alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SUBLEASE
AGREEMENT


This
is an agreement to sublet office space located at 4700 Spring Street, Suite 304, La Mesa, California 91942 according to the terms
specified below.


 


The
sublessor agrees to sublet and the subtenant agrees to take the premises described below. Both parties agree to keep, perform
and fulfill the promises, conditions and agreements below:


 


1.
The sublessor is: Entest Group, Inc.


 


2.
The subtenant is: Zander Therapeutics, Inc.


 


3.
The term of this sublease is month to month beginning July 5, 2018.


 


4.
The rent payable to the sublessor by the subtenant is equal to Six Thousand Dollars per month ($6,000) and is to be paid at such
time as specified in accordance with the original lease agreement between the sublessor and the lessor. Rent includes the use
of computer equipment, furnishings and supplies.


 


5.
All charges for utilities connected with premises are to be paid by the sublessor.


 


6.
Subtenant agrees to surrender and deliver to the sublessor the premises, computer equipment and all furniture and decorations
within the premises in as good a condition as they were at the beginning of the term, reasonable wear and tear excepted. The subtenant
will be liable to the sublessor for any damages occurring to the premises or the contents thereof or to the building which are
done by the subtenant.


 


7.
This agreement may be terminated at any time by either party by five days written notice from the terminating party to the other.
In the event that this agreement is terminated prior to the conclusion of a 30 day rental period (“Rent Month”) rent
due by the subtenant to the sublessor for that period shall be prorated for that Rent Month .


 


8.
In the event of any legal action concerning this sublease, the losing party shall pay to the prevailing party reasonable attorney’s
fees and court costs to be fixed by the court wherein such judgment shall be entered.


 


The
parties hereby bind themselves to this agreement by their signatures affixed below on this 3rd day of July, 2018.


 


	Entest Group, Inc.	 
	By:	/s/David Koos	 
	 	Chief Executive Officer	 
	 	 	 
	Zander Therapeutics, Inc.	 
	By:	/s/David Koos	 
	 	Chief Executive Officer
# C_2019004EN.01001101.xml

| 7.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 4/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 4/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Chambre disciplinaire de première instance de l’ordre des chirurgiens-dentistes de Midi-Pyrénées (France) lodged on 24 April 2018 — Conseil départemental de l’ordre des chirurgiens-dentistes de la Haute-Garonne v RG, RG

(Case C-296/18)

(2019/C 4/15)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Chambre disciplinaire de première instance de l’ordre des chirurgiens-dentistes de Midi-Pyrénées

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Conseil départemental de l’ordre des chirurgiens-dentistes de la Haute-Garonne

Defendants: RG, RG

By order of 23 October 2018, the Court (Eighth Chamber) ruled:

Article 8 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a general and absolute prohibition of any advertising by members of the dental profession, in that that profession prohibits any recourse to online advertising methods that promotes specific dentists or their company.

---
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-08-00262-CV

No. 10-08-00263-CV

7.02 ACRES OF LAND AND $10,000

IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY,

Appellants

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 220th District Court

Bosque County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 07-07-19807-BCCV and 07-07-19707-BCCV

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The parties have filed agreed motions to dismiss these appeals. Accordingly, the 

appeals are dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1).

 

FELIPE REYNA

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed October 1, 2008

[CV06]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED> 
<CIK> 0000880052
<NAME> TOWNE FINANCIAL CORP/0H
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,783
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              58
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   200
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     14,104
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          14,835
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            14,643
<LOANS>                                         75,548
<ALLOWANCE>                                        256
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 111,424
<DEPOSITS>                                      89,300
<SHORT-TERM>                                     6,055
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,379
<LONG-TERM>                                      6,690
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           209
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,791
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 111,424
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  3,140
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  907
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    88
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 4,135
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,264
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,638
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,497
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       12
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  13
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,008
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    628
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         628
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       410
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.87
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.91
<LOANS-NON>                                        101
<LOANS-PAST>                                       581
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   250
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  256
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               256
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
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 MISONIX, 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, Michael A. McManus,
      Jr., President and 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 result of operations of the
                Company.





Dated:
      May 12, 2008


/s/
                  Michael A. McManus, Jr.Michael
                  A. McManus, Jr.President
                  and Chief Executive Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to MISONIX, INC. and will be retained by
      MISONIX, INC. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
      staff upon request.
#### Herbert ZSCHIEGNER, Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America; Stan McDonald; Guardian Environmental.

No. 04-3385.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Feb. 22, 2005.

Decided Aug. 16, 2005.

Herbert Zschiegner, Manasquan, NJ, pro se.

Susan J. Steele, Office of United States Attorney, Newark, NJ, for United States of America.

Before ROTH, MCKEE and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Herbert Zschiegner, appeals from the District Court’s order granting appellee’s motion to dismiss his amended complaint. Zschiegner filed an amended complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey seeking compensatory damages against the United States of America (“United States”) for its alleged misrepresentation to the Canadian courts “of the substantive and procedural laws of the United States” during an execution action against his property. The United States filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. After concluding that the government’s immunity was *727not waived under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2671 *et seq.,*for a claim arising out of an alleged misrepresentation, the District Court granted appellee’s motion and dismissed the amended complaint. The court further concluded that Zschiegner could not properly assert a claim for recoupment, since such a claim may only be brought as a counterclaim. This timely appeal followed.

We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and exercise plenary review over a District Court’s order dismissing a complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. *See In re Cybergenics Corp.,*226 F.3d 237, 239 (3d Cir.2000). After careful scrutiny of appellant’s amended complaint and the parties’ submissions on appeal, we agree that the District Court lacked subject jurisdiction over Zschiegner’s claim for compensatory damages against the United States for its alleged misrepresentation to the Canadian courts, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2680(h), and that appellant’s purported claim of recoupment was improper. *See Livera v. First Nat’l State Bank,*879 F.2d 1186, 1195-96 (3d Cir.1989); *see also United States v. American Color and Chem. Corp.,*858 F.Supp. 445, 451 (M.D.Pa.1994) (“A recoupment claim can be asserted only when the plaintiff is seeking damages for a defendant’s actions and the defendant counterclaims seeking to reduce any potential damage award because of the plaintiffs actions.”). Accordingly, while we grant Zschiegner’s motion for leave to file a supplemental brief, we will affirm the District Court’s final order dismissing his amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
#### Crabbe v. Associates Co. Financial Services of Hawai'i

23463

09/28/2001

Affirmed
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Carroll A. Wallace, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this 10-K Report of Exabyte Corporation;

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.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and 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 the registrant’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 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 controls over financial reporting.

Dated: March 18, 2005

| /s/ CARROLL A. WALLACE |
|------------------------|

Carroll A. Wallace

Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer

(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
August 15, 2000

22240

#### Duda v. Rockwell Power Systems Co.

Affirmed
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000855112
<NAME>                        ENEX OIL & GAS INCOME PROGRAM IV - SERIES 4, L.P.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 jan-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   dec-31-1996
<CASH>                                         3238
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  7713
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               12758
<PP&E>                                         1157181
<DEPRECIATION>                                 785993
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 383946
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          93851
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     290095
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   383946
<SALES>                                        94299
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               94299
<CGS>                                          69904
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  93449
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               23545
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   850
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
# C_2019187EN.01007402.xml

| 3.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 187/74 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 187/74

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2019 — Zitro IP v EUIPO (PICK & WIN MULTISLOT)

(Case T-277/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark PICK & WIN MULTISLOT - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 187/79)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Zitro IP Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2018 (Case R 978/2017-4) relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign PICK & WIN MULTISLOT as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Zitro IP Sàrl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Zitro IP Sàrl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          22,806
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,158
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,968
<PP&E>                                           1,360
<DEPRECIATION>                                      80
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  25,331
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,061
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,266
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,331
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,288
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 721
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,830)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,830)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,830)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Document Number: Revision: 

Previous Number:

Section/Area:

 Date:

Notes:

Logistic Curve Parameterizations in Commercial Software

CVB-WI-0284 02

STATWI0005.01

CVB-WI-PEL-STAT

25 Feb 2023

CVB-Released
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 250 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Congress should 

pass no law that would exempt from its obligations or provide any 

other special consideration to elected or appointed Federal officials or 

any other Federal employee. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 1, 2015 

Mr. YOUNG of Iowa (for himself, Ms. STEFANIK, Mr. POLIQUIN, Mr. ALLEN, 

Mr. BISHOP of Michigan, Mr. BABIN, Mr. KNIGHT, Mr. CURBELO of 

Florida, Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana, Mr. MOOLENAAR, and Mr. WALKER) 

submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 

on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committees 

on House Administration and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 

provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

Congress should pass no law that would exempt from 

its obligations or provide any other special consideration 

to elected or appointed Federal officials or any other 

Federal employee. 

Whereas America was founded upon the principle that a free 

people should be self-governed by fellow citizens elected 

to be their representatives, and not governed by a ruling 

class or subject to rule by elites; 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 250 IH 

Whereas America was also founded on the principle that no 

person, whatever his or her position within government, 

is unbound by the laws of this great Nation and the public trust; 

Whereas these great principles were enshrined in the Nation’s 

founding documents for all future generations by the 

signers of the Declaration of Independence and the framers of the United States Constitution; 

Whereas the American people have continually called for 

more accountability from a Federal Government they 

view as out of touch and out of control; 

Whereas rules and regulations promulgated by the Federal 

Government from Washington, DC, continually play a 

larger role in Americans day-to-day lives; 

Whereas there is a growing perception in America that elected officials and unaccountable bureaucrats in the Nation’s capital pass policies that place burdens on hardworking Americans with impunity, knowing they will 

never have to bear their costs; 

Whereas Americans who work hard, follow the law, and only 

ask that no person or group be given preferential treatment under our Nation’s laws expect Federal representatives and a Government that share those values: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is sense of the House of Representa2 tives that Congress should pass no law that would exempt 

3 from its obligations, excuse from its criminal or civil pen4 alties, or provide any other special consideration to Mem5 bers of the House of Representatives, Members of the Sen6 ate, Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, the President, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 250 IH 

1 Vice President, appointees of the Executive, or any Fed2 eral employee. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### State v. Clark

18406

10/31/96

Denied

83 Hawai'i 289, 926 P.2d 194