alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 282/2021

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 282 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6414 July 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 282

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6414 July 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 282/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10252 — Transgourmet Group/General Markets Food Iberica) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2021/C 282/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10252 — Transgourmet Group/General Markets Food Iberica) (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 282/02 | Euro exchange rates — 13 July 2021 | 2 |
| 2021/C 282/03 | Administrative Commission of the European Communities on social security for migrant workers – Rates for conversion of currencies pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 | 3 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2021/C 282/02

Euro exchange rates — 13 July 2021

2

2021/C 282/03

Administrative Commission of the European Communities on social security for migrant workers – Rates for conversion of currencies pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72

3

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 282/04 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10299 - DBS/JPMC/Temasek/Techco JV) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 5 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 282/05 | Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to the product specification for a name in the wine sector, as referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 | 7 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2021/C 282/04

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10299 - DBS/JPMC/Temasek/Techco JV) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

5

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2021/C 282/05

Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to the product specification for a name in the wine sector, as referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33

7

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
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 United-Guardian, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ken Globus, President and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.
ipii_ex472.htm

EXHIBIT 4.72
  
 Extension of Debenture Maturity Date
  
 TO Intellipharmaceutics International Inc. (the "Company")
  
 RE: Debenture dated May 1, 2019, for a face amount of US $1,050,000 issued by the Company to Isa Odidi and Amina Odidi (the "Debenture") and the Maturity Date (as defined in the Debenture and as extended from time to time) of such Debenture
  
 The undersigned hereby agree that the current Maturity Date of the Debenture (currently October 31, 2021) is extended to February 28, 2022. 
  
 DATED as of October 31, 2021.
  
 	/s/ Isa Odidi 	 	 	/s/ Amina Odidi	 
	Isa Odidi  	 	 	Amina Odidi
GLD

- 263 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________
No. 11

- 2748

___________
KORAN CAIN
, Appellant

v.

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

RECONSIDERATION UNIT; DEVON D. GRANT

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 11

- cv

- 03960) District Judge: Honorable Joel H. Slomsky

____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

August 11, 2011

Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES AND COWEN, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed August 18, 201 )

_________
OPINION

_________
PER CURIAM

In June 2011, Koran Cain file a complaint alleging that his constitutional rights

were violated in 2006 when the Pennsylvania Department of Welfare and one of its

employees “wrongfully adjudicated” his application for benefits. The District Court sua2

sponte dismissed the matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), holding that Cain’s claims were

barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Cain appealed.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and exercise plena ry review

over the dismissal of Cain’s claims. See Allah v. Seiverling , 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir.

2000). The District Court did not err in dismissing the complaint under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted bec ause it was

apparent from the face of the complaint that the claims were time

- barred. If the

allegations, taken as true, show that relief is barred by the applicable statute of

limitations, a complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim. See Jones v.

Bock , 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007); see also
, e.g. , Bethel v. Jendoco Constr. Corp. , 570 F.2d

1168, 1174 (3d Cir. 1978) . The running of the statute of limitations is an affirmative

defense. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c). Where that defense is obvi ous from the face of the

complaint and no development of the record is necessary, however, a court may dismiss a

time

- barred complaint sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a

claim. See
, e.g. , Fogle v. Pierson , 435 F.3d 1252, 1258 (10th Cir. 2006).

When considering a civil rights claim, federal courts apply the relevant state’s

statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Lake v. Arnold , 232 F.3d 360, 368 (3d

Cir. 2000). For civil rights actions originating in Pennsyl vania, a two

- year statute of

limitations applies. Id. ; 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5524. According to Cain, the events giving

rise to his claims occurred in March 2006. Accordingly, Cain’s complaint, filed in June

2011, was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. T he District Court was entitled3

to reach the limitations question because it was obvious from the complaint and required

no factual development. See Fogle , 435 F.3d at 1258.
Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgmen t.
#### Gedeon Heller *v.*United States

No. 7410.

Invoice dated London, England, October 1943.

Certified November 1943.

Entered at New York, N. Y., December 11, 1943.

Entry No. 717491.

(Decided October 17, 1947)

*Brooks & Brooks*for the plaintiff.

*Paul B. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Kincheloe, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved and that such values are as follows:

> *Poplin shirting*

> Quality B503_4s/2d per yd. net, plus packing

> Quality M2032_3s/10d “ “ “ “

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 64311.

protests 229156-K, etc. (New York).

