alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2013199EN.01S00301.xml

| 24.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 199/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 199/s3

---

NOTICE TO READERS

Council Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 of 7 March 2013 on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union

In accordance with Council Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 of 7 March 2013 on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 69, 13.3.2013, p. 1), as of 1 July 2013, only the electronic edition of the Official Journal shall be considered authentic and shall have legal effect.

Official Journal of the European Union

Where it is not possible to publish the electronic edition of the Official Journal due to unforeseen and exceptional circumstances, the printed edition shall be authentic and shall have legal effect in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 216/2013.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                     MANAGING GENERAL PARTNER CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Edward B. Lipkin, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of National Property
Analysts Master Limited Partnership;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: May 12, 2006

By: EBL&S, Inc., its managing general partner


By: /s/ Edward B. Lipkin
    ---------------------------------
Name: Edward B. Lipkin
Title: President
**Exhibit 23(a)1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 2-78617, 33-54415, 33-58371, 33-60427, 333-44127, 333-110557, 333-118061, 333-124780, 333-127187, and 333-134434 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement Nos. 33-3546, 333-09077, 333-64871 (as amended), 333-65178, 333-138503 (as amended), and 333-138504 on Form S-3 of our reports dated February 25, 2008 (which report on the consolidated financial statements expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph concerning a change in method of accounting for uncertainty in income taxes and a change in method of accounting for the impact of changes in the timing of income tax cash flows generated by leveraged leases in 2007 and a change in method of accounting for the funded status of defined benefit and other postretirement plans in 2006), relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement scheduleof Southern Company, and the effectiveness of Southern Company's internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Southern Company for the year ended December 31, 2007.

 

/s/Deloitte & Touche LLP

 

Atlanta, Georgia

February 25, 2008
----

            COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2004/95/EC

of 24 September 2004         

amending Council Directive 90/642/EEC as regards the maximum residues levels of bifenthrin and famoxadone fixed therein

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 90/642/EEC of 27 November 1990 on the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on certain products of plant origin including fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,

Having regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (2), and in particular Article 4(1)(f) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

Article 1

The maximum pesticide residue levels for bifenthrin and famoxadone in Annex II to Directive 90/642/EEC are replaced by those in the Annex to this Directive.

Article 2

1.   Member States shall adopt and publish, by 25 March 2005 at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.

They shall apply these provisions from 26 March 2005.

When Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made.

2.   Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.

Article 3

This Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Article 4

This Directive is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 24 September 2004.

For the Commission

David BYRNE            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 350, 14.12.1990, p. 71. Directive as last amended by Commission Directive 2004/61/EC (OJ L 127, 29.4.2004, p. 81).

(2)OJ L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1. Directive as last amended by Commission Directive 2004/71/EC (OJ L 127, 29.4.2004, p. 104).

(3)OJ L 291, 28.10.2002, p. 1.

(4)OJ L 155, 24.06.2003, p. 15.

(5)  Guidelines for predicting dietary intake of pesticide residues (revised), prepared by the GEMS/Food Programme in collaboration with the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues, published by the World Health Organisation 1997 (WHO/FSF/FOS/97.7).

----

ANNEX

----

(*1)  Indicates lower limit of analytical determination

(1)  Indicates that the maximum residue level has been established provisionally in accordance with Article 4(1)(f) of Directive 91/414/EEC.’         

----
#### Jacob Sandcroft’s License. Jacob Sandcroft’s Appeal.

*Liquor laws*— Refusal *of license*— Record—Review.

Where the record in an application for a liquor license shows that the case was heard, considered and refused by the court for the reason “ that there is no necessity for the house to be licensed,” and there is nothing else upon the record, the Supreme Court will not assume that the license court acted arbitrarily, or that the reason assigned for its action in refusing the license had no existence in fact.

Argued April 24, 1895.

Appeal, No. 486, Jan. T., 1895, by Jacob Sandcroft, from order of Q. S. Centre Co., refusing a. retail liquor license.

Before Sterrett, C. J., Green, Mitchell, Dean and Fell, JJ.

Affirmed.

Petition for a retail liquor license.

The record showed that the petition was indorsed as follows:

“ March 12, 1895, it appearing to the court that there was no necessity for the house to be licensed, the license is refused.”

On April 3, 1895, the court filed the following paper:

“ The testimony of the applicant and others, showed that the village of Casanova, in Rush township, where the house is located for which the license is applied for, consisted of about thirteen small houses; there are no stores or places of business *46therein; that in Clearfield county, just across the Moshannon creek, is the town of Munson, and surrounding the town of Munson there are a number of coal mines in Clearfield county; that the court of Clearfield county granted one hotel license and one restaurant license in the town of Munson, deeming .that was all that was necessary.

