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

I □ □ 

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ 

□□ 

I I 

I □ 

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid 

OMB control number for this information collection is 0579-0047. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, 

searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. 

OMB APPROVED

0579-0047 

EXP: 01/2027

STATE ALL VACCINATIONS MUST BE PROMPTLY REPORTED 

COOPERATIVE STATE-FEDERAL BRUCELLOSIS ERADICATION PROGRAM 

BRUCELLOSIS VACCINATION RECORD 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE 

VETERINARY SERVICES 

COUNTY CODE 

HERD NUMBER H3R6MOWN3RM (LAST NAME, FIRST NAME, MI) VACCINE MFG AND STRAIN DOSAGE

PREMISES ID NUMBER ROUTE-STREET-ROAD SERIAL NUMBER/EXPIRATION DATE

FULL 

REDUCED 

VACCINATION 

TATTOO 

KIND OF HERD 

DAIRY 

POST OFFICE STATE ZIP CODE CERTIFICATION FOR PAYMENT 

FEDERAL FEE BASIS 

EMPLOYEE (Federal) 

STATE PRIVATE 

COUNTY (Owner’s Expense)

I CERTIFY THAT: (1) I have vaccinated with an approved vaccine; 

offically tattooed and eartagged, or otherwise officially, individually 

identified all animals listed hereon as prescribed by the Brucellosis 

UM and R, and recorded all information as prescribed by State 

regulations; and (2) when payment is claimed at the program's expense

REMARKS 

CV AV 

GPS COORDINATES 

in accordance with the agreement number below, no payment has been or will be received 

from any other source. 

NO. IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 

/G3

BREED SEX P/B

GRADE 

* TATTOO

1 

Signature 6ateMofMVaccination /gree Wode

2 

W3RTIFIW/TIONM OFMOWN3RMORMWITN3SSM

IMW3RTIFYMTH/TMthe animals listed hereon were vaccinated and identified for the above named 

owner.

3 

Signature 6ate

4 

CERTIFICATION FOR RE-ESTABLISHING VACCINATION STATUS 

* Indicate tattoo of animals previously vaccinated in appropriate column.

I CERTIFY THAT I have personally examined the animal(s) noted hereon, and have read the official 

5 tattoo(s), and have retagged them as shown.

6 

Signature 6ate

7 NO. IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 

AGE 

BREED SEX P/B 

GRADE 

* 

Yr.(s)/Mo.(s) TATTOO

8 21 

9 22 

10 23 

11 24 

12 25 

13 26 

14 27 

15 28 

16 29 

17 30 

18 31 

19 32 

20 33 

Yr.(s)/Mo.(s)

BEEF BISON

VS FORM 4-26 

JUN 2014
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Board of Directors
Procyte Corporation
Redmond, Washington

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-04339, 33-59983, 33-48809, and 33-40565 on Form S-8 of Procyte Corporation
of our report dated February 11, 2000 (March 29, 2000 as to Note 11), included
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of ProCyte Corporation for the year ended
December 31, 1999.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Seattle, Washington
March 29, 2000
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 22

- 00051

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF B.A.S. and B.J.S., Children

From the 218th Judicial District Court

, Karnes County, Texas

Trial Court No. 19

- 09

- 00242

- CVK

Honorable Russell Wilson , Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ

, JUSTICE CHAPA , AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order is AFFIRMED. Appellant is unable to afford payment of court costs; no costs are taxed in this appeal.

SIGNED May 3, 2022.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF
                     ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                               OF
             INTERNET BUSINESS'S INTERNATIONAL, INC.

We, Louis Cherry and Albert R. Reda, certify that:

1.  The original articles of International Business Industries,
Inc. were filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on
December 8, 1998.

2.  Pursuant to the unanimous written consent of the Board of
Directors, the company hereby adopts the following amendments to
the Articles of Incorporation of this Corporation:

Article Fourth: Capital Stock is amended to read as follows:

Classes and Number of Shares.  The total number of shares of all
classes of stock, which the Corporation shall have authority to
issue is Two Hundred Million (200,000,000), consisting of One
Hundred Ninety-Nine Million (199,000,000) shares of common stock,
par value of $0.01 per share ("Common Stock"), and One Million
(1,000,000) shares of preferred stock, par value of $0.01 per
share ("Preferred Stock").

3.  On this date, the company has 189,116,953 shares of voting
common stock issued and outstanding.  By a written consent of
104,381,502 shares of this stock (which represents 55.19% of the
total shares), the foregoing amendment to the Articles of
Incorporation of this corporation was approved.

                                  /s/  Louis Cherry
                                  Louis Cherry, President/Director

                                 /s/  Albert R. Reda
                                 Albert R. Reda, Secretary/Director


Verification

State of California
                          SS
County of Orange

On this 22nd day of December, 1999, before me, the
undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally
appeared Louis Cherry and Albert R. Reda, personally known to me
(or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the
persons who subscribed their names to the Certificate of
Amendment of Articles of Incorporation and acknowledged to me
that they executed the same freely and voluntarily and for the
use and purposes therein mentioned.


By: /s/

Notary Public in and for said county
# C_2008183EN.01001501.xml

| 19.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 183/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/15

---

Appeal brought on 21 May 2008 by Sebirán, SL against the judgment delivered on 12 March 2008 in Case T-332/04 Sebirán, SL v OHIM and El Coto de Rioja, SA

(Case C-210/08 P)

(2008/C 183/29)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Sebirán, SL (represented by: J. Calderón Chavero and T. Villate Consonni)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and El Coto de Rioja, SA

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

| — | Annulment of the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 12 March 2008 in Case T-332/04 on the ground that the trade marks EL COTO/COTO DE IMAZ, on the one hand, and COTO D'ARCIS, on the other, are clearly compatible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 12 March 2008 in Case T-332/04 on the ground that the trade marks EL COTO/COTO DE IMAZ, on the one hand, and COTO D'ARCIS, on the other, are clearly compatible;

| — | Order for payment of costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order for payment of costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Challenge to the assessment of the Court of First Instance: Sebirán considers that the Community trade mark COTO D'ARCIS does not infringe the prohibition of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (1) since upon opposition of the proprietor of an earlier mark, in this case the Community marks EL COTO and COTO DE IMAZ, the refusal to register the most recent is not appropriate because it is sufficiently dissimilar, for the purposes of that prohibition, to the earlier marks, notwithstanding that the goods or services covered by both marks are identical or similar, considering the whole and not the separate components, when in addition there is no possibility of a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public of the whole territory of the European Union. The likelihood of confusion does not include the risk of association with the earlier mark.

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 24

- 00117

- CR

Mario Martinez Gonzalez a/k/a Mario Gonzalez Martinez a/k/a Mario Martinez v. The State of Texas

On Appeal from the 404th District Court of Cameron County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2022

- DCR

- 145

JUDG MENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal
DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Ma y 16, 2024
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

SECOND AMENDMENT TO SERVICES AGREEMENT 

THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE SERVICES AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of the 30th day of
December, 2016, by and between Third Security, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company (“THIRD SECURITY”), and Intrexon Corporation, a Virginia corporation (“INTREXON”). 

WHEREAS, THIRD SECURITY and INTREXON entered into that certain Services Agreement, dated as of November 1, 2015 (the
“Agreement”), which Agreement was subsequently amended such that the Agreement would expire on January 1, 2017, unless earlier terminated or extended by agreement of the parties pursuant to Section 4 of the Agreement; 

WHEREAS, as of the date hereof, THIRD SECURITY and INTREXON desire to amend the Agreement to extend the term of the Agreement to
January 1, 2018; and 
 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 4 of the Agreement, this Amendment has been approved unanimously by
the disinterested directors of the INTREXON Board of Directors. 
 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and
covenants herein contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties to this Amendment, intending to be bound hereby, agree as follows: 

1. Defined Terms. All capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the
Agreement. 
 2. Section 4. Section 4 of the Agreement is hereby amended by deleting such section in its entirety
and substituting the following in its stead: 
 “4. Term of Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall commence
immediately upon the date hereof and continue until January 1, 2018 unless earlier terminated by agreement of the parties hereto. The Agreement may be extended on a year-to-year basis by agreement of the Parties, with INTREXON’s agreement
conditioned on the unanimous approval of the independent directors of INTREXON’s Board of Directors. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement shall become terminable (i) at any time by INTREXON upon delivery of written notice to THIRD
SECURITY; and (ii) upon thirty (30) days’ notice by THIRD SECURITY upon delivery of written notice to INTREXON. The obligations in Sections 4, 8, 9, 10 and 11 shall survive termination of this
Agreement. 
 3. No Further Amendments. Except as specifically set forth herein, no amendments or modifications to the
Agreement are hereby effected, and the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 
 4. Counterparts. This Amendment may
be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be deemed an original but all of which shall together constitute but one and the same instrument. 

[Signature page follows] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Amendment as of the date first above
written. 
  

									
	THIRD SECURITY, LLC	 		 	INTREXON CORPORATION
					
	By:	 	 /s/ Marcus E. Smith
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Donald P. Lehr

	Name:	 	Marcus E. Smith	 		 	Name:	 	Donald P. Lehr
	Title:	 	Senior Managing Director and General Counsel	 		 	Title:	 	Chief Legal Officer
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32


      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

         In connection with the Report of Amaru, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Colin Binny President
(Chief Executive Officer) and Francis Foong, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section 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.


/s/ Colin Binny
-------------------------------------
President
October 20, 2005


/s/ Francis Foong
- -------------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
October 20, 2005
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Glenn
Welstad, President, and Chief Executive Officer of Command Center, Inc. (the
“Company”) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge:





This
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended March
27, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “report”),
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and





The
information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date: May
15, 2009







/s/ Glenn
Welstad





Glenn
Welstad


President
and Chief Executive Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED September 16, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-60945 Summary Calendar

WULETAW TEMESGEN

Petitioner

versus JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondent

-------------------- Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A78-354-288

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Wuletaw Temesgen (“Temesgen”), a citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision to deny his application for asylum or withholding of removal. Temesgen argues that the BIA violated his due process rights by summarily affirming the decision of the IJ andNo. 02-60945 -2- that this court is unable to provide a meaningful review of the BIA’s decision. The court has held that the summary affirmance procedures do not violate due process and do not deprive the court of a basis for judicial review. Soadjede v. Ashcroft , 324 F.3d 830, 832-33 (5th Cir. 2003). Temesgen asserts that the BIA and the IJ adopted positions contrary to the evidence and improperly based their decisions on evidence that was not a part of the record, namely the existence of a peace treaty between Ethiopia and Eritrea and the presence of the peacekeepers in Ethiopia. Assuming arguendo that the IJ did take judicial notice of facts concerning current events in Ethiopia, the IJ may take judicial notice of such “commonly acknowledged facts.” See Rivera-Cruz v. INS , 948 F.2d 962, 966- 67 (5th Cir. 1991). Finally, Temesgen argues that his due process rights were violated when the IJ denied his second request for a continuance to obtain additional materials regarding the present status of deportation and segregation of individuals with Eritrean heritage. A review of the record indicates that the denial of the second continuance did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
See Howard v. INS , 930 F.2d 432, 436 (5th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.
December 23, 2016 

Mr. Shawn Martinelli 

720 4th Street 

Sutersville, PA 15083 

Dear Mr. Martinelli: 

This is in response to your letter, dated March 9, 2016, sent to the public docket 

(No. FAA-2016-4766) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an 

exemption from the requirements in FAA Order 8900.2 for appointment as a Designated 

Maintenance Examiner (DME), specifically, the experience requirements for concurrently 

and actively exercising the privileges of a valid aviation mechanic certificate while also 

employed by an FAA Aviation Maintenance Technician School. 

The relief you seek is not a regulatory requirement, therefore your petition for exemption is 

being dismissed. However, a blanket deviation was issued by the Regulatory and Support 

Division, AFS-600, to FAA Order 8900.2A in February of this year that may address your 

concern. This has been enclosed for your reference. If you seek further relief, you would 

need to submit another request for deviation to AFS-600. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

James Crotty 

Manager, Aircraft and 

 Airport Rules Division 

Enclosure
# C_2008247EN.01000301.xml

| 27.9.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/3

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 18 June 2008 — Bundesfinanzdirektion West v HEKO Industrieerzeugnisse GmbH

(Case C-260/08)

(2008/C 247/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Bundesfinanzdirektion West

Appellant:

Respondent: HEKO Industrieerzeugnisse GmbH

Respondent:

Question referred

Is the only substantial processing or working of products coming under heading 7312 of the Combined Nomenclature which confers non-preferential origin in accordance with Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (1) that which has the effect that the product resulting from that processing or working is to be classified under a different heading of the Combined Nomenclature?

1

---

(1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

1

---
Opinion issued August 23, 2012.

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-12-00353-CV

———————————

ANNESTRICE FRAZIER, Appellant

V.

AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 125th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011-33427

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Annestrice Frazier, has neither paid the required filing fee for this 

appeal nor established indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 5 (“A party who is not excused by statute or these rules from paying costs must 

pay—at the time an item is presented for filing—whatever fees are required by 
2

statute or Supreme Court order.”), 20.1 (listing requirements for establishing 

indigence); see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 51.207 (Vernon Supp. 2011), § 

51.941(a) (Vernon 2005), § 101.041 (Vernon Supp. 2011) (listing fees in court of 

appeals); Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil Cases in the Supreme Court and 

the Courts of Appeals and Before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, 

Misc. Docket No. 07-9138 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2007), reprinted in TEX. R. APP. P. app. 

A § B(1) (listing fees in court of appeals). Appellant was notified on April 19, 

2012 that this appeal would be subject to dismissal if the filing fee was not paid by 

April 29, 2012. After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, 

appellant did not adequately respond. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5 (allowing enforcement 

of rule); 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case). Appellant was again 

notified on June 5, 2012 that this appeal was subject to dismissal for failure to pay 

the fee. Appellant did not respond. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5 (allowing enforcement 

of rule); 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case).

We dismiss the appeal. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Bland, Massengale, and Brown.
Exhibit No. 32.1
Form 10-KSB
Universal Express, Inc.
File No. 0-18094



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Universal Express, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard Altomare,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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
results of operations of the Company.


Dated: September 28, 2006             By:  /s/ Richard Altomare
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Richard Altomare
                                           Chief Executive Officer and
                                           Chief Accounting Officer


This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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 the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.




                                       26