#### L. Bamberger & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of figures similar in all material respects to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C.C.P.A. 15, C.A.D. 458), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
```

[110th Congress Public Law 128]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ128.110]

[[Page 121 STAT. 1356]]

Public Law 110-128
110th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  202 East Michigan Avenue in Marshall, Michigan, as the ``Michael W. 
 Schragg Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Nov. 30, 2007 -  [H.R. 3446]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. MICHAEL W. SCHRAGG POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 202 East Michigan Avenue in Marshall, Michigan, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Michael W. Schragg Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Michael W. 
Schragg Post Office Building''.

    Approved November 30, 2007.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3446:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007):
            Oct. 30, considered and passed House.
            Nov. 16, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
# C_2016078EN.01001202.xml

| 29.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/12

---

Order of the President of the Court of 15 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Aeroporto Valerio Catullo di Verona Villafranca SpA v Società per l’Aeroporto Civile di Bergamo-Orio al Serio SpA (SACBO SpA), Società Aeroporto Brescia e Montichiari SpA (Abem SpA) and Others

(Case C-485/15) (1)

1

(2016/C 078/19)

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.

1

---
# C_2017053EN.01000801.xml

| 20.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/8

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 December 2016 — Club Hotel Loutraki v European Commission, Hellenic Republic, Organismos Prognostikon Agonon Podosfairou AE (OPAP)

(Case C-131/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - State aid - Operation of Video Lottery Terminals - Grant by a Member State of an exclusive licence - Decision finding no State aid - Article 108(3) TFEU - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Articles 4, 7 and 13 - Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure - Concept of ‘serious difficulties’ - Date of the assessment - Article 296 TFEU - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 41 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 47 - Right to effective judicial protection - Article 107(1) TFEU - Concept of ‘economic advantage’ - Joint assessment of the measures notified))

(2017/C 053/09)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Club Hotel Loutraki AE, Vivere Entertainment AE, Theros International Gaming, Inc., Elliniko Casino Kerkyras, Casino Rodos, Porto Carras AE, Kazino Aigaiou AE (represented by: I. Ioannidis, dikigoros, and S. Pappas, avocat)

Appellants:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and P.-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents), Hellenic Republic, Organismos Prognostikon Agonon Podosfairou AE (OPAP) (represented by: A. Tomtsis, dikigoros, and M. Petite, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Club Hotel Loutraki AE, Vivere Entertainment AE, Theros International Gaming, Inc., Elliniko Casino Kerkyras, Casino Rodos, Porto Carras AE and Kazino Aigaiou AE to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Club Hotel Loutraki AE, Vivere Entertainment AE, Theros International Gaming, Inc., Elliniko Casino Kerkyras, Casino Rodos, Porto Carras AE and Kazino Aigaiou AE to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.

1

---
Amendment UAL UA United Executive Employment Agreement th
  Code
    Amendment to Section 1(b).
  Amendment to Section 3(c).




---



##### 



Amendment to 3(h).
 Code
 Amendment to Section 3(j).
  Amendment to Section 3(k).
  Amendment to Section 4(d)(ii).
  Amendment to Section 4(d)(iii).
  Amendment to Section 4(d).
   2




---



##### 



Amendment to Section 5(d)(iv).
  Amendment to Section 5(e)(iv).
  Amendment to Section 5(g).
  Amendment to Section 10(h).
   3




---



##### 



Amendment and Restatement of Section 10(o).
 th
 Representation by United
 Reimbursement of Professional Fees
 Full Force and Effect.
 Governing Law.
  4




---



##### 



Entire Agreement.
 Successors and Assigns.
 Counterparts.
  UAL CORPORATION
    
    
    
    EXECUTIVE:By:
    
    /s/ Paul R. Lovejoy
    
    
    
    /s/ Glenn F. TiltonName: Paul R. Lovejoy
    
    
    
    Glenn F. TiltonTitle:   Senior Vice President,
General            Counsel and SecretaryUNITED AIR LINES, INC.By:
    
    /s/ Paul R. LovejoyName: Paul R. LovejoyTitle:   Senior Vice President,
General            Counsel and Secretary
  5
# Official Journal C 12/2009

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 12 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5217 January 2009 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 12

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5217 January 2009

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2009/C 012/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2009/C 012/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1)

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2009/C 012/02 | Euro exchange rates | 5 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2009/C 012/02

Euro exchange rates

5

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY |
| | Commission |
| 2009/C 012/03 | State aid — Germany — State aid C 29/08 (ex NN 54/07) — Germany — Flughafen Frankfurt Hahn and Ryanair — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (1) | 6 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY

Commission

2009/C 012/03

State aid — Germany — State aid C 29/08 (ex NN 54/07) — Germany — Flughafen Frankfurt Hahn and Ryanair — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (1)

6

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2009/C 012/04 | Note to the reader(see page 3 of the cover) | s3 |

2009/C 012/04

Note to the reader(see page 3 of the cover)

Note to the reader

s3

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-3928

