alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016068EN.01000101.xml

| 22.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

(2016/C 068/01)

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 59, 15.2.2016

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 48, 8.2.2016

OJ C 38, 1.2.2016

OJ C 27, 25.1.2016

OJ C 16, 18.1.2016

OJ C 7, 11.1.2016

OJ C 429, 21.12.2015

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
<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 Accesspoint, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mike
Savage, President, Chief Executive Officer and 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.

                                        ACCESSPOINT CORPORATION

August 8, 2005                         By /S/ MIKE SAVAGE
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Mike Savage,
                                        Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial
                                        Officer and President
EXHIBIT 32.1

                          LASERLOCK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


                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 on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
September 30, 2005 of LaserLock Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Norman Gardner, Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) and
principal 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, based on my knowledge:

            (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
            or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Section
            78m(a) or Section 78o(d)); and

            (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.





November 14, 2005
                               /s/ NORMAN GARDNER
                               ---------------------------------------
                               Norman Gardner
                               President and CEO
                               (Principal executive officer and
                               principal financial officer)



Explanatory Note: The same individual serves as Chief Executive Officer
                  (principal executive officer) and principal financial officer.
                  Accordingly, there are no other individuals who are "other
                  certifying officers" referred to in this certification.
# C_2015238EN.01000201.xml

| 21.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 238/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 238/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7499 — Altice/PT Portugal)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 238/03)

On 20 April 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7499. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7499. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
Exhibit 10.14


 


 


 


09 January 2020


 


Joseph Hernandez


Chief Executive Officer


Blue Water Vaccines, Inc.


15 East Putnam Avenue, Suite 363


Greenwich, CT 06830


 


Dear Mr. Hernandez,


 


Reference is made to that certain Master
Services Agreement (“Agreement”) dated July 19, 2019 by and between Ology Bioservices, Inc. (“Ology Bio”) and
Blue Water Vaccines, Inc. (“Blue Water”, together the “Parties”), and to the Agreement Project Addendum
(“Project Addendum”) dated October 18, 2019 and attached to the Agreement as Exhibit A.


 


Per the terms
of the Project Addendum, Blue Water was to remit $513,000 to Ology Bio for the initiation of Tasks 1-4 (the “Initiation Payment”),
due on November 21, 2019. As of January 1, 2020, Ology Bio has received $100,000 of this Initiation Payment and has incurred $51,400 of
costs performing services under the Project Addendum to date.


 


Due to unforeseen
circumstances in which Blue Water is unable to provide lead candidates and constructs required for Ology Bio to begin work on Tasks 1-4
as detailed in the Project Addendum, the Parties agree that Ology Bio will stop work effective immediately.


 





The Parties further agree that Ology Bio will resume work on Tasks 1-4 in the Project Addendum at Blue Water’s
request and upon remittance of the remaining $413,000 of lnitiation Payment to Ology Bio.


 





	Sincerely,	 
	 	 
	/s/ Andras Cziotka	 
	Andras Cziotka	 
	VP, Legal Affairs	 
	 	 
	Accepted and Agreed:	 
	 	 
	/s/ Joseph Hernandez	 
	Joseph Hernandez	 
	Chief Executive Officer	 
	Blue Water Vaccines, Inc.
# C_2014449EN.01000101.xml

| 16.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 449/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 449/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

15 December 2014

(2014/C 449/01)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2426 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 147,67 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4379 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,79360 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4096 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2011 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,1765 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,565 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 308,32 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,45280 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1782 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4813 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,9025 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5128 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4407 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,6334 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6062 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6322 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 368,94 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,4703 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,6960 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6660 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 972,98 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,3525 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 55,539 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 74,7717 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,931 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,3181 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,3628 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 78,5820 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2426

JPY

Japanese yen

147,67

DKK

Danish krone

7,4379

GBP

Pound sterling

0,79360

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4096

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2011

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,1765

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,565

HUF

Hungarian forint

308,32

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,45280

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1782

RON

Romanian leu

4,4813

TRY

Turkish lira

2,9025

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5128

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4407

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,6334

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6062

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6322

KRW

South Korean won

1 368,94

ZAR

South African rand

14,4703

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,6960

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6660

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 972,98

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,3525

PHP

Philippine peso

55,539

RUB

Russian rouble

74,7717

THB

Thai baht

40,931

BRL

Brazilian real

3,3181

MXN

Mexican peso

18,3628

INR

Indian rupee

78,5820

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6840

MALAKIM BEN ISRAEL,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

JOSEPH R. HOLLINGSWORTH,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, 

Chief District Judge. (5:15-ct-03200-D)

Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 29, 2016

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Malakim Ben Israel, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Malakim Ben Israel seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. We 

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice 

of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the 

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. 

R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely 

filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on 

March 29, 2016. The notice of appeal is deemed filed on May 30, 

2016, when Ben Israel hand-dated it. Because Ben Israel failed 

to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or 

reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. The 

motion for appointment of counsel is denied. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

Assigned on Briefs October 4, 2016

BRYAN R. HANLEY v. TURNEY CENTER DISCIPLINARY BOARD,

ET AL.

Appeal from the Chancery Court for Hickman County

No. 15-CV-5637 Joseph Woodruff, Chancellor

___________________________________

No. M2016-01223-COA-R3-CV – Filed November 30, 2016

___________________________________

RICHARD H. DINKINS, J., dissenting.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding. As the majority notes, a charge 

against an inmate be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, defined at TDOC Policy 

No. 502.01(IV)(I) as “[t]he degree of proof which best accords with reason and 

probability and is more probable than not.” As the majority also notes, the evidence upon 

which Mr. Hanley’s conviction rested consisted of the two knives and Corporal Story’s 

statement, the salient portion of which is quoted in the majority opinion. Corporal Story 

did not testify and the only live witnesses were Mr. Hanley, who denied that the knives 

were his, and Duane Brooks, an inmate who testified in support of Mr. Hanley’s 

contention that the knives were left by a previous occupant of the cell. 

Because I believe that the proof falls short of the standard mandated by the TDOC 

policy, I would grant Mr. Hanley relief. 

_________________________________

RICHARD H. DINKINS, JUDGE
# C_2014308EN.01000102.xml

| 11.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 308/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 308/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7230 — Bekaert/Pirelli Steel Tyre Cord Business)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 308/02

On 30 July 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7230. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7230. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 21.1


                   Subsidiaries of Oplink Communications, Inc.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Subsidiaries of Registrant                     Jurisdiction of Incorporation        Subsidiary's Business Name
<S>                                            <C>                                  <C>
Shanghai Oplink Communications, Inc.                  Shanghai,                          Shanghai Oplink
                                                      China                            Communications, Inc.

Zhuhai FTZ Oplink Communications, Inc.                Zhuhai, China                     Zhuhai FTZ Oplink
                                                                                       Communications, Inc

Zhuhai Oplink Communications, Inc.                    Zhuhai, China                       Zhuhai Oplink
                                                                                       Communications, Inc.

Zhuhai FTZ Telelight Communications, Inc.             Zhuhai, China                    Zhuhai FTZ Telelight
(formerly Fuzhou Telelight Communication,                                              Communications, Inc.
Inc., located in Fuzhou, China)

Oplink Macau Commercial Services Company              Macau, China                    Oplink Macau Commercial
Limited                                                                              Services Company Limited
</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1

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 Annual Report of Brantley Capital Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert
P. Pinkas, Chief Executive Officer of Brantley Capital Corporation, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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 the Company.

|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Robert P. Pinkas   
|                       
|Robert P. Pinkas       
|Chief Executive Officer
|March 31, 2003         

This certification accompanies the
Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Brantley
Capital Corporation and will be retained by Brantley Capital Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<Page>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21
                      LIBERTY SATELLITE & TECHNOLOGY, INC.
                      SUBSIDIARY LIST AT DECEMBER 31, 2001


<Table>
<Caption>
                                                                           OWNERSHIP
ENTITY                                                                    PERCENTAGE
------                                                                    ----------
<S>                                                                         <C>
Liberty Satellite & Technology, Inc.
         TSAT Holdings I, Inc.                                              100.00%
                  Liberty Satellite, LLC                                     10.59%
                           Liberty Satellite Brazil Bonds, Inc.             100.00%
                           LSAT Astro LLC                                    86.01%
                           Liberty Aero, LLC                                100.00%

         TSAT Holdings II, Inc.                                             100.00%
                  LSAT Astro LLC                                             13.99%

         Tempo Satellite, Inc.                                              100.00%
</Table>
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-15676

________________________

Agency No. 13-1713

MATSU ALABAMA, INC., 

 Petitioner,

versus

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 

 Respondents.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

________________________

(November 21, 2016)

Before TJOFLAT and HULL, Circuit Judges, and BYRON,* District Judge.

HULL, Circuit Judge:

 *

Honorable Paul G. Byron, United States District Judge, for the Middle District of 

Florida, sitting by designation.

Case: 15-15676 Date Filed: 11/21/2016 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Appellant Matsu Alabama, Inc. (“Matsu”) appeals from the final order of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (the “Commission”). After 

an investigation, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued three 

citations against Matsu for safety standards violations. Citation 1 had six items, 

Citation 2 had one item, and Citation 3 had one item.

Matsu contested the citations, and the Secretary of Labor initiated an 

enforcement action. The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) conducted a four-day 

trial, required extensive briefing, and issued a sixty-page Decision and Order. The 

ALJ affirmed all but the second item in Citation 1 and assessed penalties totaling 

$103,000. The Commission denied Matsu’s petition for discretionary review, and 

the ALJ’s decision became a final order of the Commission on November 2, 2015. 

Matsu then filed a petition for review in this Court. On March 3, 2016, this Court 

denied Matsu’s motion for a stay pending review.

After review of the record and with the benefit of oral argument, the Court 

finds no reversible error in the ALJ’s findings of fact or conclusions of law. We 

accordingly deny Matsu’s petition for review and affirm the final order of the 

Commission.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 15-15676 Date Filed: 11/21/2016 Page: 2 of 2
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic 

and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of 

any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to 

press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 21-BG-003

IN RE ANDREW F. OEHMAN, ESQUIRE

Respondent. Board Docket No. 20-BD-063

Bar Registration No. 51938 DDN: 155-20

BEFORE: Glickman and Thompson, Associate Judges, and Ferren, Senior Judge.

O R D E R

(FILED – January 21, 2021)

On consideration of the affidavit of Andrew F. Oehmann, wherein he consents 

to disbarment from the bar of the District of Columbia pursuant to D.C. Bar Rule XI,

§ 12, which affidavit has been filed with the Clerk of this court, and the report and 

recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility, it is

ORDERED that the said Andrew F. Oehmann is hereby disbarred by consent. 

The Clerk shall publish this order, but the affidavit shall not be publicly disclosed

or otherwise made available except upon order of the court or upon written consent of 

the respondent.

The Clerk shall cause a copy of this order to be transmitted to the Chairman of 

the Board on Professional Responsibility and to the respondent, thereby giving him

notice of the provisions of Rule XI, §§ 14 and 16, which set forth certain rights and 

responsibilities of disbarred attorneys and the effect of failure to comply therewith.

PER CURIAM
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE MATTER OF

C.R.A.,

A JUVENILE

§

§

§

§

No. 08-16-00141-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 1

§

Of Denton County, Texas

§

(TC# JV-2014-00156)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. It appearing to this Court that 

Appellant is indigent, we make no further order as to payment of costs on appeal. This decision 

shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.