLUSIVE LICENSE AGREEMENT
THIS AMENDMENT TO THE EXCLUSIVE LICENSE AGREMEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of July 31, 2020, by and among Skinvisible, Inc., a Nevada corporation (referred to as “SKINVISIBLE” ), and Quoin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Licensee”).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Parties have entered into the EXCLUSIVE LICENSE AGREEMENT dated October 17, 2019;
WHEREAS, the Parties hereby amend the EXCLUSIVE LICENSE AGREEMENT as follows:
	1.
	Section 7.0 License Fee.  As partial consideration for the rights conveyed by Skinvisible under this Agreement, Licensee agrees to pay to Skinvisible a one-time, non-refundable, non-creditable license issue fee of one million USD dollars (USD $1,000,000) (“License Fee”).  In the event that the Licensee’s initial funding event is equal to or greater than ten million USD (USD $10,000,000), the full License Fee shall be payable immediately upon the successful closing of the initial funding event.  In the event that any funding event is less than USD$ 10,000,000, Licensee will pay Skinvisible a non-refundable 10% of the net amount raised in any funding event until the full License Fee is paid, due no later than September 30, 2020.  This Agreement will automatically terminate if the License Fee is not paid by September 30, 2020.  Licensee agrees to hold bi-monthly update calls with Skinvisible on the status of funding until such time the full License Fee is paid.


	2.
	All other terms and conditions of the Exclusive License Agreement shall remain unchanged.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the date first above written.
	​


	​


	​



	​


	SKINVISIBLE, INC.



	​


	​



	​


	By:  


	/s/ Terry Howlett



	​


	Name:  


	Terry Howlett



	​


	Title:  


	President & Chief Executive Officer





​
	​


	​


	​



	​


	QUOIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.



	​


	​



	​


	By:  


	/s/ Michael Myers



	​


	Name:  


	Michael Myers, Ph.D.



	​


	Title:  


	President & Chief Executive Officer





​

​
Case No. 9,310.

#### The MARY EVELINE.

[Affirming The Mary Eveline, Case No. 9,-211. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
Before the Second Division,

October 22, 1945

No. 50609.

#### Petition 6485-R of Schmoll Fils, Inc. (Portland, Maine).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It appeared from the testimony that the broker, when deducting nondutiable charges from the consular invoice, deducted an item of bank commissions which the Government felt should have been added. Prior to making entry, the broker consulted both the appraiser and local collector with respect to the proper value of the merchandise but no definite information was available. Government counsel stated that from a’ report of an investigation there was no evidence that entry was made with intent to defraud. From an examination of the record and a consideration of the facts in the case the court was convinced of the good faith of the petitioner. It was held that the entry of the merchandise at a less value than that returned upon final ap-praisement was without any intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceivé the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
No. 54216.

#### Cargill, Incorporated *v.*United States,

protest 12977A-K (Duluth).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
No. 55465.

#### Gerard J. Danco, Inc., and Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 149921-K and 166364-K (New York).

Opinion by Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
United States Office of Research and

Environmental Protection Development

Agency Washington, DC 20460

EPA’s Small Business Innovation 

Research (SBIR) Program 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is one of 11 federal agencies that 

participates in the SBIR Program established by the Small Business Innovation 

Development Act of 1982. The purpose of this Act was to strengthen the role of

small businesses in federally funded R&D and help develop a stronger national base 

for technical innovation. An SBIR small business is defined as a for-profit 

organization with no more than 500 employees. In addition, the small business 

must be independently owned and operated, at least 51 percent owned by U.S. 

citizens or lawfully admitted resident aliens, not dominant in the field of operation in 

which it is proposing, and have its principal place of business in the United States. 

Joint ventures and limited partnerships are eligible for SBIR awards, provided the 

entity created qualifies as a small business. 

EPA issues annual solicitations for Phase I and Phase II research proposals from 

science and technology-based firms. Under Phase I, the scientific merit and technical 

feasibility of the proposed concept is investigated. EPA awards firm-fixed-price 

Phase I contracts of up to $70,000 for 6 months. Through this phased approach to 

SBIR funding, EPA can determine whether the research idea, often on high-risk 

advanced concepts, is technically feasible, whether the firm can do high-quality 

research, and whether sufficient progress has been made to justify a larger Phase II 

effort. 

Phase II contracts are limited to small businesses that have successfully completed 

their Phase I contracts. The objective of Phase II is to develop and commercialize the 

Phase I technology. Competitive awards are based on the results of Phase I and the 

commercialization potential of the Phase II technology. In Phase II, EPA awards 

contracts of up to $225,000 for two years. EPA also offers up to $120,000 and one

additional year as Phase II Options for firms with third party financing for 

accelerating commercialization or for technologies accepted into an EPA technology 

verification program. 

EPA’s next Phase I Solicitation opens on March 20, 2008 and closes on May 21, 

2008. Solicitations include a description of the SBIR Program, application 

requirements and research topics and are posted on the National Center for

Environmental Research (NCER) Web Site at: 

www.epa.gov/ncer/sbir 

S 

B 

I 

R
Alaska's Ten Worst Shipping LossesIn The Last 20 Years

| **Date**Vessel Type**Name**Cause**Location**Number Lost
Jan 5, 1982
Japanese trawler
Akebono Maru
Capsized
50 mi N of Adak
32 lost
Dec 25, 1979
Japanese oreship
Lee Wang Zin
Capsized
Dixon Entrance, SE Alaska
30 lost (all hands)
Mar 13, 1981
Japanese trawler
Daito Maru No. 55
Sank
380 mi NW of Adak
26 lost
Feb 28, 1981
Korean cargo ship
Dae Rim
Caught fire
90 mi W of Attu
24 lost
Feb 14, 1984
Japanese trawler
Kyowa Maru No. 11
Collided with the Anyo Maru No. 15 and sank
120 mi N of Atka
16 lost, 8 rescued
Feb 20, 1986
South Korean Freighter
Chi Bo San No. 1
Lost
465 mi NE of Hokkaido on way to Alaska
All hands
Dec 9, 1999
Japanese trawler
Anyo Maru No. 1
Sank
In the Bering Sea, 120 mi S of Cape      Navarin, Russia
12 lost, 24 rescued
Dec 5, 1979
Canadian fishing vessel
Salinta
Went aground and broke in half
Tree Point, 46 mi NW of Prince Rupert, BC
10 lost (all hands)
Dec 2, 1981
F/V
St. Patrick
Abandoned
5 mi W of Marmot Island, near Kodiak
9 lost
Mar 22, 1990
F/V
Aleutian Enterprise
Sank
In the Bering Sea, 60 mi S of St. Paul      Island
9 lost, 22 saved
AlaskanShipwreck Home Page

Content:  MikeBurwellAlaska OCS RegionMinerals Management Service
Last updated 01/30/2004
 

 
 ************ |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
No. 56641.

protest 181002-K (New York).

#### Samuel Hird & Sons, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers in the case the court was Unable to find any evidence sufficient to overcome the action of the collector which was presumptively correct. The protest was therefore overruled.