alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Annex 24 – Item 6.1.7.3.

Annex 24 

***Aquatic Manual* disease chapters Table 4.1. *OIE recommended diagnostic methods and their level of validation for surveillance of apparently healthy animals and investigation of clinically affected animals:*current Key for Table 4.1 with suggested edits tracked)**

**4.	Diagnostic methods**

The methods currently available for identifying infection that can be used in i) surveillance of apparently healthy ~~populations~~animals, ii) presumptive diagnosis in clinically affected animals and iii) confirmatory diagnostic purposes are listed in Table 4.1. by life stage. 

~~The designations used in the Table indicate:~~

**Ratings against purposes of use.** For each recommended assay a qualitative rating against the purpose of use is provided. The ratings are determined based on multiple performance and operational factors relevant to application of an assay for a defined purpose. These factors include appropriate diagnostic performance characteristics, level of assay validation, successful application by diagnostic laboratories, cost, timeliness, and sample throughput. For a specific purpose of use, assays are rated as: 

~~Key:~~

+++ =	Most suitable methods – desirable performance and operational characteristics.

++ = 	Suitable method(s) acceptable performance and operational characteristics under most circumstances. 

+ = 	Less suitable methods – performance or operational characteristics may significantly limit application. 

Shaded boxes = 	Not appropriate for this purpose.

~~The selection of a test for a given purpose depends on the analytical and diagnostic sensitivities and specificities repeatability and reproducibility. OIE Reference Laboratories welcome feedback on diagnostic performance for assays, in particular PCR methods, for factors affecting assay analytical sensitivity or analytical specificity, such as tissue components inhibiting amplification, presence of nonspecific or uncertain bands, etc., and any assays that are in the +++ category.~~

**Validation stage**. The validation stage corresponds to the assay development and validation pathway in chapter 1.1.2. The validation stage is specific to each purpose of use. Where available, information on the diagnostic performance of recommended assays is provided in Section 6.3. 

OIE Reference Laboratories welcome feedback on diagnostic performance of recommended assays, in particular PCR methods. Of particular interest are any factors affecting expected assay sensitivity (e.g. tissue components inhibiting amplification) or expected specificity (e.g. failure to detect particular genotypes). These issues should be communicated to the OIE Reference Laboratories so that advice can be provided to diagnostic laboratories and the standards amended if necessary. 

[...]

**________________________**

Return to Agenda
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
     Statement of Financial Condition at January 31, 1998 (Unaudited) and the
     Statement of Income for the six months ended January 31, 1998 (Unaudited)
     and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000880121
<NAME>                        Market America, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 MAY-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUL-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                         21,028,540
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  196,228
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    1,977,064
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               35,724,604
<PP&E>                                         998,964
<DEPRECIATION>                                 498,795
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 37,026,876
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          7,541,736
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       199
<OTHER-SE>                                     29,356,375
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   37,026,876
<SALES>                                        26,826,596
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               27,257,842
<CGS>                                          6,285,268
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  6,285,268
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               14,409,086
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               6,404
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             23,466
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                6,533,618
<INCOME-TAX>                                   2,658,554
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            6,132,242
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   3,875,064
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .19
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350



The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the report) for the
purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.



Louis R. Tomasetta, the Chief Executive Officer and Eugene F. Hovanec, the Chief Financial
Officer of Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation, each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | the report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: August 3, 2004



|                                                                                                                  
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                  
|/s/ LOUIS R. TOMASETTA                                                                                            
|President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)                                               
|                                                                                                                  
|/s/ EUGENE F. HOVANEC                                                                                             
|Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

SOUTHWESTERN MANAGEM ENT, INC., Appellant

v.

OCINOMLED, LTD., EMERIL'S FOOD OF LOVE PRODUCTIONS, LLC, Appellees

______________________

2015

- 1939

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in No.

94002242.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

R OBERT E. P URCELL

, The Law Office of Robert E. Pu rcell, PLLC, Syracuse, NY, argued for appellant.

D ICKERSON M ARTIN D OWNING

, Law Offices of Dicke rson M. Downing, Stam ford, CT, ar gued for appellee Ocinomled, Ltd

.

D EBORAH K ATHARINE S QUIERS , Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, NY, argued for appellee Emeril’sFood of Love Productions, LLC. Also represented by L YNN S. F RUCHTER

, R ICHARD M ANDEL

.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (T ARANTO

, C LEVENGER

, and C HEN

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

June 15, 2016 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
SCWC-17-0000508

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF BERNICE PAUAHI BISHOP,

also known as KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS,

Respondent/Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee,

vs.

RONALD G.S. AU,

Petitioner/Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff-Appellant.

 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-17-0000508; CIV. NO. 13-1-0420-02)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

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

The application for writ of certiorari, filed on

December 1, 2017, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 10, 2018.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-17-0000508

10-JAN-2018

10:40 AM
<PAGE>   1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IBIS TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION




                           IBIS TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
                   STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE LOSS

<TABLE>
                                   EXHIBIT 11

<CAPTION>
                                                        TWELVE MONTHS ENDED
                                                            DECEMBER, 31,
                                             ------------------------------------------
                                                 1994           1995             1996
                                                 ----           ----             ----
<S>                                          <C>             <C>             <C>        
Net loss reported                            $(1,474,299)    $(3,992,795)    $ (840,116)
Preferred stock accretion                         (8,522)           --             --
                                             -----------     -----------     ----------
Net loss as adjusted                         $(1,482,821)    $(3,992,795)    $ (840,116)
                                             ===========     ===========     ==========
Primary and fully diluted loss per share:
  Weighted average common shares               2,788,986       3,423,864      4,722,025
     outstanding
  Other(1)                                        30,071            --             --
                                             -----------     -----------     ----------
                                               2,819,057       3,423,864      4,722,025
                                             ===========     ===========     ==========
Net loss per common share                    $     (0.53)    $     (1.17)    $     (.18)
                                             ===========     ===========     ==========

<FN>

----------

(1)     Pursuant to Securities and Exchange Commission Staff Accounting Bulletin
        No. 83, common stock issued for consideration below the IPO price of
        $7.00 per share and stock options granted with exercise prices below the
        IPO price during the twelve-month period preceding the date of the
        filing of the registration statement have been included in the
        calculation of common equivalent shares, using the Treasury stock
        method, as if they were outstanding for the period prior to the IPO.

</TABLE>
July 26, 1999

22014

#### Clear-A-Check, Inc. v. Hadley

Affirmed
23 P.3d 773

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I

#### Igawa v. Koa House Restaurant

22464

02/02/2001

Reversed & Affirmed in part
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 863 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 863

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to simplify the treatment of 
 seasonal positions for purposes of the employer shared responsibility 
                              requirement.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 11, 2015

Mr. Renacci (for himself, Mr. Schrader, Ms. Jenkins of Kansas, and Mr. 
    Costa) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to simplify the treatment of 
 seasonal positions for purposes of the employer shared responsibility 
                              requirement.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Simplifying Technical Aspects 
Regarding Seasonality Act of 2015'' or the ``STARS Act''.

SEC. 2. SIMPLIFICATION OF SEASONAL RULES FOR PURPOSES OF EMPLOYER 
              SHARED RESPONSIBILITY REQUIREMENT.

    (a) Full-Time Employee Exception for Determining Assessable 
Payment.--
            (1) In general.--Section 4980H(c)(4) of such Code is 
        amended by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C) 
        and by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new 
        subparagraph:
                    ``(B) Exception for seasonal employees.--Such term 
                shall not include any seasonal employee.''.
            (2) Seasonal employee defined.--Section 4980H(c) of such 
        Code is amended by redesignating paragraphs (5), (6), and (7) 
        as paragraphs (6), (7), and (8), respectively and by inserting 
        after paragraph (4) the following new paragraph:
            ``(5) Seasonal employee.--The term `seasonal employee' 
        means an employee who is employed in a position for which the 
        customary annual employment is not more than 6 months and which 
        requires performing labor or services which are ordinarily 
        performed at certain seasons or periods of the year.''.
    (b) Applicable Large Employer Determination Exception.--Section 
4980H(c)(2)(B) of such Code is amended to read as follows:
                    ``(B) Exception for seasonal employees.--For 
                purposes of subparagraph (A), seasonal employees shall 
                not be taken into account.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect as if included in section 1513 of the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 628 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 628

 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the African-
Americans who duly won election to the House during the post-Civil War 
  Reconstruction Era but were wrongly denied the right to take their 
       seats should be recognized as former Members of the House.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 29, 2016

Mr. Richmond submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                 the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the African-
Americans who duly won election to the House during the post-Civil War 
  Reconstruction Era but were wrongly denied the right to take their 
       seats should be recognized as former Members of the House.

Whereas during the post-Civil War Reconstruction Era, many African-Americans won 
        election to the House of Representatives but were wrongly denied the 
        right to serve as Members;
Whereas James Lewis of Louisiana, who won an election in 1869, was denied his 
        seat in the House when his credentials were challenged;
Whereas John Willis Menard of Louisiana, who also won an election in 1869, was 
        denied his seat in the House on the basis of a challenge by the 
        individual he defeated;
Whereas Pinckney B.S. Pinchback of Louisiana, who had been elected previously to 
        the House, conceded his seat in the House on the assumption that he 
        would be seated in the Senate, but was denied his seat by the Democratic 
        majority; and
Whereas Josiah Thomas Walls of Florida, who had been elected previously to the 
        House, won an election in 1874 but was denied his seat in the House on 
        the basis of a challenge by the individual he defeated, a former colonel 
        in the Confederate army: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives 
that--
            (1) James Lewis, John Willis Menard, Pinckney B.S. 
        Pinchback, and Josiah Thomas Walls duly won election to the 
        House during the post-Civil War Reconstruction Era;
            (2) these individuals were wrongly denied the right to take 
        their seats as Members of the House; and
            (3) these individuals should be recognized as former 
        Members of the House.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2019423EN.01004701.xml

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/47

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 — LegalCareers v EUIPO (LEGALCAREERS)

(Case T-686/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark LEGALCAREERS - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 7(1)(b)of Regulation 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons)

(2019/C 423/59)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: LegalCareers GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Nielen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: G. Schneider and A. Söder, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 September 2018 (Case R 234/2018-4), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign LEGALCAREERS as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders LegalCareers GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders LegalCareers GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

---
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 741 

Recognizing the importance of nonprofit organizations to the economy of 

the United States and expressing support for designation of September 

as ‘‘Nonprofit Organization (NPO) Recognition Month’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 19, 2016 

Mr. HASTINGS (for himself, Mr. CARTWRIGHT, Mr. CONYERS, Ms. NORTON, 

Mr. ELLISON, Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, Mr. HONDA, Mr. GRIJALVA, 

Ms. BORDALLO, Ms. MCCOLLUM, and Ms. MENG) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the importance of nonprofit organizations to the 

economy of the United States and expressing support 

for designation of September as ‘‘Nonprofit Organization 

(NPO) Recognition Month’’. 

Whereas an estimated 1,400,000 nonprofit organizations operate in the United States; 

Whereas the nonprofit sector continues to expand in size and 

scope; 

Whereas nonprofits contribute nearly $1,000,000,000,000 to 

the United States economy annually; 

Whereas nonprofits serve a vital role in facilitating charitable 

giving and social action; 


sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 741 IH 

Whereas the combined donations and volunteer hours of individuals to nonprofit organizations are valued at hundreds 

of billions of dollars; and 

Whereas September would be an appropriate month to designate as ‘‘Nonprofit Organization (NPO) Recognition 

Month’’: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) recognizes the importance of nonprofits to 

3 the communities they serve, the issues they support, 

4 and the economy of the United States; and 

5 (2) supports the designation of ‘‘Nonprofit Or6 ganization (NPO) Recognition Month’’. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2330
GLENDA A. MCCORMACK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROANOKE REGIONAL AIRPORT COMMISSION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-926-7) Submitted: March 7, 2003 Decided: March 19, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Glenda A. McCormack, Appellant Pro Se. Jim Harold Guynn, Jr., GUYNN & MEMMER, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Glenda A. McCormack appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission in her sex discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See McCormack v. Roanoke Regional Airport Comm’n , No. CA-00-926-7 (W.D. Va. Oct. 16, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Three Months EndedMarch 31,2009
    
    
    2008Basic Earnings Per ShareNet income
    
    $
    895,943
    
    
    $
    1,001,760Weighted average
common shares
    
    
    2,734,799
    
    
    
    2,444,597Basic Earnings
Per Share
    
    $
    0.33
    
    
    $
    0.41Diluted Earnings Per ShareNet income
    
    $
    895,943
    
    
    $
    1,001,760Weighted average
common shares
    
    
    2,734,799
    
    
    
    2,444,597Weighted average effect of
assumed stock options
    
    
    
    
    
    
    45Total
    
    
    2,734,799
    
    
    
    2,444,642Diluted Earnings
Per Share
    
    $
    0.33
    
    
    $
    0.41