alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2005134EN.01003401.xml

| 27.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 134/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 134/34

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 804/2005

of 26 May 2005

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar to certain third countries for the 26th partial invitation to tender issued within the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1327/2004

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1) and in particular the second indent of Article 27(5) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 1327/2004 of 19 July 2004 on a standing invitation to tender to determine levies and/or refunds on exports of white sugar (2), for the 2004/2005 marketing year, requires partial invitations to tender to be issued for the export of this sugar to certain third countries. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1327/2004 of 19 July 2004 on a standing invitation to tender to determine levies and/or refunds on exports of white sugar (2), for the 2004/2005 marketing year, requires partial invitations to tender to be issued for the export of this sugar to certain third countries.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1327/2004 a maximum export refund shall be fixed, as the case may be, account being taken in particular of the state and foreseeable development of the Community and world markets in sugar, for the partial invitation to tender in question. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1327/2004 a maximum export refund shall be fixed, as the case may be, account being taken in particular of the state and foreseeable development of the Community and world markets in sugar, for the partial invitation to tender in question.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the 26th partial invitation to tender for white sugar issued pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1327/2004 the maximum amount of the export refund shall be 40,126 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 27 May 2005.

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

Done at Brussels, 26 May 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 178, 30.6.2001, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 39/2004 (OJ L 6, 10.1.2004, p. 16).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 246, 20.7.2004, p. 23. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1685/2004 (OJ L 303, 30.9.2004, p. 21).

2

---
#### Paul C. MUELLER, Appellant, v. MILLER & SQUIRE, P. A., Appellee.

No. 73-700.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 20, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 14, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; W. Clayton Johnson, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Financial Statements and Notes thereto incorporated in Part I, Item 1. of this
Form 10-QSB and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,486
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,486
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        61,500
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,996
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,792
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (26,788)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (26,788)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.004)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.004)


</TABLE>
#### STATE of Florida, ex rel. Rafael Antonio PAZ and Luis A. Crespo, Petitioners, v. Wilson PURDY, Director of the Dade County Public Safety Department, Respondent.

No. 70-125.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Jan. 30, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Habeas corpus denied.
#### STATE ex rel. Sam VANCE, Sidney T. Laurence, and Claude Rigsby, Relators, v. Joseph WELLMAN, Richard W. Allen and Edward T. Tietjen, Respondents.

No. 69-242.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

May 5, 1969.

David Linn, of White, Phipps, Linn, Furnell & Mahorner, Tallahassee, for re-lators.

No appearance for respondents.

MANN, Judge.

Article V, § 5(3) of our Constitution, F.S.A. provides that a District Court of Appeal *may*issue the writ of quo warranto sought in this original proceeding. Section 6(3) grants the same jurisdiction to the circuit courts. The philosophy underlying the judiciary article vouchsafes to every litigant two days in court and if the matter were initially heard in the circuit court it would be reviewable here or, in a limited category of circumstances, in the Supreme Court. Orderly procedure dictates that we respect that philosophy and that petitions for extraordinary writs be heard first in the circuit court unless there is some compelling reason for invoking the original jurisdiction of an appellate court. See State ex rel. Clark v. Klingensmith, 1936, 126 Fla. 124, 170 So. 616, in which there were factual issues to be tried, which may not be the case here, but which appears to us to be immaterial. We cannot transfer the case because the jurisdiction invoked is original and not appellate, State ex rel. Winton v. Town of Davie, Fla.1961, 127 So.2d 671. Accordingly we dismiss the information in the nature of quo warranto on our own motion without prejudice to the right of relators to proceed in the appropriate circuit court.

LILES, C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
No. 9616.

#### The Edson Reduction Machinery Co. *v.*Orton, Jr.

(Decided October 23, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga County.

*Messrs. Smith, Taft & Arter,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Oscar J. Horn*and *Messrs. Bemis & Calfee,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, C. J., Crew, Summers, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.
# L_2005269EN.01002101.xml

| 14.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 269/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 269/21

---

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

of 7 September 2005

on the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund according to point 3 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 7 November 2002 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on the financing of the European Union Solidarity Fund supplementing the Interinstitutional Agreement of 6 May 1999 on budgetary discipline and improvement of the budgetary procedure

(2005/706/EC)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 7 November 2002 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on the financing of the European Union Solidarity Fund supplementing the Interinstitutional Agreement of 6 May 1999 on budgetary discipline and improvement of the budgetary procedure (1), and in particular point 3 thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund (2),

