alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
LOUIS ROBERT SANTIAGO, as Trustee of the Louis Robert Santiago

Revocable Living Trust dated November 17, 1999, as amended, and

YONG HWAN SANTIAGO, as Trustee of the Yong Shimabukuro

Recoverable Living Trust dated July 25, 1996, as amended,

Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, 

vs. 

RUTH TANAKA, Respondent/Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant. 

 Upon consideration of Respondent/DefendantAppellee/Cross-Appellant Ruth Tanaka’s motion for stay of 

judgment, filed on April 19, 2016, after this court entered 

Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCWC-11-0000697 

17-MAY-2016 

01:37 PM 

SCWC-11-0000697 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS 

(CAAP-11-0000697; CIVIL NO. 08-1-0094) 

ORDER DISMISSING MOTION FOR STAY OF JUDGMENT 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.) 
 

judgment, the papers in support thereof, and the records and 

files herein, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is dismissed. 

 DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 17, 2016. 

Gary Victor Dubin and 

Frederick J. Arensmeyer

for petitioner 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama 

Robert Goldberg 

for respondent 

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack 

/s/ Michael D. Wilson 

2
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 State

          - [Public Notice: 12289]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that a certain object being imported from abroad pursuant to an agreement with its foreign owner or custodian for temporary display in the exhibition “Weaving Abstraction in Ancient and Modern Art” at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is of cultural significance, and, further, that its temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Reed Liriano, Program Coordinator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:                         *section2459@state.gov*). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 523 of December 22, 2021.                

Nicole L. Elkon,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2023-27696 Filed 12-15-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
ANIMAL CARE AID

Questions? Email us at CenterforAnimalWelfare@usda.gov 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Animal Care • AC-18-015

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Issued October 2018 • Reviewed February 2024

Special Needs of Primates 

Unable To See or Hear Other Primates 

This Animal Care Aid is part of a series developed to help with promoting psychological well-being in primates. 

Topics covered in the series include social grouping, supporting species-typical activities, and special considerations. 

Captive primates need special 

attention when they cannot see 

or hear other primates.

PRACTICAL TIP

BEFORE you obtain 

a new primate, plan 

ahead. Do you already 

have a social partner who 

will be housed with or 

near your new primate? If 

not, consider getting more 

than one of the same or a 

compatible species, so they 

will provide companionship 

for each other. Another 

option would be to hold off 

on obtaining a new primate 

until you are prepared to 

meet his or her social needs.

Any other primate species 

won’t necessarily be a 

compatible species. The 

best option is one of the 

same species. 

Thinking about which 

species your primate might 

have positive encounters 

with in the wild may help 

you identify other species 

that would be compatible.

COMMON STRATEGIES

Below are a few common ways to offer social 

stimulation to primates who cannot see or 

hear other primates. These strategies are often 

used in combination for the best results.

l Mirrors

l Auditory enrichment, such as jungle sounds and

“conspecific” calls (sounds from the same species)

l Video enrichment, including movies or videos

of primates in the wild

l Increased positive interactions with people

These examples are only suggestions; other 

options not mentioned here may also be 

appropriate. Ideally, you will 

decide which strategies to use 

based on how effective they are 

in supporting the social needs 

of your primate.

WHY DO THEY NEED 

SPECIAL ATTENTION?

Being able to see or hear other primates 

is a key part of many primate’s social 

needs. In fact, it is essential for their 

psychological well-being. 

But, what happens when a primate’s 

housing situation makes it hard to 

meet his or her needs to interact with 

other primates? In these cases, special 

attention must go into planning the 

primate’s care.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

FLOYD WILSON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 786 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 7th day of June, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
DISMISSED; Opinion Filed June 26, 2019.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-18-00769-CV

CHRISTOPHER EDGAR, BRYAN EDGAR, GARRY EDGAR, KYLE BEBEE, JUSTIN 

TRAIL, AND CLEAR FORK WIRELINE, LLC, Appellants

V.

INTEGRITY WIRELINE AND OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC, INTEGRITY WIRELINE 

HOLDINGS, LLC, STEVEN SMATHERS, AND JAMES E. SOWELL, Appellees

On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-17-14239

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Myers, Molberg, and Carlyle

Opinion by Justice Carlyle

Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to dismiss this appeal. The parties inform the 

Court that they have reached a settlement. Accordingly, we grant the parties’ motion and dismiss 

the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a).

180769F.P05

/Cory L. Carlyle/

CORY L. CARLYLE

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

CHRISTOPHER EDGAR, BRYAN 

EDGAR, GARRY EDGAR, KYLE 

BEBEE, JUSTIN TRAIL, AND CLEAR 

FORK WIRELINE LLC, Appellants

No. 05-18-00769-CV V.

INTEGRITY WIRELINE AND OILFIELD 

SERVICES, LLC, INTEGRITY 

WIRELINE HOLDINGS, LLC, STEVEN 

SMATHERS, AND JAMES E. SOWELL, 

Appellees

On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-17-14239.

Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle. 

Justices Myers and Molberg participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellees INTEGRITY WIRELINE AND OILFIELD SERVICES, 

LLC, INTEGRITY WIRELINE HOLDINGS, LLC, STEVEN SMATHERS, AND JAMES E. 

SOWELL recover their costs of this appeal from appellants CHRISTOPHER EDGAR, BRYAN 

EDGAR, GARRY EDGAR, KYLE BEBEE, JUSTIN TRIAL, AND CLEAR FORK WIRELINE 

LLC.

Judgment entered this 26th day of June, 2019.
Exhibit 10.2


 


Fourth AMENDMENT
TO Promissory note


 


THIS
Fourth Amendment (THE “THIRD AMENDMENT”) DATED July 27, 2018,
shall amend the Promissory note (THE “NOTE”) dated AS OF september 12,
2011 and AS amended on 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 FROST
GAMMA INVESTMENTS TRUST (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 Amended 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:	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	FROST GAMMA INVESTMENTS TRUST	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	
        /s/ Phillip Frost, M.D.

        
	 	 	 
	Name:	
        Phillip Frost, M.D.

        
	 	 	 
	Title:	Trustee
<PAGE>
 
 Amendment to the Master Agreement for Joint Collaboration Dated 
                               November 14,1997
                           (hereinafter "Agreement")



                                    between



     fonix corporation. Salt Lake City. Utah, U.S.A. (hereinafter "fonix")

                                      and

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft Berlin and Munchen, Germany (hereinafter "Siemens")



Pursuant to paragraph 3.2 of the Agreement, 2,000,000 DM of the 5,000,000 DM
which Siemens shall pay to fonix upon execution of the First Statement of Work
shall be allocated to the purchase of fonix common stock. The Parties hereby
agree to prolong the Period in which Siemens may purchase such fonix common
stock from ninety (90) days from the date of the Agreement to hundred and twenty
(120) days from the date of the Agreement.

Further the Parties agree, that either Siemens or Siemens Microelectronics Inc.,
Cupertino shall be entitled to exercise the warrants for the acquisition of
shares of fonix stock and/or to purchase fonix common stock as stipulated in
paragraph 3.2 of the Agreement

The other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed by their duly authorized representatives on the dates specified below:



Date: 13 Feb 1998                       Date: 5 Feb 1998
fonix corporation                       Siemens Aktiengesellschaft 

/s/ Roger D. Dudley                     /s/ signature illegible
--------------------------              ----------------------------------
Roger D. Dudley
19508

#### State v. Miller

Affirmed
H. Res. 843 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 7, 2016. 

Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, 

declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 

House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill 

(H.R. 5063) to limit donations made pursuant to settlement 

agreements to which the United States is a party, and for 

other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the 

bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill 

and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled 

by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee 

on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be 

in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 

amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 

nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the 

Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee amendment 

in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All 
2 

•HRES 843 EH 

points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 

order except those printed in the report of the Committee on 

Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment 

may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may 

be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall 

be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, 

and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All 

points of order against such amendments are waived. At the 

conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 

Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 

such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member 

may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment 

adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the 

committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 

amendments thereto to final passage without intervening mo-
3 

•HRES 843 EH 

tion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Milestone Scientific Inc. on Form 10-KSB
for the year ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Rosaline Shau, Chief Financial
Officer of Milestone, 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 Milestone.
..



                              /s/ Rosaline Shau
                              ---------------------------
                              Rosaline Shau
                              Chief Financial Officer
                              March 31, 2006
# C_2021028EN.01000302.xml

| 25.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 28/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 November 2020 — European External Action Service v Chantal Hebberecht

(Case C-93/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - European External Action Service (EEAS) - Policy of rotating officials - Position of Head of the European Union Delegation to Ethiopia - Decision refusing to extend the assignment to that position - Interests of the service - Principle of equal treatment - Positive discrimination in favour of the under-represented sex - Article 1d of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union)

(2021/C 28/04)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spáč, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Chantal Hebberecht

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the EEAS to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the EEAS to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATE OFPRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERPursuant to Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18United States Code**

The undersigned, being the Principal Executive Officerof Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. (the “Partnership”), hereby certifies thatthe Partnership’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2006, filed with the United States Securitiesand Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)), fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, and that information contained in suchQuarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Partnership.

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, orother document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to thePartnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

| Date: October 30, 2006 |                            |
|-----------------------------|---------------------------------|
| * *                    | /s/ STEPHEN J. J. LETWIN        |
| * *                    | Stephen J. J. Letwin            |
| * *                    | *Managing Director*             |
| * *                    | *(Principal Executive Officer)* |

 

----
#### State v. Adams

16134

9/29/94

Denied

- Haw.App. -, 880 P.2d 226
Safeguarding American Agriculture

 Federal Relay Service

 APHIS is an agency of USDA’s Marketing and Regulatory Programs (Voice/TTY/ASCII/Spanish)

An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer 1-800-877-8339

December 8, 2005 

CENTER FOR VETERINARY BIOLOGICS NOTICE NO. 05-23 

Subject: Chimera as an Additional Naming Convention for 

 Live Recombinant Products 

To: Biologics Licensees, Permittees, and Applicants 

 Veterinary Services Management Team 

 Directors, Center for Veterinary Biologics 

 Area Veterinarians in Charge, VS 

 State Veterinarians 

I. PURPOSE 

This notice serves to inform licensees, permittees, and applicants of an additional 

descriptive term in the True Name of products containing recombinant master seeds. The 

use of “Chimera” in addition to the term “Vector” will be utilized. A definition of the 

term “Chimera” versus “Vector” follows. 

II. BACKGROUND 

Previously licensed live recombinant products have utilized the word “Vector” in the 

True Name to define a backbone that carries non-essential foreign genes that express 

immunogenic proteins. Therefore, the organism that receives the foreign genes is 

replication competent without the gene inserts. 

Constructs that (1) are not replication competent when the recombination event is 

reversed and (2) are comprised of segments from two or more genomes in which each 

segment consists of multiple essential genes are sometimes referred to as chimeras. The 

working definition of the term “chimera” is a new hybrid microorganism created by 

joining nucleic acid fragments from two or more different microorganisms in which each 

of at least two of the fragments contain essential genes necessary for replication. For 

these types of microorganisms, the term “Chimera” will be used in the True Name in the 

place of “Vector”. 

Since this substitution generally requires that the two microorganisms be closely related, 

the resulting construct will be named by the family name (rather than the two individual 

microorganisms) followed by the word “Chimera”. 

The initial part of the True Name will reflect the target disease for which a claim for 

 protection has been approved. This will be set apart by a comma and followed by the 

 family name of the parental strain and the word “Chimera”. 

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection 

Service 

Veterinary Services 

Center for Veterinary 

Biologics 

510 S. 17th Street, 

Suite 104 

Ames, IA 50010 

(515) 232-5785 

FAX (515) 232-7120 
Center for Veterinary Biologics Notice No. 05-23 2 

 

III. ACTION 

When submitting the license application (APHIS Form 2003) for products based on a 

chimeric construct, please indicate the disease and the family name followed by the word 

“Chimera” for the True Name (Box 4). 

When submitting labeling for this type of product, the circular should clearly designate 

the species of the two parental microorganisms combined to construct the chimera. 

/s/ Richard E. Hill, Jr. 

Richard E. Hill, Jr. 

Director 

Center for Veterinary Biologics