___________ Anthony Gay, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. State of Iowa, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: September 24, 1997 Filed: October 20, 1997

___________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. InJuly 1993, the State of Iowa (Scott County) charged Anthony Gay and tw o others w ith the crimes of terrorism and criminal gang participation. Gay, who was in custody in Rock Island County, Illinois, signed a waiver of extradition, which state d that a Rock Island County circuit court judge had informed him of the Iowa charges; that a demand for his return to Iowa had been made; that he had the right to procur e counsel, to test his present detention by writ of habeas corpus, and to demand issuance and serv ice of a warrant of extradition; and that he freely and voluntarily waive d issuance and service of

“all extradition proceedings” and consented to return to Iowa.The Honorable R.E. Longstaff, United States District Judge for the Souther n 1 District of Iowa. -2- Upon his return to Iowa, Gay was released on bond and subsequently attended the pretrial conference at which an October 4, 1993 trial date was set. Pri or to October 4, Gay was again arrested and held in custody in Rock Island County, Illinois. Although officials made arr angements for Gay to be returned to Iowa in time fo r his criminal trial, Gay declined to do so, instead insisting that forma l extraditi on procedures be followed. Gay was subsequently charged with, an d con victed of, willfully failing to appear for trial, in violation of Iowa Code Ann
. § 811.2(8) (West 1994). Gay was sentenced to a prison term not to exceed five years, and the Io wa Supreme Court affirmed. See State v. Gay , 526 N.W.2d 294 (Iow a 1995). Gay then filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C
. § 2254, which the district court denied. We conclude the district court correctl y 1 determined that Gay was not entitled to ha beas relief, as he had already waived formal extradition procedures for the pending criminal charges and had agreed to appear a t trial on those charges. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
(Reap. Dec. 8832)

#### Paul Rose and Company *v.*United States

Entry No. 728849-1/5, etc.

(Decided June 13, 1957)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Douh,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

The records indicate that there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff when the appeals for a reappraisement enumerated on the schedule attached to and made part of this decision were called for hearing, and the cases were consequently ordered submitted by the court.

*685Rule 5 (a) of tbe rules of the court provides that—

> The submission for decision of any case shall be made in open court by the parties thereto or their attorneys, or by stipulation, or by written request to the court, or by the court on its own motion. Where the plaintiff, petitioner, or appellant, or his attorney, in a case does not appear when the same is called, and after the opposite party has had opportunity to present evidence on the issues, it may be deemed submitted and may be decided by the court on the record as it appears therein.

Accordingly, I have examined the records in the appeals before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper values of the merchandise are the values returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v THOMAS L. LINDSAY, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant

19 USCMA 502, 42 CMR 104

No. 22,907

June 19, 1970

*Colonel Daniel T. Ghent, Captain Bernard J. Casey,*and *Captain Libero Marinetti, Jr.,*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel David T. Bryant, Major Edwin P. Wasinger, Captain William R. Steinmetz,*and *Captain James S. Mathews*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Darden, Judge:

The appellant pleaded guilty to the larceny of nine fragmentation grenades, eight specifications of assault with a deadly weapon, and three specifications of kidnapping, in violation of Articles 121, 128, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 921, 928, *503and 934. He received a sentence of dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, reduction in grade, and seven years’ confinement that the convening authority reduced to four years’ confinement. In light of these offenses and considering that the maximum permissible punishment included confinement for life, Lindsay has suffered no harm by the introduction during the sentencing portion of the trial of Article 15 nonjudicial punishment for a short absence without leave and for bringing Korean females on Camp Kaiser, Korea, in violation of the orders of the company commander. United States v Johnson, 19 USCMA 464, 42 CMR 66 (1970) ; United States v Young, 19 USCMA 481, 42 CMR 83 (1970).

The decision of the Court of Military Review is affirmed.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

FERGUSON, Judge

(dissenting):

I dissent for the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v Johnson, 19 USCMA 464, 42 CMR 66 (1970).
No. 39037.

#### Protest 212313-G of S. H. Pomerance Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

From the record it was found that certain articles are in chief value of cellulose filaments similar to those involved in Abstract 37230. The claim at 60 percent under paragraph 31 was therefore sustained.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.

Robert W. Kneisley

Associate General Counsel 

1901 L Street, NW - Suite 640

Washington, DC 20036

(202) 263-6284

(202) 263-6291 - Fax 

bob.kneisley@wnco.com

January 20, 2012

Via email and regulations.gov

Esta Rosenberg

Chief, U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division

Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Application of AirTran Airways for Exemption Authority (AUS-CUN 

and DEN-CUN); Docket DOT-OST-2012-0007

Dear Ms. Rosenberg:

This letter is to confirm that AirTran Airways (“AirTran”) has polled all carriers on 

the service list attached to the above-referenced Application, and all carriers responded 

that they have no objections. Accordingly, AirTran requests that the exemption authority 

specified in the Application be granted as soon as possible.

Respectfully submitted,

____________________

Robert W. Kneisley

cc: Susan Kurland, DOT

Paul Gretch, DOT

 Brian Hedberg, DOT

Brett Kruger, DOT

John Allen, FAA

Kris Urs, DOS