alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Item_5_1_9a_Camelpox/ page 1

Annex 22

**USA COMMENTS IN RED FONT**

CHAPTER ~~X~~16.Z.**INFECTION WITH CAMELPOX VIRUS**

Article ~~X~~16.Z.1.

General provisions

For the purposes of the *Terrestrial Code*, *infection* with ~~c~~Camelpox virus is defined as an *infection* of dromedary ~~and~~or bactrian camels, or New World camelids (hereafter ‘susceptible animals’) with ~~c~~*Camelpox virus*~~of genus *Orthopoxvirus*, family *Poxviridae*~~.

**RATIONALE:**Editorial for consistency with the spelling of Camelpox. The list of susceptible species should include New World camelids, as the WOAH Terrestrial Manual Chapter 3.5.1 states that New World camelids are also susceptible.

The following defines the occurrence of *infection* with ~~c~~*Camelpox virus*:

1)	~~c~~*Camelpox virus* has been isolated and identified as such in a sample from a susceptible animal; or 

2)	characteristic ~~o~~*Orthopox* virions have been observed in a sample from a susceptible animal showing clinical signs ~~suggestive of~~consistent with *infection* with ~~c~~*Camelpox virus* or epidemiologically linked to a confirmed or suspected *case*; or 

**RATIONALE:**Editorial for proper capitalization of Genus.

3)	antigen or nucleic acid specific to ~~c~~*Camelpox virus* has been detected in a sample from a susceptible animal showing clinical signs ~~suggestive of~~consistent with *infection* with ~~c~~*Camelpox virus*, or epidemiologically linked to a confirmed or suspected *case*; or

4)	antibodies specific to ~~c~~*Camelpox virus*, that are not the consequence of *vaccination*, have been detected in a sample from a susceptible animal showing clinical signs ~~suggestive of~~consistent with *infection* with ~~c~~*Camelpox virus*, or epidemiologically linked to a confirmed or suspected *case*.

Standards for ~~diagnostic tests~~diagnosis and vaccines, as well as information on the epidemiology, are described in the *Terrestrial Manual*. 

___________________________

*WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission/September 2022*

Report of the Meeting of the WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission/September 2023	1
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**543 CAF 14-00328**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, SCONIERS, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF JONATHAN D. VANSKIVER, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MALLORY J. CLANCY, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

CARA A. WALDMAN, FAIRPORT, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

SAMANTHA PETERS SMITH, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, CANISTEO.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Steuben County (Gerard J. Alonzo, Jr., J.H.O.), entered January 29, 2014 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order granted petitioner sole legal custody and primary physical placement of the parties’ child.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: On appeal from an order modifying a prior custody order by, inter alia, awarding sole legal custody and primary physical placement of the parties’ child to petitioner father, respondent mother contends that she was denied effective assistance of counsel. “[W]e note at the outset that, ‘because the potential consequences are so drastic, the Family Court Act affords protections equivalent to the constitutional standard of effective assistance of counsel afforded defendants in criminal proceedings’ ” ( Matter of Brown v Gandy , 125 AD3d 1389, 1390). We nevertheless reject the mother’s contention inasmuch as she did not “ ‘demonstrate the absence of strategy or other legitimate explanations’ for counsel’s alleged shortcomings” ( People v Benevento , 91 NY2d 708, 712; see Matter of Reinhardt v Hardison , 122 AD3d 1448, 1449).
Contrary to the mother’s further contention, Family Court did not abuse its discretion in denying her attorney’s request for an adjournment and in holding the hearing in her absence ( see Matter of O’Leary v Frangomihalos , 89 AD3d 948, 949; see generally Matter of Steven B. , 6 NY3d 888, 889). The mother was aware of the hearing date, and her attorney’s “vague claim that [she] was unable to attend the hearing due to [winter weather conditions] was unsupported by any detailed explanation or evidence from the [mother]” ( Matter of**-2- 543 CAF 14-00328** 

Braswell v Braswell , 80 AD3d 827, 829; see O’Leary , 89 AD3d at 949).

Entered: May 1, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
# C_2021502EN.01001801.xml

| 13.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 502/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 502/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 October 2021 — Polskie Linie Lotnicze ‘LOT’ v Commission

(Case T-296/18) (1)

(Competition - Concentrations - Air transport - Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement - Relevant market - Assessment of the effects of the concentration on competition - Commitments - Obligation to state reasons)

(2021/C 502/27)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Polskie Linie Lotnicze ‘LOT’ S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Jeżewski and M. König, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Wildpanner, T. Franchoo and J. Szczodrowski, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: S. Völcker and R. Benditz, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 9118 final of 21 December 2017 (Case No COMP/M.8633 — Lufthansa / Certain Air Berlin assets) declaring a concentration compatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Polskie Linie Lotnicze ‘LOT’ S.A. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Polskie Linie Lotnicze ‘LOT’ S.A. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.

