alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 46 (Monday, March 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10874-10875]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5820]


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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Issuance of Permit for Marine Mammals

    On November 7, 1996, a notice was published in the Federal 
Register, Vol. 61, No. 217, Page 57694, that an application had been 
filed with the Fish and Wildlife Service by the Chicago Zoological 
Park, Brookfield Zoo for a permit (PRT-821744) to import 3 juvenile 
walrus for public display.
    Notice is hereby given that on February 19, 1997, as authorized by 
the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended 
(16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) the Fish and Wildlife Service authorized the 
requested permit subject to certain conditions set forth therein.
    On November 29, 1996, a notice was published in the Federal 
Register, Vol. 61, No. 231, Page 60722, that an application had been 
filed with the Fish and Wildlife Service by the Alaska Science Center 
for renewal of a permit (PRT-766818) to take (capture) sea otters for 
scientific research.
    Notice is hereby given that on February 7, 1997, as authorized by 
the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended 
(16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) the Fish and Wildlife Service authorized the 
requested permit subject to certain conditions set forth therein.
    On December 20, 1996, a notice was published in the Federal 
Register, Vol. 61, No. 246, Page 67340, that an application had been 
filed with the Fish and Wildlife Service by the Oregon Coast Aquarium 
for a permit (PRT-823259) to import 2 sea otters for the purpose of 
public display.
    Notice is hereby given that on January 27, 1997, as authorized by 
the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended 
(16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) the Fish and Wildlife Service authorized the 
requested permit subject to certain conditions set forth therein.
    On December 11, 1996, a notice was published in the Federal 
Register, Vol. 61, No. 239, Page 65229, that an application had been 
filed with the Fish and Wildlife Service by the Point Defiance Zoo for 
a permit (PRT-822531) to import 2 polar bears for the purpose of public 
display.
    Notice is hereby given that on January 21, 1997, as authorized by 
the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended 
(16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) the Fish and

[[Page 10875]]

Wildlife Service authorized the requested permit subject to certain 
conditions set forth therein.
    Documents and other information submitted for these applications 
are available for review by any party who submits a written request to 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Management Authority, 
4401 North Fairfax Drive, Rm. 430, Arlington, Virginia 22203, phone 
(703) 358-2104 or Fax (703) 358-2281.

    Dated: March 4, 1997.
Caroline Anderson,
Acting Chief, Branch of Permits, Office of Management Authority.
[FR Doc. 97-5820 Filed 3-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.1F

                                AMENDMENT NO. 4

                                      TO

                             MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT


    THIS AGREEMENT made as of August 6, 1991, is by and between SIZELER PROPERTY
INVESTORS, INC., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and SIZELER REAL ESTATE
MANAGEMENT CO., INC., a Louisiana corporation (the "Manager"):

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

    WHEREAS, the Company and the Manager are parties to a certain Management 
Agreement dated as of December 28, 1986, as amended by Amendment No. 1 dated as 
of December 29, 1986, Amendment No. 2 dated as of December 30, 1986, and 
Amendment No. 3 dated as of April 12, 1988, (the "Management Agreement"); and 

    WHEREAS, the Company and the Manager desire to amend the Management 
Agreement with respect to compensation to be paid to the Manager for its 
Management Services hereunder with respect to multi-family residential property;

    NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual covenants
herein contained, the parties hereto agree that the following is hereby added to
the Management Agreement as an amendment to subsection (a) of Paragraph 6: "(1) 
Four and one-half percent (4-1/2%) of gross revenue received directly or 
indirectly from the routine operation of all non-residential Properties, five 
percent (5%) of gross revenue received directly or indirectly from the routine 
operation of all multi-family residential Properties, . . .". The amended 
provisions of this subsection (a) of Paragraph 6 are effective as of the date 
first above written.

<PAGE>
 
    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this amendment to be 
executed as of the date first above written.

                                  SIZELER REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT CO., INC.


                                  By:      /s/ I. Marc Dusang, Jr.
                                     -------------------------------------
                                       I. Marc Dusang, Jr., President

                                   
                                  SIZELER PROPERTY INVESTORS, INC.


                                  By:       /s/ John J. Gilluly, Jr.
                                     --------------------------------------
                                     John J. Gilluly, Jr., Vice President/
                                       Treasurer   

                                       2
# C_2023179EN.01000802.xml

| 22.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — PT v VB

(Case C-343/22, (1) PT (Order for payment under Swiss law))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Lugano II Convention - Procedure on the recognition and enforcement of judgments - Article 34(2) - Document which institutes the proceedings in the State of origin - Due notification of an order for payment followed by improper service of a request for an action for repayment under Swiss law)

(2023/C 179/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: PT

Defendant: VB

Operative part of the judgment

Article 34(2) of the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, signed on 30 October 2007, the conclusion of which was approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2009/430/EC of 27 November 2008,

must be interpreted as meaning that the statement of claim in an action for repayment under Swiss law, which was brought after a Swiss order for payment had been issued previously and which did not include an application for dismissal of the objection lodged against that order for payment, constitutes the document which instituted the proceedings, within the meaning of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 340, 5.9.2022.

