alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 23





                  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS




POTASH CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN INC.


We hereby consent to the incorporation of our report dated February 9, 2000
(except as to Note 33 which is as of February 22, 2000) into this Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999 and into the following
Registration Statements:

      Registration Statement No. 33-37855 on Form S-8
      Registration Statement No. 333-19215 on Form S-8
      Registration Statement No. 333-93773 on Form S-8
      Registration Statement No. 33-57920 on Form S-3DPOS



[signature]

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS

Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada

March 27, 2000
# C_2018408EN.01006202.xml

| 12.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 408/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 408/62

---

Action brought on 27 September 2018 —  ND (*1) and  OE (*1) v Commission

(Case T-581/18)

(2018/C 408/81)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: ND (*1),  OE (*1) (represented by: A. Bove, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Admit the present application for annulment; |
| --- | --- |

—

Admit the present application for annulment;

| — | On the substance, declare the action well-founded in its pleas, in consequence annul the decision of the European Commission served on 30 July 2018, on the basis of Regulation No 260/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968, and/or of Article 9 of the Treaty on European Union, by way of the action provided for in Article 263 TFEU, and refer the file back to the competent authority; |
| --- | --- |

—

On the substance, declare the action well-founded in its pleas, in consequence annul the decision of the European Commission served on 30 July 2018, on the basis of Regulation No 260/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968, and/or of Article 9 of the Treaty on European Union, by way of the action provided for in Article 263 TFEU, and refer the file back to the competent authority;

| — | Order all acts required by the law in the matter; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order all acts required by the law in the matter;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of the instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the instance;

| — | Reserve to the applicant all other rights, pleas and actions. |
| --- | --- |

—

Reserve to the applicant all other rights, pleas and actions.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation No 260/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation No 260/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9 of the Treaty on European Union, instituting equality between all EU citizens, which was not complied with in the present case. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9 of the Treaty on European Union, instituting equality between all EU citizens, which was not complied with in the present case.

---

(*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

---
# C_2018341EN.01002602.xml

| 24.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 341/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 341/26

---

Action brought on 26 July 2018 — Battelle Memorial Institute v EUIPO (HEATCOAT)

(Case T-469/18)

(2018/C 341/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Battelle Memorial Institute (Columbus, Ohio, United States) (represented by: B. Brandreth QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark HEATCOAT — Application for registration No 16 865 263

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 May2018 in Case R 36/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in its entirety; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in its entirety; and

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the Applicant, including the costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the Applicant, including the costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. SHANE ALVIN GEEDY, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 648 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 19th day of February, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
. Mr. Justice Eakin did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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.
 By:
    
    /s/ Steven L. SpinnerSteven L. SpinnerPresident and Chief Executive OfficerFebruary 26, 2008By:
    
    /s/ John D. AustinJohn D. AustinSenior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerFebruary 26, 2008
# C_2009069EN.01001502.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/15

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Milano (Italy)) — Crocefissa Savia, Monica Maria Porcu, Ignazia Randazzo, Daniela Genovese, Mariangela Campanella v Ministero dell'Istruzione, dell'Università e della Ricerca, Direzione Didattica II Circolo — Limbiate, Úfficio Scolastico Regionale per la Lombardia, Direzione Didattica III Circolo — Rozzano, Direzione Didattica IV Circolo — Rho, Istituto Comprensivo — Castano Primo, Istituto Comprensivo A. Manzoni — Rescaldina

(Case C-287/08) (1)

1

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - No link with Community law - Court clearly lacking jurisdiction)

(2009/C 69/26)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Milano

Parties

Applicants: Crocefissa Savia, Monica Maria Porcu, Ignazia Randazzo, Daniela Genovese, Mariangela Campanella

Applicants:

Defendants: Ministero dell'Istruzione, dell'Università e della Ricerca, Direzione Didattica II Circolo — Limbiate, Úfficio Scolastico Regionale per la Lombardia, Direzione Didattica III Circolo — Rozzano, Direzione Didattica IV Circolo — Rho, Istituto Comprensivo — Castano Primo, Istituto Comprensivo A. Manzoni — Rescaldina

Defendants:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale ordinario di Milano — Interpretation of Article 6(2) EU and of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights — Right to a fair trial — National legislation with retroactive effect which introduces changes in salary conditions under the contract of employment

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Communities manifestly does not have jurisdiction to answer the questions posed by the Tribunale ordinario di Milano by decision of 16 June 2008.

---

(1)  OJ C 236, 13.9.2008.

1

---
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Comments on the Interagency Science 

Consultation Draft IRIS Assessment of RDX (dated September 2014)

Date: October 31, 2014

_____________________________________________________________________________________

NASA Comments, IRIS draft RDX

October 28, 2014

NASA thanks EPA for the opportunity to review and comment on the latest IRIS draft on RDX. We defer 

to the technical and scientific input provided by the Department of Defense (DoD), due to their unique 

and extensive experience this chemical. NASA encourages EPA to work closely with DoD, offering an 

opportunity for collaboration, scientific discussion and collegiality among federal agencies to develop 

sound environmental approach for this chemical.

NASA also commends EPA for initiating a NAS recommendation with the provision of the first use of a 

Pre-Amble in this assessment. We request that EPA develop a clear definition of the nature and scope 

of the Pre-Amble to ensure this new addition to IRIS documents conforms with the recommendations of 

the NAS.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We have issued our reports dated March 16, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and internal control over financial reporting (which report expressed an adverse opinion) included in the Annual Report ofLandry’s Restaurants, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of Landry’s Restaurants, Inc. on Forms S-8 (FileNos. 333-113438, effective March 9, 2004; 333-104175, effective March 31, 2003; and 333-93173, effective December 21, 1999). 

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP 

Houston, Texas 

March 16, 2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          44,037
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  276,286
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (7,022)
<INVENTORY>                                    377,232
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               726,235
<PP&E>                                       3,828,097
<DEPRECIATION>                               (951,037)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,916,830
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          831,003
<BONDS>                                        400,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,216,533
<OTHER-SE>                                     745,853
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,916,830
<SALES>                                      2,061,064
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,061,064
<CGS>                                        1,652,793
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,652,793
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               167,455
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               591,517
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              53,824
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (404,525)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,469
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (411,994)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (411,994)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (7.60)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (7.60)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                               EXHIBIT 10.10(b)

                                   AMENDMENT


Robert Stanzione ("Executive") and ANTEC Corporation ("Company") hereby agree
to amend their agreement of April 29, 1999 (the "Agreement") as follows:

In lieu of the obligation to pay Executive a special bonus of $750,000 as
provided by Section 6 of the Agreement, Company hereby grants Executive 24,077
stock units. Except as provided below, each stock unit will convert to one
share of common stock of Company on June 30, 2004 or such earlier date
Executive is not employed by the Company.

Any distribution on the common stock prior to the conversion of the stock units
will either be distributed to Executive or will result in an equitable
adjustment to the number of stock units. The number of stock units will also be
equitably adjusted for stock splits and similar events.

The stock units and any distributions on the stock units will be forfeited if
prior to June 30 2001, Executive gives Company notice of termination of the
Agreement without Good Reason. 4,815 of the stock units and any distributions
on these units will be forfeited if prior to June 30, 2004, Executive gives
Company notice of termination of the Agreement without Good Reason.

Other than as charged above, the provisions of the Agreement shall continue in
full force and effect.

Dated as of the 31st day of January 2000.



ANTEC Corporation                                       /s/ ROBERT J. STANZIONE
By   /s/ LAWRENCE A. MARGOLIS

Its   CFO
Exhibit 4.43


 


August 25, 2004


 


 


BY
PERSONAL DELIVERY


 


Mr. Dan Brazier


316 Lori Avenue


Stouffville (Ontario)  L4A 6C2


 


Re:
Employment Agreement


 


Dear Dan:


 


By this letter we hereby
confirm that your employment agreement with Draxis Health Inc. dated April 27,
2004 (the “Employment Agreement”) is amended as follows:


 


•                  By deleting and replacing paragraphs
1 and 2 of Section 13 as follows:


 


If at the end of two
years of service (which period shall be deemed to commence as of July 1, 2003)
you determine, solely at your discretion, that the position of Senior Vice
President Corporate Development and Strategic Planning is not satisfactory for
you, during that window (which shall be deemed to be the period between June 1,
2005 to December 31, 2005) it is agreed between the parties that your
termination payment shall be the sum of $390,000 less any required deductions,
which sum represents the termination payment DRAXIS would have paid to you
following the Shire Transaction.


 


In addition, if your
employment is terminated without cause during the period commencing July 21,
2003 and ending December 31, 2005, your termination payment shall be equal to
two times your Base Salary at that date, less any required deductions.  In addition to said salary payment, DRAXIS
shall pay you the following amounts: (i) all outstanding vacation pay and any
earned but unpaid salary up to the date of such termination within two weeks of
the date of termination; (ii) reimburse you for any business expenses incurred
by you up to and including the date of such termination following provision by
you of applicable receipts; and (iii) ensure it has complied with all statutory
obligations imposed by the Ontario Employment
Standards Act.  This payment
shall be guaranteed and shall not be subject to set off or deduction as a
result of your obtaining alternate employment following such termination or
otherwise mitigating any damages arising from such termination.  In all other instances, the following
Termination Provisions shall prevail:


 


All of the other terms and conditions of your Employment
Agreement remain unchanged.  We would ask
that you confirm your acceptance of these modifications by signing the
duplicate of this letter.


 





















 


If you have any questions concerning these
modifications, please do not hesitate to communicate with the undersigned.


 


Regards,


 


DRAXIS HEALTH INC.


 


 


Dr. Martin Barkin


President and Chief
Executive Officer


 


 


I hereby confirm having read the above mentioned
modifications to my employment agreement dated April 27, 2004 and hereby
confirm my acceptance of said modifications.


 


Signed this      
day of             ,
2004 at                    .


 


 


	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Dan
  Brazier
January 2022

There were 7 surveillance inspections conducted at 7 different sites for a total of 80 

fish sampled this month. Samples are targeted to moribund and fresh mortalities 

when possible. The water temperatures continued to decrease in response to the

colder air temperatures. All sites with fish in the water remained Category 1 and were 

scheduled for monthly sampling. Routine harvest continued. No cages were 

confirmed positive this month.

Date Number of 

Samples

Confirmed Positive Cages Cumulative 

Program Samples

February 2021 45 0 23551

March 2021 46 0 23597

April 2021 50 0 23647

May 2021 90 0 23737

June 2021 120 0 23857

July 2021 110 0 23967

August 2021 122 0 24089

September 2021 99 0 24188

October 2021 84 0 24272

November 2021 89 0 24361

December 2021 80 0 24441

January 2022 80 0 24521
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Township of Neshannock, : CASES CONSOLIDATED

Appellant :

:

v. : No. 387 C.D. 2017

:

Kirila Contractors, Inc. and Fidelity :

and Deposit Company of Maryland, :

and Kirila Contractors, Inc., Hatch, :

Mott MacDonald and Hatch Mott :

MacDonald, LLC, and Hatch Mott :

MacDonald T&T, In c., both t/d/b/a :

Hatch Mott MacDonald :

Township of Neshannock :

:

v. : No. 436 C.D. 2017

:

Kirila Contractors, Inc. and :

Fidelity and Deposit Company :

of Maryland, :

Appellants :

O R D E R

NOW, April 23, 2018

, having considered designated appellant’s

application for reargument and designated appellee Kirila Contractor s , Inc .’s answer

in response thereto , the application is denied.

MARY HANNAH LEAVITT,

P resident Judge
# C_2009055EN.01000801.xml

| 7.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/8

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 2 December 2008 — Sylvia Bienek v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

(Case C-525/08)

(2009/C 55/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sylvia Bienek

Applicant:

Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Does a change in reservation to another flight constitute a situation covered by Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (1)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does a change in reservation to another flight constitute a situation covered by Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (1)?

1

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:
  Must that provision also be applied to a change in reservation which was not instigated by the air carrier, but by the tour operator alone? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:

Must that provision also be applied to a change in reservation which was not instigated by the air carrier, but by the tour operator alone?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.

1

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5629]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                   CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, the following statements are submitted regarding the 
specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the 
accompanying bill or joint resolution.
```
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 Quarterly Report
of Reed’s, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending September
30, 2009 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, James Linesch, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; 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:  December 7, 2009




/s/ James
Linesch


James
Linesch


Chief
Financial Officer


(Principal
Financial Officer)











A signed
original of this certification 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.
# C_2008260EN.01000702.xml

| 11.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/7

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale (Italy) lodged on 23 July 2008 — P. FERRERO e C. Spa v Agenzia Entrate — Ufficio di Alba

(Case C-338/08)

(2008/C 260/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Regionale

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: P. FERRERO e C. Spa

Applicant:

Defendant: Agenzia Entrate — Ufficio di Alba

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Whether the withholding tax applicable to the dividend adjustment constitutes withholding tax on profits prohibited by Article 5(1) of Directive 435/90/EEC (1) (in the case in point the subsidiary opted for the agreement-based regime); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Whether the withholding tax applicable to the dividend adjustment constitutes withholding tax on profits prohibited by Article 5(1) of Directive 435/90/EEC (1) (in the case in point the subsidiary opted for the agreement-based regime);

1

| 2. | As a subordinate point, in the case of an affirmative answer to the first question, whether the protective clause referred to in Article 7(2) of the Directive applies. |
| --- | --- |

2.

As a subordinate point, in the case of an affirmative answer to the first question, whether the protective clause referred to in Article 7(2) of the Directive applies.

---

(1)  OJ L 225, p. 6.

1

---