“ It appeared to the court from the testimony and information he received from other sources, that the object of the license applied for at Casanova was largely to supply the people of Munson and the mines with greater hotel bar facilities. The granting of the license was protested against by the superintendent of the Beech Creek Railroad and others. The village of Casanova is right near the railroad station at Munson of the Beech Creek Railroad Company. The court, therefore, under the facts presented in court, and the information possessed by the court, received from reliable sources, refused the license, it appearing that there was no necessity for the same.”

*Error assigned*was above order, quoting it.

*Wilbur E.*Reeder, *Q-eorge W. Zeigler*with him, for appellant,

cited, Johnson’s License, 156 Pa. 822; Kelminski License, 164 Pa. 231; Mead’s License, 161 Pa. 377.

No paper-book filed or argument offered for appellee.

May 6, 1895:

Per Curiam,

It is conceded that appellant’s application for a retail liquor license was heard, considered and refused by the court for the reason “ that there is no necessity for the house to be licensed.” The fact of the refusal and the reason therefor, above quoted, are both recited in the assignment of error.

In the absence of anything on the record to justify us in so doing, we have no right to assume that the court acted arbitrarily, or that the reason assigned for its action in refusing appellant a license had no existence in fact.

Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed with costs to be paid by appellant.
T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N NO. 03-10-00382- CV In re Mic hael Lee Ellison ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM TRAVIS CO UNTY M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N The pe tition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P . 52.8(a) .

____________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Waldrop Filed: Jul y

8, 2010
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 28, 2010 

0621 

Order 

 

June 28, 2010 

140680 

PATRICK J. DEVLIN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 140680 

 COA: 287827 

Ingham CC: 08-000769-AW 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 21, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
Commission Monthly Case Activity for July 2014



1.
Cases Pending Beginning of Month 
39




2.
Cases Added to Docket 


0

3.
Cases Subtracted From Docket

National Electric Coil Co., L.P.
No. 13-1199
Order on 07/28/14


-1
4.
Total Cases Pending End of Month
38
exv10w40






Exhibit 10.40




	 	 	 

	

	 	Jones Lang LaSalle

2300 Geng Road Suite 100 Palo Alto CA 94303

tel +1 650 815 2200 fax +1 650 815 2201






FIRST ADDENDUM TO SUBLEASE



THIS ADDENDUM IS DATED 24 September 2010 (Effective Date) by and between MILLIPORE CORPORATION, as
successor in interest to Guava Technologies Inc. (SUBLESSOR) AND ANTHERA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
(SUBLESSEE)



WHERAS, on or about August 1, 2008, Sublessor and Subleasee entered into a lease
agreement for the sublease of real estate located at 25801 Industrial Drive, Hayward, CA
(“Sublease”).



WHERAS, the parties desire to extend the term of the Sublease.



NOW THERFORE, the parties agree as follows:





	 	1.	 	The term of the Sublease shall be extended until January 31, 2011.





     All other terms of the Sublease shall remain the same.



     Acceptance



Sublessor: Millipore Corporation




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

	By:

	 	/s/ Michael Galleno
	 	Date:
	 	October 8, 2010
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 





Sublessee: Anthera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

	By:

	 	/s/ Christopher Lowe
	 	Date:
	 	September 28, 2010
#### JAMES CORNER *and Sons against*GEO. S. STEVENSON *and*another.

In a bill by a creditor, against a trustee, to subject the resulting trust arising after the *cestuis que trust*named in the deed of trust are satisfied, need not make such *cestuis que trzist*parties.

Appeal from the Court of Equity of Craven county, his Honor, Judge MaNly, presiding.

The bill alleged that the defendant Richard N. Taylor, was indebted to the plaintiffs in the sum of $1763,77, for which they had taken judgment in Craven County Court; that previously to the rendition of this judgment, he made two deeds of trust to the other defendant, George S. Stevenson, conveying therein all his estate, of every kind, making no provision for the debt of the plaintiffs; that these conveyances provided, that unless the debts, therein named, should be paid before the 1st of January, 1856, it should be the duty of the trustee to convert the property into money and discharge the same.

The bill further alleges, that the property conveyed in the said deeds of trust, will be more than sufficient to satisfy the debts therein mentioned, if the same is fairly sold.

The plaintiffs say they have taken out execution on their judgment, and the same has been returned *nulla bona.*

They insist, that as the day is passed, until which it was allowed the trustee to forbear from selling, it has now become his duty to do so; and as their right to have satisfaction out of the estate of their debtor is uncertain, and cannot be ascertained until this trust is closed, the prayer is, that the said trustee may be compelled to make sale of the property so con*96veyed to him, and, after paying the several debts, mentioned in the deeds, that he either pay the balance (if the property has been converted) to the satisfaction of their debt, or if there be property left, that the same be delivered up, to the end, that their execution may be satisfied out of it.

The defendants demurred to the bill, upon the ground, that the *cestuis que, trust*were not made parties defendant to the-bill. There was a joinder in demurrer, and the cause being-set down for argument, was heard by his Honor, Judge Marly, who over-ruled the demurrer, and ordered the defendants to answer over. Erom this decree the defendants prayed and obtained an appeal.

Donnell, for plaintiffs.

*G. Greene,*for defendants.

PeaesoN, J.

The object of the bill is to subject the resulting trust of the debtor to the payment of the plaintiffs’ debt. In this question, the *eesi/ms que trust,*i. e., the creditors secured in the deed of trust, are not concerned, because the bill is framed upon the supposition that their debts are first to be paid, and only claims the balance, after making the deduction, as a fund applicable to the plaintiffs’ debts. In taking the account, in order to ascertain the amount of the fund, the trustee represents the *cestuis que trust.*

Pee CubiaM. The decretal order over-ruling the demurrer is affirmed.
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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Alabama National BanCorporation
(Alabama National) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), John H. Holcomb, III, Chief Executive Officer of Alabama National, and
William E. Matthews, V, Chief Financial Officer of Alabama National, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:



| | 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 Alabama National.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: August 9, 2004



|                        
|------------------------
|                        
|/s/ John H. Holcomb, III
|John H. Holcomb, III    
|Chief Executive Officer 



|                          
|--------------------------
|                          
|/s/ William E. Matthews, V
|William E. Matthews, V    
|Chief Financial Officer
#### Estate of Squier: Squier, by guardian *ad litem,*Appellant, vs. Hoag, Executor, and others, Respondents.

*April 5*

April *30, 1929.*

*52
      *Wm. R. McCaul*of Tomah, guardian *ad litem,*for the appellant.

For the respondent B. L. Hoag, executor, there was a brief *53by *H. A. Rose*of Marinette, and for the other respondents there were briefs by *Masters & Hansen*of Sparta; and the cause was argued orally by *L. A. Hansen.*

Ro'senberry, C. J.

It appears that the testatrix was possessed of personal and real estate of the value of approximately $20,000. On January 20, 1892, she and her husband adopted the child Gussie. In 1908 Gussie was adjudged insane, and became an inmate of the Wisconsin Hospital for the Insane at Mendota. The will was executed on July 20, 1916, at which time Gussie was thirty-two years of age. On March IS, 1917, Gussie was transferred to'the Monroe county insane asylum, was pronounced incurably insane, and has been an inmate of the latter institution until the time of the hearing. The testatrix died February 24, 1928.

One of the things regarded by the appellant as highly significant is that the testatrix, during the last twenty years of her life, boarded elsewhere, but she at all times kept her home exactly as it was at the time of Gussie’s departure. It is considered in the light of all the circumstances that the trial court correctly construed this will. It is the contention of the guardian *ad litem*that under the third clause the dev-isees took an estate subject to be defeated by the subsequent recovery of Gussie, in which event the entire third bequest was to go to hér. It is equally apparent from the will that the testatrix did not expect her daughter to recover, for she gave to her by the second clause $10,000, with the proviso contained in the fourth clause that any part of it remaining unexpended at her death shall go to Bert L. Hoag.

No rule is better settled than that the law favors the early vesting of estates and in doubtful cases leans toward an absolute rather than a defeasible estate and toward a vested rather than a contingent estate. *Smith v. Smith,*116 Wis. 570, 93 N. W. 452; *Moran’s Will,*118 Wis. 177, 96 N. W. 367; *Will of Owens,*164 Wis. 260, 159 N. W. 906.

*54A will speaks as of the time of the death of the testator. So read it is considered that the trial court correctly held that the provision in clause 6 of the will referred to a recovery of the adopted daughter Gussie prior to the death of the testatrix, and that she did not thereby intend that the estate granted by the third clause of her will should be defeated in the event that her daughter Gussie should recover subsequent to the death of the testatrix.

It seems equally plain that the language of the will is subject to no other interpretation than that such part of the $10,000 bequeathed to her daughter under the second clause of her will as should remain unexpended at the time of her daughter’s death should become the property of Bert L. Hoag.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 211 (Thursday, October 31, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 86855-86856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25282]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: October 31, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

[[Page 86856]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
October 23, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 518 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-140, K2025-138.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-25282 Filed 10-30-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P