---
# C_2021422EN.01002301.xml

| 18.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/23

---

Action brought on 15 August 2021 — Lagardère, unité médico-sociale v Commission

(Case T-503/21)

(2021/C 422/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Lagardère, unité médico-sociale (Ghlin, Belgium) (represented by: P. Vanlangendonck, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | Declare Regulation 2021/953 (1) null and void. |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare Regulation 2021/953 (1) null and void.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1), in so far as the contested measure failed to have regard to the prohibition on the processing of personal data concerning the health of a natural person. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1), in so far as the contested measure failed to have regard to the prohibition on the processing of personal data concerning the health of a natural person.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 21(1) TFEU, which confers on EU citizens the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 21(1) TFEU, which confers on EU citizens the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 168 and 169 TFEU and of Articles 3, 35 and 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 168 and 169 TFEU and of Articles 3, 35 and 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2021/953 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2021 on a framework for the issuance, verification and acceptance of interoperable COVID-19 vaccination, test and recovery certificates (EU Digital COVID Certificate) to facilitate free movement during the COVID-19 pandemic (OJ 2021 L 211, p. 1).

---
<PAGE>   1



                                   EXHIBIT 11

                        Computation of Per Share Earnings

                                                  Year ended December 31
                                          -------------------------------------
                                             1996         1995          1994
                                          ----------   ----------   -----------
A.  Net Income (Loss)                     $3,056,000   $6,248,000   $  (977,000)
                                                       
B.  Unpaid Cumulative Dividends on                     
      Class A Preferred Stock                   --        (50,000)     (116,000)
                                          ----------   ----------   -----------
                                                       
                                                       
C.  Adjusted Net Income (Loss)            $3,056,000   $6,198,000   $(1,093,000)
                                                       
D.  Weighted Average Common Shares         8,205,032    8,175,819     2,874,600
                                                       
E.  Income (Loss) per Common Share (C/D)  $      .37   $      .76   $      (.38)
                                                      


                                      24
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 874 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit the exclusion of individuals 

from service on a Federal jury on account of sexual orientation or 

gender identity. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 30, 2019 

Mrs. DAVIS of California (for herself, Mr. ZELDIN, Mr. POCAN, Mr. 

FITZPATRICK, Ms. NORTON, Ms. SPEIER, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. QUIGLEY, 

Mr. SWALWELL of California, Mr. LOWENTHAL, and Mr. KATKO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit the exclusion of individuals from service on a Federal jury on 

account of sexual orientation or gender identity. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Juror Non-Discrimina5 tion Act of 2019’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 874 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FROM FEDERAL JURIES ON ACCOUNT 

2 OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR GENDER IDEN3 TITY PROHIBITED. 

4 Section 1862 of title 28, United States Code, is 

5 amended by inserting ‘‘(including sexual orientation and 

6 gender identity)’’ after ‘‘sex’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 901 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reestablish the 15 percent 

corporate rate bracket. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 30, 2019 

Mr. KING of Iowa (for himself and Mr. DESJARLAIS) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reestablish 

the 15 percent corporate rate bracket. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Restoring Economic 

5 Opportunities for Small Family C–Corporations’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REESTABLISHMENT OF 15 PERCENT CORPORATE 

7 RATE BRACKET. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 11(b) of the Internal Rev9 enue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows: 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 901 IH

1 ‘‘(b) AMOUNT OF TAX.—The amount of tax imposed 

2 by subsection (a) shall be the sum of— 

3 ‘‘(1) 15 percent of so much of the taxable in4 come as does not exceed $50,000, and 

5 ‘‘(2) 21 percent of so much of the taxable in6 come as exceeds $50,000. 

7 In the case of a corporation which has taxable income in 

8 excess of $100,000 for any taxable year, the amount of 

9 tax determined under the preceding sentence for such tax10 able year shall be increased by the lesser of (A) 5 percent 

11 of such excess, or (B) $3,000.’’. 

12 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 11 of such 

13 Code is amended by adding at the end the following new 

14 subsection: 

15 ‘‘(e) TREATMENT OF CERTAIN REFERENCES.—Any 

16 reference in this title (or in any other provision of law) 

17 to the rate of tax imposed by this section shall be treated 

18 as a reference to the rate of tax specified in subsection 

19 (b)(2) unless such reference clearly indicates otherwise.’’. 

20 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

21 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

22 December 31, 2018. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
Certification of the Vice President-Finance

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, I, the undersigned Vice President-Finance of
Northland Cranberries, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on my
knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter
ended May 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.


/s/ Nigel Cooper
---------------------------------
Nigel Cooper
July 15, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Northland Cranberries, Inc. and will be retained by Northland
Cranberries, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
gmgi_ex101.htm

EXHIBIT 10.1
  
 CANCELLATION OF BACK OFFICE/ SERVICE PROVIDER AGREEMENT 
  
 This Cancellation of BACK OFFICE/ SERVICE PROVIDER AGREEMENT dated 1st April 2016 and SUBSEQUENT ADDENDUMS dated 1st January 2018, 1st December 2018, 1st August 2019, 1st November 2019 (“Cancellation”) is made effective as of the 30th June 2021, between Golden Matrix Group Inc. (GMGI) of 3651 Lindell Road, Ste D131 Las Vegas NV 89103 USA and Articulate Pty Ltd (Articulate) of Suite 302, 2 Grosvenor Street Bondi Junction NSW 2022 Australia. 
  
 RECITALS:
  
 The Parties entered into a “BACK OFFICE/ SERVICE PROVIDER AGREEMENT” on 1st April 2016 and SUBSEQUENT ADDENDUMS to this agreement dated 1st January 2018, 1st December 2018, 1st August 2019, 1st November 2019 (the “BACK OFFICE/ SERVICE PROVIDER AGREEMENT and SUBSEQUENT ADDENDUMS”).
  
 In Terms of the BACK OFFICE/ SERVICE PROVIDER AGREEMENT and SUBSEQUENT ADDENDUMS Articulate was to provide the Company with Office Premises as well as Utilities and Accounting Services.
  
 The Company has obtained its own office space and supporting utilities and will now engage its own accounting services directly.
  
 As a result the Parties have mutually agreed that the contract will be cancelled and that the Company will no longer utilize Articulate’s office premises, utilities or the accounting services provided by Articulate.
  
 The Parties wish to therefore cancel the “BACK OFFICE/ SERVICE PROVIDER AGREEMENT and SUBSEQUENT ADDENDUMS” effective 30th June.
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants contained herein it is agreed to cancel the BACK OFFICE/ SERVICE PROVIDER AGREEMENT and SUBSEQUENT ADDENDUMS 
  
  
 	Golden Matrix Group Inc. 	  
	  
	
	 	 	  
	 	  

	By:	/s/ Weiting Feng	  
	Director: Weiting Feng (Director)	  

	  
	  
	  
	  
	  

	 Articulate Pty Ltd.
	  
	 	  

	 	 	  
	 	  

	 By:
	 /s/ Anthony Goodman
	  
	 Managing Member: Anthony Goodman (Managing Director)
No. 11-10592.

#### Marriott *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF STEVENS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND FOR THE NINE MONTHS THEN ENDED
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                               5
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,124
<ALLOWANCES>                                       181
<INVENTORY>                                      7,401
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,335
<PP&E>                                           9,928
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,677
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,891
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,927
<BONDS>                                          5,378
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           950
<OTHER-SE>                                     (4,940)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,891
<SALES>                                          8,304
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,304
<CGS>                                            4,856
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,856
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,511
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   200
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 577
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (946)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (946)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (946)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.10)



</TABLE>
# C_2023189EN.01000402.xml

| 30.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 189/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 189/4

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 16 November 2022 — WU v Directie van het Centraal Bureau Rijvaardigheidsbewijzen (CBR)

(Case C-703/22)

(2023/C 189/05)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: WU

Respondent: Directie van het Centraal Bureau Rijvaardigheidsbewijzen (CBR)

Questions referred

| 1. | Should point 6.4 of Annex III to Directive 2006/126/EC, (1) more specifically the standard of a horizontal field of vision of both eyes of at least 160o, read in the light of the principle of proportionality, be interpreted as meaning that a person who does not meet this standard from a medical point of view, but who, according to different medical experts, is actually fit to drive a lorry, can nevertheless meet the standard? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should point 6.4 of Annex III to Directive 2006/126/EC, (1) more specifically the standard of a horizontal field of vision of both eyes of at least 160o, read in the light of the principle of proportionality, be interpreted as meaning that a person who does not meet this standard from a medical point of view, but who, according to different medical experts, is actually fit to drive a lorry, can nevertheless meet the standard?

| 2. | If the answer to that question is in the negative, can a proportionality assessment be carried out within the framework of the Driving Licence Directive in an individual case, even if the criterion laid down in point 6.4 of Annex III to Directive 2006/126/EC does not provide any scope for exemption in such cases? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to that question is in the negative, can a proportionality assessment be carried out within the framework of the Driving Licence Directive in an individual case, even if the criterion laid down in point 6.4 of Annex III to Directive 2006/126/EC does not provide any scope for exemption in such cases?

| 3. | If so, what are the circumstances that may play a role in assessing whether there may be derogation from the standard for the field of vision in a specific case, provided for in point 6.4 of Annex III to Directive 2006/126/EC? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If so, what are the circumstances that may play a role in assessing whether there may be derogation from the standard for the field of vision in a specific case, provided for in point 6.4 of Annex III to Directive 2006/126/EC?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18 (also ‘the Driving Licence Directive’).

---
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8862 

To reauthorize the Pregnancy Assistance Fund. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 3, 2020 

Ms. SPANBERGER (for herself and Mr. COLE) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Pregnancy Assistance Fund. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Pregnancy Assistance 

5 Act of 2020’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PREGNANCY ASSISTANCE FUND. 

7 Section 10214 of the Patient Protection and Afford8 able Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18204) is amended by striking 

9 ‘‘2010 through 2019’’ and inserting ‘‘2021 through 

10 2025’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS