alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
: ; , BERING SEA
BATHYMETRIC MAP NUNIVAK ISLAND

350000m.£ L agoonpe

972 1 973 i}
HOOPER BA\

NUNIVAK ISLA\
6:

1

n

5

6760000m.)y

a
a
exe)

sh --
x

°
fo}

6750000m.N

w

i

NN

tt a CALS Z =

w we |) oo
e AK a SEK EL
o nv 9
Ntsc
~

NELSON
ISLAND

°
\ NS

\
WROE

\

NN

DS RSS

NW
\ es

-— |

[e)

ANNE
RAG

In
_—§
=

i
Js

Mekoryuk

NE
*

A K

|
}

3660000.

6660000m..y

S
WG
So \ \
of !

i :
5 : |
i j . - . : j lath EM Li rv \
3bdttom e i : : : : i ! i

4go000m.€,

|
Bethymary compl by te National Osan Service (NOS) fom Bay season oF earner on OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT MAP i. — ms NUNIVAK ISLAND

61° 61°

reproduction of the bathymetric manuscript and does not necessarily UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE QJ |
represent the final published form. This information is not intended for NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION NOS NP 3-7 (OCS) :
navigational purposes.

: N cean Service
Bathymetric Contour Interval: 10 meters to maximum depth, supplemented Rardin Veklay and Solymetre Sunes Sed 1380 to 2980, NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE |
by 2 meter intervals. T,065)856 wits minimum line socng of 30'snd 9 maximum SattomeGS Fotrourophicsameye ne”
Datum: Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW). Dats corrected for sound velocity according to Echo-Sounding 1989

- . Correction Tables, 1980,
Universal Transverse Mercator Grid. Zone 3; 10,000 meter ticks (---) are

shown inside the neatline.

Produced at Washington, D.C.

. ole INDEX TO ADJOINING SHEETS 162° |
Protraction Diagram data shown in a subdued (screened) black wos : : : for

compiled by the Minerals Management Service (MMS). UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR q oes” nogpen ar
THIS MAP IS NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT for Federal leasing purposes; I s S_DEPA\ NT O °

for such purposes use the MMS Outer Continental Shelf Official Protraction MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE

Diagrams.

NUNIVAK ISLAND
/ a West
Heavy line(s) indicate limits of these protraction diagrams.

NUNIVAK_ISLAN!
NP 2-8 NP az

TRANSVERSE MERCATOR PROJECTION soe Tes"
Scale 1:250,000

CAPE NENOENMALL
aes, CAPE MENDENHALL

5 oO 5 10 15 20 Statute Miles
59°
re
5 J) 5 10 15 20 25 30 Kilometers ite

5 oO 5 10 15 Nautical Miles
7
Case: 2:12-cv-00838-EAS-NMK Doc #: 55 Filed: 01/07/13 Page: 1 of 10  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00838-EAS-NMK Doc #: 55 Filed: 01/07/13 Page: 2 of 10  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00838-EAS-NMK Doc #: 55 Filed: 01/07/13 Page: 3 of 10  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00838-EAS-NMK Doc #: 55 Filed: 01/07/13 Page: 4 of 10  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00838-EAS-NMK Doc #: 55 Filed: 01/07/13 Page: 5 of 10  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00838-EAS-NMK Doc #: 55 Filed: 01/07/13 Page: 6 of 10  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00838-EAS-NMK Doc #: 55 Filed: 01/07/13 Page: 7 of 10  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00838-EAS-NMK Doc #: 55 Filed: 01/07/13 Page: 8 of 10  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00838-EAS-NMK Doc #: 55 Filed: 01/07/13 Page: 9 of 10  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00838-EAS-NMK Doc #: 55 Filed: 01/07/13 Page: 10 of 10  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-11T20:30:05-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>9