---
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 606 

Expressing support for designation of February 4, 2016, as National Cancer 

Prevention Day. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 4, 2016 

Mr. ISRAEL (for himself, Mr. HIGGINS, Mr. GRIJALVA, Ms. SPEIER, Mr. 

NOLAN, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. DENT, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Ms. LEE, Mr. RANGEL, 

Ms. BORDALLO, Mrs. DINGELL, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. 

CONNOLLY, Mr. COOPER, Mr. CICILLINE, and Mr. MCGOVERN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 

Energy and Commerce 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for designation of February 4, 2016, 

as National Cancer Prevention Day. 

Whereas National Cancer Prevention Day is a day to remind 

us that when looking at cancer we need to look at prevention and reducing risks for human health and the environment; 

Whereas when we work to prevent cancer risks, it impacts 

human health, the environment, and the economy; 

Whereas cancer is one of the leading causes of death around 

the world and has touched the lives of nearly everyone, 

either directly or indirectly; 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 606 IH 

Whereas the disease is the cause of nearly 1 out of every 4 

deaths in the United States; 

Whereas by the end of 2016, approximately 1,685,210 new 

cases are expected to be diagnosed across the United 

States; 

Whereas more than 1,600 cancer-related deaths per day are 

expected throughout the year for a total of approximately 

595,690; and 

Whereas February 4, 2016, would be an appropriate date to 

designate as Cancer Prevention Day: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the designation of National Cancer 

3 Prevention Day; 

4 (2) recognizes all efforts to raise awareness for 

5 the reduction of cancer risks; and 

6 (3) recognizes the devastating effect cancer has 

7 on families and wishes to expand knowledge, encour8 age early detection, and work with friends in the 

9 medical and scientific fields to put an end to this 

10 deadly disease. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 10.3


 


Fourth AMENDMENT
TO Promissory note


 


THIS
Fourth Amendment (THE “FOURTH AMENDMENT”) DATED July 27, 2018,
shall amend the Promissory note (THE “NOTE”) dated AS OF september 12,
2011 AND AS amended July 31, 2013 (the “First Amendment”), july 27, 2015 (the “Second amendment), and July 20,
2017 (The “Third AMendment”) AMONG NON-INVASIVE MONITORING SYSTEMS, INC. (THE “MAKER”) AND marie
wolf (THE “PAYEE”) AS NOTED BELOW. THE NOTE, THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THE SECOND AMENDMENT, THE THIRD AMENDMENT,
AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT SHALL BE REFERRED TO AS THE AMENDED NOTE.


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS, Maker and
Payee (collectively, the “Parties”) are parties to the Note which became effective on September 12, 2011;


 


WHEREAS, on July
20, 2017, the Parties amended the Note to extend the Maturity Date from July 31, 2017 until July 31, 2018; and


 


WHEREAS, the Parties
wish to extend the Maturity Date from July 31, 2018 to July 31, 2020.


 


NOW THEREFORE, in
consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained in the Note and this Fourth Amendment and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:


 


AMENDMENT


 


1. Section
1 of the Note is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:


 


The principal amount of the loan evidenced
hereby, together with any accrued and unpaid interest, and any and all unpaid costs, fees and expenses accrued, shall be due and
payable on July 31, 2020 (the “Maturity Date”).


 


2. Governing Law.
This Fourth Amendment shall be governed by the laws of the State of Florida without regard to its conflict of laws rules or principles.


 


3. Amendments. Except
as expressly amended hereby, the Note shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect.


 


4. Entire Agreement.
This Fourth Amendment and the Note constitute the entire agreement of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and
supersede all prior understandings and writings between the Parties relating thereto.


 



    	 



    	 



     


5. Interpretation.
Any capitalized terms used in this Fourth Amendment but not otherwise defined shall have the meaning provided in the Note.


 


6. Counterparts.
This Fourth Amendment may be executed manually, electronically in Adobe® PDF file format, or by facsimile by the Parties, in
any number of counterparts, each of which shall be considered one and the same amendment and shall become effective when a counterpart
hereof shall have been signed by each of the Parties and delivered to the other Party.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
Borrower has duly executed this Fourth Amendment to the Note and Security Note as of the 27th day of July, 2018.


 


	 	 	 	NON-INVASIVE MONITORING SYSTEMS, INC. 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	By:	
        /s/ James J. Martin

        

	 	 	 	Name:	
        James J. Martin

        

	 	 	 	Title:	
        Chief Financial Officer

        

	 	 	 	 	 
	Agreed and Accepted:	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Marie Wolf	 	 	 
	Name:	
        MARIE WOLF
#### Gallagher, Appellant, *v.*Harrison et al., Appellees.

(No. 31881

Decided October 26, 1949.)

*Messrs. Paxton £ Seasongood,*for appellant.

*Messrs. Nichols, Wood, Marx £ Ginter*and *Mr. Leonard D. Slats,*for appellees.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Turner and Tapt, JJ., concur.

