alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| Name of Subsidiary       |   | Jurisdiction of Incorporation/Organization |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                                    |   |                                                 |
| Fundtech      Corporation               |   | United      States, State of Delaware                |
|                                    |   |                                                 |
| Fundtech      U.K. Limited              |   | United      Kingdom                                  |
|                                    |   |                                                 |
| Fundtech      Australia Pty Limited     |   | Australia                                            |
|                                    |   |                                                 |
| Fundtech      International, LLC        |   | United      States, State of Delaware                |
|                                    |   |                                                 |
| Biveroni      Batschelet Partners AG    |   | Switzerland                                          |
|                                    |   |                                                 |
| Datasphere      SA                      |   | Switzerland                                          |
|                                    |   |                                                 |
| Fundtech      India Ltd.                |   | India                                                |
|                                    |   |                                                 |
| Radius      Partners, Inc.              |   | United      States, State of Massachusetts           |
|                                    |   |                                                 |
| Fundtech      Germany GmbH              |   | Germany                                              |
|                                    |   |                                                 |
| Fundtech      GmbH                      |   | Germany                                              |
|                                    |   |                                                 |
| Accountis      Limited                  |   | United      Kingdom                                  |
|                                    |   |                                                 |
| Synergy      Financial Services Limited |   | United      Kingdom                                  |
|                                    |   |                                                 |
| Intersoftware      (UK) Limited         |   | United      Kingdom                                  |
|                                    |   |                                                 |
| CashTech      Asia Pte Ltd.             |   | Singapore                                            |
|                                    |   |                                                 |
| CashTech      Solutions India Pvt Ltd.  |   | India                                                |

----
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1374 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1374

 To direct the Federal Trade Commission to prescribe rules prohibiting 
              deceptive advertising of abortion services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 14, 2011

 Mr. Menendez introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Federal Trade Commission to prescribe rules prohibiting 
              deceptive advertising of abortion services.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Stop Deceptive Advertising for 
Women's Services Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING OF ABORTION SERVICES.

    (a) Conduct Prohibited.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Federal Trade Commission shall promulgate 
rules to prohibit, as an unfair and deceptive act or practice, any 
person from advertising with the intent to deceptively create the 
impression that--
            (1) such person is a provider of abortion services if such 
        person does not provide abortion services; and
            (2) such person is not a provider of abortion services if 
        such person does provide abortion services.
    (b) Enforcement.--The Federal Trade Commission shall enforce the 
rules required under subsection (a) as if a violation of such rules 
were a violation of section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act 
(15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1)). The Commission shall enforce such rules in the 
same manner and by the same means, powers, and duties as though all 
applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act 
were incorporated into and made a part of this Act.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

    For purposes of the rules prescribed under section 2, the following 
definitions apply:
            (1) Advertise.--The term ``advertise'' means offering of 
        goods or services to the public, regardless of whether such 
        goods or services are offered for payment or result in a 
        profit.
            (2) Abortion services.--The term ``abortion services'' 
        means providing surgical and non-surgical procedures to 
        terminate a pregnancy, or providing referrals for such 
        procedures.
            (3) Person.--The term ``person'' has the meaning given such 
        term in section 551(2) of title 5, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

Exhibit 23.1





             INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM'S CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
Brilliant Technologies Corporation and Subsidiaries (the "Company") on Form S-8,
File No. 333-123045 filed on February 28, 2005 and File No. 333-117380 filed on
July 15, 2004, of our report, which includes an explanatory paragraph as to the
Company's ability to continue as a going concern, dated April 20, 2007, on our
audits of the consolidated financial statements of Brilliant Technologies
Corporation and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2006 and for the years ended
December 31, 2006 and 2005 and for the period from inception (October 1, 1999)
to December 31, 2006, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form
10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006.


/s/ Marcum & Kliegman LLP


New York, New York
April 20, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Financial Data Schedule for Form 10-Q for April 30, 1997
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000102198
<NAME> COMPETITIVE TECHONOLGIES, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,176,445
<SECURITIES>                                 2,174,166
<RECEIVABLES>                                  496,339
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,919,561
<PP&E>                                         483,627
<DEPRECIATION>                                 266,197
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,533,266
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,989,858
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     60,675
<COMMON>                                        59,508
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,180,001
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,533,266
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,829,976
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,086,650
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              74,297
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,170,759)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    34,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,170,359)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,170,359)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.20)
        


</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-61,104]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on March 13, 2007, in response to a worker petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Bay State Circuits, Inc., Millbury, Massachusetts.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed in Washington, DC, this 1st day of May 2007.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E7-8828 Filed 5-8-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
# C_2018392EN.01002101.xml

| 29.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Almaz-Antey v Council

(Case T-515/15) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Retention of the applicant’s name on the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply - Proportionality - Error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Fundamental rights))

(2018/C 392/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Joint-Stock Company ‘Almaz-Antey’ Air and Space Defence Corp., formerly OAO Concern PVO Almaz-Antey (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: A. Haak, C. Stumpf and M. Brüggemann, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and P. Mahnič, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of (i) Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/971 of 22 June 2015 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 157, p. 50); (ii) the letter from the Council dated 31 July 2015 by which the Council stated that the applicant should remain subject to the measures in Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 13) and Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1); (iii) Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/2431 of 21 December 2015 amending Decision 2014/512 (OJ 2015 L 334, p. 22); and (iv) Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/1071 of 1 July 2016 amending Decision 2014/512 (OJ 2016 L 178, p. 21), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Joint-Stock Company ‘Almaz-Antey’ Air and Space Defence Corp. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Joint-Stock Company ‘Almaz-Antey’ Air and Space Defence Corp. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.

---
Exhibit 12.2


I, Yoram Bibring, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Fundtech Ltd.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
   material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
   statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
   were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
   information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
   the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company
   as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The company's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
   establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
   in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:

   a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
      disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
      to ensure that material information relating to the company, including its
      consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
      prepared;

   b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the company's disclosure controls and
      procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
      effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
      the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

   c. Disclosed in this report any change in the company's internal control over
      financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual
      report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
      affect, the company's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The company's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
   most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
   company's auditors and the audit committee of the company's board of
   directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

   a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the company's ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial information; and

   b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the company's internal control
      over financial reporting.

Date:  June 29, 2004



By:  /s/ Yoram Bibring
     ---------------------------
     Yoram Bibring
     Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 13.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C §
1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the
undersigned officer of OJSC Long-Distance and International Telecommunications
Rostelecom (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:  (i)the accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F
of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d),
as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  (ii)the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.   Date: December 17,
  2007/s/ Vladimir V.
  TerekhovVladimir V. TerekhovActing
  General Director
Exhibit 13.1


                            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 Annual Report of Fundtech Ltd. (the "Company") on Form
20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Reuven Ben Menachem,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss.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.

Date:  May 27, 2005

                                    /s/ Reuven Ben Menachem
                                    -------------------------------
                                    Reuven Ben Menachem
                                    Chief Executive Officer
                                    (Principal Executive Officer)




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Fundtech Ltd. and will be retained by Fundtech Ltd. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Porter & Brazelton *vs.*Hosea Moffett.

*Error to Henry.*

Where, after plea, the declaration is amended and then refiled, the old plea is no longer a plea to the new declaration without being refield, especially after the defendant has been ruled to plead anew.

The facts of this case are set forth in the opinion of the court.

Hail, for plaintiffs in error.

J. B. & G. W. Teas, for defendant in error.

By the Court,

Wilson, Justice.

This was an action of covenant, brought by Moffett against Porter & Brazelton, to April term, 1889. On the 14th of March 1839, a declaration was filed by plaintiff, to which a plea of *non est fot turn*with notice of special matter was filed at the April term 1839. At the same time the plaintiffs asked and obtained leave to amend their declaration, upon the payment of all costs, and filed an amended declaration on the first of May, 1839. At the August term 1839, the parties appeared by their attorneys, and 'by consent of parties, the cause was continued, and the defendants ruled to plead by the first of January following. Default was entered in vacation against defendants fur want a of plea, which dt fault was confirmed at the March term 1840, and an assessment of damages by a jury.— At the same time a motion in arrest of judgment was made, which was withdrawn, and judgment rendered on the verdict.

There are five errors assigned, but they are all contained, substantially, in the fifth. It is contended by the plaintiff in error, that there was no default; that the plea filed to the first declaration should have been considered as answering the amended declaration.

We cannot come to this conclusion. Where a declaration which is pleaded to, is withdrawn for amendment, is amended and rpfiled, it is viewed as a new declaration, and its withrawal would seem to render a nullity any plea to it. The foundation being removed, the superstructure must fall.

But further, it appears from the record, that at the term subsequent to the one at which the plaintiff filed his amended declaration, the parties appeared, and by consent of parties the cause was continued, and *59the defendants ruled to plead by the first of January then next ensuing. Here was a peremptory rule of the court-, which was not complied with, on which non-compliance the defendants were in default, and in the confirmation of which, we see no error. Judgment affirmed.
No. 54916.

#### Standard Wine & Liquor Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 162386-K (New York).

*329Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the issues and facts herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty and internal revenue tax are not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protest was sustained to this extent.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JOHN PHILLIP BRYANT,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 5D18-595

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

________________________________/

Opinion filed April 20, 2018

Petition for Belated Appeal

A Case of Original Jurisdiction. 

John Phillip Bryant, Wewahitchka, pro se. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General,

Tallahassee, and Kaylee D. Tatman,

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Respondent. 

PER CURIAM. 

The petition for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this opinion shall be filed

with the trial court and be treated as the notice of appeal from the April 22, 2016

judgment and sentence rendered in Case No. 2012-CF-32675-A, in the Circuit Court in 

and for Brevard County, Florida. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(6)(D). 

PETITION GRANTED.

PALMER, WALLIS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7209

MICHAEL A. MAJETTE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director; DOCTOR IBARRA;

K. V. MCWATERS, Head Nurse; W. E. MARTIN,

Chief, Internal Affairs Unit; FRED SCHILLING,

Doctor, Health Services; RUFUS FLEMING,

Regional Director,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-96-994-AM)

Submitted: March 13, 1997 Decided: May 2, 1997

Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael A. Majette, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Majette, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district

court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A(b)(1) (West Supp. Sept. 1996,

Pamphlet 3). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Majette

v. Angelone, No. CA-96-994-AM (E.D. Va. July 25, 1996). 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.

DISMISSED