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas:

| (1) | The European Union has created a Solidarity Fund (the Fund) to show solidarity with the population of regions struck by disasters. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The European Union has created a Solidarity Fund (the Fund) to show solidarity with the population of regions struck by disasters.

| (2) | Slovakia submitted an application to mobilise the Fund on 24 January 2005, following a disaster caused by a storm. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Slovakia submitted an application to mobilise the Fund on 24 January 2005, following a disaster caused by a storm.

| (3) | The Interinstitutional Agreement of 7 November 2002 allows mobilisation of the Fund within an annual ceiling of EUR 1 billion. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Interinstitutional Agreement of 7 November 2002 allows mobilisation of the Fund within an annual ceiling of EUR 1 billion.

| (4) | The storm disaster in Slovakia in November 2004 fulfils the criteria for mobilising the European Union Solidarity Fund, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The storm disaster in Slovakia in November 2004 fulfils the criteria for mobilising the European Union Solidarity Fund,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The European Union Solidarity Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 5 667 578 in commitment appropriations from the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2005.

Article 2

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Strasbourg, 7 September 2005.

For the European Parliament

The President

J. BORRELL FONTELLES

For the Council

The President

D. ALEXANDER

---

(1)  
  OJ C 283, 20.11.2002, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 311, 14.11.2002, p. 3.

2

---
Emission reductions from GA EPD CMAQ and HPP Locomotive conversions

Emissions are considered to be constant (hourly, year-round).

Let me know if you need more specific timing on when projects will be phased in.

Emission Reduction Emission Reduction

DPM** NOx DPM** NOx

2015 Atlanta $24,000,000 9.56 190.78 95.59 1907.75 Mostly Fulton, also Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, and Gwinnett 

2015 Macon $6,200,000 2.20 38.93 22.00 389.30 Mostly Bibb, also Crawford, Houston, Monroe, Jones, Peach, or Twiggs

2015 Rome $900,000 0.68 8.42 6.77 84.24 Floyd

2016 Atlanta $12,000,000 4.78 95.39 47.80 953.88 Mostly Fulton, also Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, and Gwinnett 

2016 Macon $1,800,000 0.64 11.30 6.39 113.02 Bibb

*match funding not included

**Diesel Particulate Matter (assume PM2.5)

Note that locomotive fleet turnover should improve other emissions by the time these phase out.

Total NOx Reductions in 

Gasoline Marketing Area: 199.20 tons/year

10 year 

(tons)

Estimate for remaining funds

Expected start years 

reductions may be partial the 

first year (if not all introduced 

by Jan)

Annual

(tons)

Railyard 

Areas

Public Funding* 

($)
# October 2008 - December 2009
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 10, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r 135762 & (25) Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, J ustices PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 135762 COA: 280767 Wayne CC: 06-010996-01 JOHNNY RAZKOM PUTRUS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion fo r miscellaneous relief is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the December 20, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1 ), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration, as on leave granted, of the defendant’s argument that the trial court erroneously permitted the introduction of evidence of prior drug transact ions under MRE 404(b). In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d0903 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 10, 2008

Clerk
Exhibit 31.2





CERTIFICATION OF ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO


SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, David Koos, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Bio Matrix Scientific Group, Inc.





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 Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4.  The registrant'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 Registrant 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 Registrant, 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 Registrant’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 Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and





5.  I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):





(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 Registrant’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 Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.





Date:   July 12, 2010
By:
/s/ David R. KoosDavid R. KoosActing Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)
SECRETARY OF  DELEWARE
                                                         SECRETARY OF  STATE
                                                      DIVISION  OF  CORPORATIONS
                                                      FILED 09:00 AM 09/26/1991
                                                         912705028 - 2271209

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                       OF

                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION


     SIMS COMMUNICATIONS INC., a corporation organized and existing under and by
-----------------------------
virtue  of  the  General  Corporation  Law  of  the  State  of  Delaware.

DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

     FIRST:  That at a meeting of the Board of Directors of SIMS COMMUNICATIONS
                                                            -------------------
INC.,  resolutions were duly adopted setting forth a proposed amendment of the
----
Certificate of Incorporation of said corporation, declaring said amendment to be
advisable and calling a meeting of the stockholders of said corporation for
consideration thereof. The resolution setting forth the proposed amendment is as
follows:

          RESOLVED, that the Certificate of Incorporation of this
          corporation be amended by changing the Article thereof
          numbered " FOURTH" so that, as amended said Article shall be
          and read as follows:

          "The  amount of total authorized capital of this corporation
          ------------------------------------------------------------
          is  5,000,000  shares  of  .0001  par  value.
          ------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     "
          ------------------------------------------------------------

     SECOND: That thereafter, pursuant to resolution of its Board of Directors,
a special meeting of the stockholders of said corporation was duly called and
held, upon notice in accordance with Section 222 of the General Corporation Law
of the State of Delaware at which meeting of the necessary number of shares as
required by statute were voted in favor of the amendment.