Stewart, J., not participating.
#### Doe v. Doe.

28415, 28498

09/12/2008

Vacated, remanded & affirmed
# C_2018063EN.01002401.xml

| 19.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/24

---

Action brought on 8 January 2018 — Wirecard v EUIPO — AXA Banque (boon.)

(Case T-2/18)

(2018/C 063/32)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Wirecard AG (Aschheim, Germany) (represented by: A. Bayer, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: AXA Banque SA (Fontenay sous Bois, France)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘boon.’ — Application for registration No 14 672 562

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2017 in Case R 706/2017-2

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | reject the opposition brought by AXA Banque, société anonyme, and grant the application for registration of the trade mark applied for; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the opposition brought by AXA Banque, société anonyme, and grant the application for registration of the trade mark applied for;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, and extend this order to AXA Banque, société anonyme, if the latter decides to intervene in the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, and extend this order to AXA Banque, société anonyme, if the latter decides to intervene in the proceedings.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
----

----

**EXHIBIT        21**

**SUBSIDIARIES        OF REGISTRANT**

|   | **1.** | Fonix/AcuVoice,                  Inc., a Utah corporation, wholly owned by                  Fonix |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | **2.** | Fonix/Papyrus                  Corporation, a Utah corporation, wholly owned by                  Fonix |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | **3.** | Fonix                  UK Ltd., a limited company organized under the laws of the United                  Kingdom,                  wholly owned by Fonix |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | **4.** | Fonix                  Sales, Korea Group, Ltd., a Korean entity wholly owned by                  Fonix |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | **5.** | LTEL                  Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation, wholly owned by                  Fonix |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | **6.** | LTEL                  Holdings Corporation, a Delaware corporation, wholly owned by LTEL                  Acquisition Corp. |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | **7.** | LecStar                  Telecom, Inc., a Georgia corporation, wholly owned by LTEL Holdings                  Corporation |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | **8.** | LecStar                  DataNet, Inc., a Georgia corporation, wholly owned by LTEL Holdings                  Corporation |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | **9.** | Fonix                  Telecom, Inc., a Delaware corporation, wholly owned by Fonix |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | **10.** | TOE                  Acquisition Corporation, a Delaware corporation, wholly owned by                  Fonix |
|--------|---------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | **11.** | Fonix                  Speech Inc., a Delaware corporation, wholly owned by                  Fonix |
|--------|---------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21 - 0575

_________________ IN THE MATTER OF: B.L., A Youth in Need of Care. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the Honorable Rienne H. McElyea, District Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 8 2022

06/08/2022
Case Number: DA 21-0575
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 12 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 12

 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United 
 States Postal Service should take all appropriate measures to ensure 
          the continuation of its 6-day mail delivery service.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 2015

  Mr. Graves of Missouri (for himself and Mr. Connolly) submitted the 
following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight 
                         and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United 
 States Postal Service should take all appropriate measures to ensure 
          the continuation of its 6-day mail delivery service.

Whereas the United States Postal Service has announced that it may need to 
        reduce the frequency of its mail delivery service from 6 days a week to 
        5 days a week;
Whereas 6-day mail delivery service is an essential service that the American 
        people have relied on since 1912, particularly working families that 
        depend on the Postal Service for the timely delivery of their paychecks; 
        and
Whereas reducing mail delivery service to 5 days a week would inevitably cause 
        not only delays in the delivery of mail, but higher postal costs, due to 
        the many hours of additional overtime that the Postal Service would 
        require in order to handle the resulting back-up of mail: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
the United States Postal Service should take all appropriate measures 
to ensure the continuation of its 6-day mail delivery service.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2020215EN.01003001.xml

| 29.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg)

(Case T-444/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity and revocation proceedings - EU word mark Peek & Cloppenburg - Earlier national commercial designation Peek & Cloppenburg - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Coexistence of the national commercial designation and the EU trade mark - Demarcation agreement - Application of national law by EUIPO - Suspension of the administrative proceedings - Article 70 of Regulation 2017/1001 - Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) - Manifest error of assessment)

(2020/C 215/36)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: P. Lange, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Renck, M. Petersenn and C. Stöber, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2018 (Case R 522/2006-1), relating to invalidity and revocation proceedings between Peek & Cloppenburg (Hamburg) and Peek & Cloppenburg (Düsseldorf).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 3.9.2018.

---
# C_2019213EN.01003001.xml

| 24.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — Kuota International v EUIPO — Sintema Sport (K)

(Case T-136/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark K - Absolute ground for invalidity - Bad faith - Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 213/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Kuota International Corp. Ltd (Road Town, British Virgin Isles) (represented by: C. Herissay Ducamp, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: V. Ruzek, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Sintema Sport Srl (Albiate, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 (Case R 3111/2014-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Kuota International and Sintema Sport.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 15 December 2017 (Case R 3111/2014-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 15 December 2017 (Case R 3111/2014-1);

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.

---