<LEGEND>                                             
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE SEPTEMBER 30, 1995 10-Q FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                          807173
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           15938
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                  2000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 32040
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     356309
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         3639262
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           3604142
<LOANS>                                       10226745
<ALLOWANCE>                                     200337
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                15533070
<DEPOSITS>                                    12871632
<SHORT-TERM>                                    936043
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             257060
<LONG-TERM>                                     204338
<COMMON>                                         69098
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      30008
<OTHER-SE>                                     1164891
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                15533070
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 623270
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               190296
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                  4433
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                817999
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              257917
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              333725
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           484274
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    48750
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                5205
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 371218
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 194480
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      124362
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    124362
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.20
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.71
<LOANS-NON>                                     181703
<LOANS-PAST>                                      4410
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   222
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  44243
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                220292
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    83124
<RECOVERIES>                                     14419
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               200337
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            138818
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          61519
        


</TABLE>
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 90 

Designating the week of May 1, 2005, as ‘‘Holocaust Commemoration Week’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 17, 2005 

Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mr. BAYH, Mr. CORZINE, and Mrs. DOLE) submitted 

the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating the week of May 1, 2005, as ‘‘Holocaust 

Commemoration Week’’. 

Whereas the year 2005 marks the 60th anniversary of the 

end of the Holocaust, which was ruthlessly and tragically 

carried out by Nazi Germany under the leadership of 

Adolf Hitler and his collaborators; 

Whereas the Holocaust involved the murder of millions of innocent Jewish men, women, and children along with millions of others, and an enormity of suffering inflicted on 

the many survivors through mistreatment, brutalization, 

violence, torture, slave labor, involuntary medical experimentation, death marches, and numerous other acts of 

cruelty that have come to be known as ‘‘genocide’’ and 

‘‘crimes against humanity’’; and 
2 

•SRES 90 ATS

Whereas in the past 60 years, the Holocaust has provided the 

peoples of the world with an object lesson in the importance of compassion, caring, and kindness; an awareness 

of the dangers inherent in bigotry, racism, intolerance, 

and prejudice; and an understanding of the importance of 

an appreciation of the sensitivity to diversity: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates the week of May 1, 2005, as 

3 ‘‘Holocaust Commemoration Week’’; 

4 (2) commemorates the occasion of the 60th an5 niversary of the end of World War II and the libera6 tion of the concentration camps; and 

7 (3) encourages all Americans to commemorate 

8 the occasion through reflection, acts of compas9 sionate caring, and learning about the terrible con10 sequences and lessons of the Holocaust. 

Æ
----

Appeal brought on 17 May 2005 by Sergio Rossi SpA against the judgment delivered on 1 March 2005 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-169/03 between Sergio Rossi SpA and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-214/05 P)

(2005/C 182/54)

Language of the case: Italian

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 1 March 2005 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-169/03 between Sergio Rossi SpA and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 May 2005 by Sergio Rossi SpA, represented by A. Ruo of the Alicante Bar (Spain).

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the judgment under appeal is flawed in that it infringes the following rules:

----

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

----
# C_2016038EN.01002701.xml

| 1.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 9 November 2015 — État belge v Oxycure Belgium SA

(Case C-573/15)

(2016/C 038/39)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: État belge

Appellant:

Respondent: Oxycure Belgium SA

Respondent:

Question referred

Question referred

Does Article 98(1) and (2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) read in conjunction with Annex III, points 3 et 4 of the VAT Directive, having regard to, in particular, the principle of neutrality, preclude a national provision which prescribes a reduced rate of VAT for oxygen treatment by means of oxygen cylinders, whereas oxygen treatment by means of an oxygen concentrator is subject to the standard rate of VAT?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

1

---
Exhibit 10.33


 


EXCHANGE LISTING 


 


December 16, 2021


 


Via E-Mail


 


Mr. Joseph La Rosa


La Rosa Realty Corp./La Rosa Holdings Corp.


120 Celebration Boulevard


2nd Floor


Celebration, FL 34747


 


Re: Capital Market Advisory Agreement


 


Dear Joe:


 


Per our prior conversation,
this letter amends the Capital Market Advisory Agreement between Exchange Listing, LLC (“Exchange Listing”)
and La Rosa Realty Corp. (“La Rosa”) dated May 12, 2021 (the “Agreement”). Capitalized terms
used in this letter amendment (“Amendment”) have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.


 


We have agreed to amend
the Agreement by:


 


(i) deleting Section
3.C. in its entirety and replacing it with the following:


 


“C. Upon execution
of this Agreement, the Company will issue 200,000 warrants to the Consultant or its designees exercisable for a period of five
(5) years at $4.00 per share. The Company agrees to include the shares underlying the warrant in the Company’s first registration
statement that it files (other than (i) a registration statement relating solely to employee stock option or purchase plans; (ii)
a registration statement on Form S-4 relating to an SEC Rule 145 transaction; (iii) a registration statement filed in connection
with (a) the issuance of securities pursuant to a merger, or (b) any “P.I.P.E. Offering” of the Company’s securities)
after the Company’s registration statement for its initial public offering is declared effective. The warrants shall have
a cashless exercise provision in the event that the shares underlying the warrants are not registered in an effective registration
statement.”


 


(ii) deleting Section
3.D. in its entirety and replacing it with the following:


 


“D. Upon execution
of this Agreement, the Company agrees to sell to the Consultant, or its designees, at par value, 750,000 shares of the Company’s
common stock. Such shares are to be held in book entry at the transfer agent and shall not be eligible to be sold by the Consultant
until the Company trades on a Senior Exchange and the Consultant has complied with Rule 144 under the Securities Act of 1933. The
Consultant shall be granted anti-dilution protection only through the closing date of the Company’s initial public offering
and initial listing on a Senior Listing Exchange so that as of such date the Consultant shall have a total of 2.5% of the Company’s
fully-diluted shares outstanding.”


 


Exchange Listing and
La Rosa hereby agree that other than as amended above, the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.


 


Please sign and return
a copy of this letter to me.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	EXCHANGE LISTING, LLC
	 	 
	 	By:	 /s/Peter Goldstein
	 	Peter Goldstein, CEO








 


	Acknowledged and agreed:	 
	LA ROSA REALTY, INC. / LA ROSA HOLDINGS CORP.	 
	 	 
	By:	 /s/ Joseph La Rosa 	 
	Joseph La Rosa, CEO
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v DEAN W. DAVAULT, Technical Sergeant, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

10 USCMA 551, 28 CMR 117

No. 12,945

Decided July 24, 1959

*Lieutenant Colonel James L. Kilgore*and *Captain Norman K. Hogue*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused,

*552
      *Lieutenant Colonel Robert W. Michels, Lieutenant Colonel Francis R. Co'ogan,*and *Major Timothy G. O’Shea*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

GEORGE W. LatimeR, Judge:

Accused stands convicted of desertion, in violation of Article 85, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 885, and sentenced to dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, and confinement at hard labor for two years. We granted his petition for review on a single issue relating to the propriety of the law officer’s instructions.

In his charge to the members of the court-martial, the law officer included the instruction which we considered in United States v Simpson, 10 USCMA 543, 28 CMR 109; United States v Smith, 10 USCMA 549, 28 CMR 115; United States v Blackwell, 10 USCMA 550, 28 CMR 116; United States v Tisdall, 10 USCMA 553, 28 CMR 119; and United States v Shomler, 10 USCMA 555, 28 CMR 121, all decided this date. As we there indicated, the law officer erred in so instructing. The prosecution’s evidence, -however, was uncontroverted and, taking the instructions by their four corners, we are sure that no reasonable person could be misled and that the court members were provided with a correct measuring rod in assessing the evidence. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the above-cited cases, we conclude there is no fair risk that accused was harmed by the error.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Chief Judge QUINH concurs.

FERGUSON, Judge

(dissenting):

I dissent for the reasons set forth in my separate opinions in United States v Simpson, 10 USCMA 543, 28 CMR 109, and United States v Tisdall, 10 USCMA 553, 28 CMR 119.

The accused was charged with, and found guilty of, desertion with intent to remain absent permanently, in violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 85, 10 USC § 885. The evidence in the case establishes only that the accused absented himself without leave on July 3, 1956, from Mountain Home Air *Force*Base, Idaho, and remained so absent until he was apprehended by an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation at Springfield, Illinois, on December 5, 1958.

Undoubtedly, the foregoing circumstances are sufficient to permit the members of a court-martial to infer the existence of an intent to remain absent permanently on the part of the accused. However, it cannot be said that they compel such a conclusion. For this reason and those stated in my separate opinion in United States v Simpson, supra, I am of the view that the instruction on the effect of *prima facie*evidence prejudiced the accused’s substantial rights and entitles him to a rehearing.

I would reverse the decision of the board of review and return the record of trial for direction of a rehearing on the desertion charge.
# C_2019131EN.01003801.xml

| 8.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2019 — Vakakis kai Synergates v Commission

(Case T-292/15) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Public supply contracts - Tender procedure - Conflict of interests - Duty of diligence - Loss of opportunity - Compensation)

(2019/C 131/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vakakis kai Synergates — Symvouloi gia Agrotiki Anaptixi AE Meleton, formerly Vakakis International — Symvouloi gia Agrotiki Anaptixi AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: B. O’Connor, Solicitor, S. Gubel and E. Bertolotto, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher, E. Georgieva and L. Baumgart, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought under Article 268 TFEU, seeking compensation in respect of the loss which the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of irregularities committed by the Commission in the context of the tendering procedure ‘Consolidation of the Food Safety System in Albania’ (EuropeAid/129820/C/SER/AL).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Fixes the amount of compensation to be paid by the European Commission to Vakakis kai Synergates — Symvouloi gia Agrotiki Anaptixi AE Meleton in accordance with the judgment of 28 February 2018, Vakakis kai Synergates v Commission (T-292/15), at EUR 234 353, together with default interest with effect from 28 February 2018 until full payment, at the rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for its principal refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Fixes the amount of compensation to be paid by the European Commission to Vakakis kai Synergates — Symvouloi gia Agrotiki Anaptixi AE Meleton in accordance with the judgment of 28 February 2018, Vakakis kai Synergates v Commission (T-292/15), at EUR 234 353, together with default interest with effect from 28 February 2018 until full payment, at the rate set by the European Central Bank (ECB) for its principal refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs incurred with respect to the proceedings giving rise to the judgment of 28 February 2018, Vakakis kai Synergates v Commission (T-292/15); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs incurred with respect to the proceedings giving rise to the judgment of 28 February 2018, Vakakis kai Synergates v Commission (T-292/15);

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs incurred with respect to the proceedings subsequent to the judgment of 28 February 2018, Vakakis kai Synergates v Commission (T-292/15). |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs incurred with respect to the proceedings subsequent to the judgment of 28 February 2018, Vakakis kai Synergates v Commission (T-292/15).

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

---
# C_2016270EN.01001601.xml

| 25.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/16

---

Appeal brought on 30 November 2015 by August Storck KG against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 25 September 2015 in Case T-366/14: August Storck v EUIPO

(Case C-636/15 P)

(2016/C 270/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: August Storck KG (represented by: N. Gregor, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings:

By order of 11 May 2016 the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---
No. 50273.

#### Protests 58610-K, etc., of Meakin & Ridgway, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protests were sustained to this extent.
Attachment E 

Guidance on How to Request Small Business Fee Waivers

See web cite at, Registration Service Fees, Guidance on How to Request Small Business Fee Waivers | 

Pesticides | US EPA
|   | 1. | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | Information      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the      financial condition and results of operations      of the Company. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: December 12, 2008  | By:  | /s/ Arthur F.      Trudel                                          |
|-------------------------------|-----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                          |      | Arthur      F. Trudel                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |
|                          |      | Senior      Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and  Secretary                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |

----
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of UAL CORPORATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

Each undersigned officer certifies that to the best of his/her knowledge based on a review of the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the
period ended March 31, 2010 of UAL Corporation (the Report):



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of UAL Corporation.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 27, 2010



|                            
|----------------------------
|/s/ Glenn F. Tilton         
|Glenn F. Tilton             
|Chairman, President and     
|Chief Executive Officer     
|                            
|/s/ Kathryn A. Mikells      
|Kathryn A. Mikells          
|Executive Vice President and
|Chief Financial Officer