     THIRD: That said amendment as duly adopted in accordance with the
provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware.

     FOURTH: That the capital of said corporation shall not be reduced under or
by reason of said amendment.

     IN  WITNESS WHEREOF, said SIMS COMMUNICATIONS INC. has caused its corporate
                               ------------------------
seal  to  be  hereunto affixed and this certificate to be signed by

   Donald M. Marks      its President  and      James J. Caprio
--------------------                         -----------------------
its  Secretary,  this  19  day  of SEPTEMBER, 1991.
                      ----         ---------    --



/s/ James  J.  Caprio                            /s/ Donald M. Marks
--------------------------------                 -------------------------------
Secretary                                        President


<PAGE>
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                                   DYAX CORP.

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY



NAME                    PARENT                STATE OR COUNTRY OF INCORPORATION
----                    ------                ---------------------------------

Dyax Holdings B.V.      Dyax Corp.            Netherlands

Dyax B.V.               Dyax Holdings B.V.    Netherlands

Dyax S.A.               Dyax Corp.            Belgium

Biotage, Inc.           Dyax Corp.            Delaware

Biotage UK, Ltd.        Biotage, Inc.         United Kingdom

Dyax Japan, Ltd.        Biotage, Inc.         Japan

Biotage GmbH            Biotage, Inc.         Germany
Exhibit (4) (b) (xv)



 
Exhibit 4(b)(xv)

 
GE LIFE AND ANNUITY ASSURANCE COMPANY

JOINT OWNER ENDORSEMENT 
 

 
This endorsement is effective on the Contract
Date. 
 
The Contract to which this endorsement is attached is amended by
deleting The Owner provision in its entirety and replacing it with the following: 
 
The Owner 
 
You have rights while this annuity is in
force. These rights are subject to the rights of any irrevocable beneficiary and any assignee under an assignment filed with us. 
 
You may name a Joint Owner. Joint Owners own the Contract equally with the right of survivorship. Right of survivorship means that if a Joint Owner dies, his or her
interest in 
 
the Contract will pass to the surviving Joint Owner.
Disposition of the Contract on death of an Owner is subject to the Death Provisions. 
 
For GE Life and Annuity Assurance Company, 
 
 
/s/  PAMELA S. SCHUTZ 
Pamela S. Schutz 
      President 
 
 

1
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 211 (Friday, October 31, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 59010]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28905]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Revocation of License of Small Business Investment Company

    Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small 
Business Administration by the Final Order of the United States 
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, dated September 
23, 1997, the United States Small Business Administration hereby 
revokes the license of S & S Venture Associates, Ltd., a New York 
corporation, to function as a small business investment company under 
the Small Business Investment Company License No. 02/02-0383 issued to 
S & S Venture Associates, Ltd. on April 25, 1980 and said license is 
hereby declared null and void as of October 21, 1997.

United States Small Business Administration.

    Dated: October 21, 1997.
Don A. Christensen,
Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. 97-28905 Filed 10-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
April 9, 2012 

Mr. William R. Wilkinson 

Vice President of Engineering 

International Biophysics Corporation/Inova Labs, Inc. 

2101 East St. Elmo Road, Suite 275 

Austin, TX 78744 

Dear Mr. Wilkinson: 

This is in response to your January 11, 2011 letter sent to the public docket (No. FAA-2011-

1135) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration on behalf of International Biophysics 

Corporation/Inova Labs, Inc., for an amendment to Special Federal Aviation Regulation 

(SFAR) 106, sections 2 and 3(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That 

amendment, if granted, would change the manufacturer name of the LifeChoice portable 

oxygen concentrator (POC) to reflect current ownership and production by Inova Labs, Inc. 

On January 27, 2012, the FAA amended SFAR 106 to update changes in manufacturer for 

two POC devices (77 FR 4219). A copy of this rule change is enclosed for your information. 

Because the relief you seek is now covered under the amended SFAR, we will take no further 

action on your petition. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Ida M. Klepper 

Manager, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure