alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Subsistence talks beef with industry

/ Published Oct. 4, 2016
PHILADELPHIA, 

The Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Subsistence supply chain hosted a pre-proposal conference Sept. 28 to help vendors preparing proposals for the beef national contract.

The national contracts consolidate similar protein items and are awarded to one supplier. That supplier will provide the products to Subsistence prime vendors outside the continental United States.

“The goal of the conference was to clarify any questions that potential offerors had and to assist them in preparing a proposal that meets all of our requirements,” said Janine Samoni, chief of Subsistence’s Strategic Material Sourcing Group.

There are currently more than 300 beef items available to Subsistence customers. Only 44 of those items have been selected for the current national beef contract, said Tim Dlugokecki, contracting officer for Subsistence national contracts.

Subsistence moved to national contracts for items such as beef, poultry, pork and seafood to better leverage the government’s buying power and achieve cost savings, said Samoni. The first national contract was for chicken in 2014, from which Subsistence saved 23 percent for customers through 2015. 

Fourteen businesses, small and large, attended the event to learn more about the solicitation requirements. Many of the companies already work with Subsistence to provide food to the military.

Samoni and Dlugokecki presented an overview of the contracting process and then fielded questions from attendees.

A new addition to the beef solicitation is the product evaluation requirement.As part of their proposal, companies will send product samples to Fort Lee's Joint Culinary Center of Excellence in Virginia to be tested to make sure they meet the certain requirements.

The conference was not only a chance for industry partners to learn more about the solicitation, it was also beneficial for Subsistence to gain industry’s perspective.

“(It) gives us an idea of ... what industry was thinking about, what their concerns are and did we miss anything,” said Samoni.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Elting III, Appellant.

[767 NYS2d 828]

*456Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered September 20, 2001, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the matter is remitted to the County Court, Dutchess County, to hear and report on the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty, on which motion the defendant’s appellate counsel shall represent him, and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim. The County Court, Dutchess County, is to file its report with all convenient speed.

The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree in connection with the recovery of over 37 ounces of cocaine from his apartment. Prior to sentencing, however, he moved to vacate his plea on the basis, inter alia, that defense counsel had told him that he would not get a fair trial. When asked by the court to respond, defense counsel denied the allegation, and informed the court how he had advised the defendant. The court then appointed a new attorney to represent the defendant. However, on the adjourned date, new counsel reviewed for the court what had been done by prior counsel, and then told the court that he saw no reason to allow the defendant to withdraw his plea. The court then denied the defendant’s motion.

“Under these circumstances, the ‘defendant’s right to counsel was adversely affected when his [new] attorney . . . became a witness against him’ and the court ‘should not have proceeded to determine the motion without first assigning the defendant [another] new counsel’ ” *(People v Jones,*223 AD2d 559 [1996], quoting *People v Santana,*156 AD2d 736, 737 [1989]; *People v Humbert,*219 AD2d 674 [1995]). Accordingly, we remit the matter for a new hearing on the defendant’s motion at which the defendant shall be represented by appellate counsel, and we hold the appeal is abeyance in the interim. At this point, we express no opinion as to the merits of the defendant’s motion. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Luciano, Townes and Rivera, JJ., concur.
# C_2017374EN.01002601.xml

| 6.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2017 — Jordi Nogues v EUIPO — Grupo Osborne (BADTORO)

(Case T-350/13) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark BADTORO - Earlier EU figurative and word marks TORO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Similarity of the goods and services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 374/38)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Jordi Nogues, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Fernández Castellanos, M. J. Sanmartín Sanmartín and E. López Parés, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented: initially by V. Melgar and J. Crespo Carrillo and subsequently by M. Crespo Carillo, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Grupo Osborne, SA (El Puerto de Santa María, Spain) (represented by: J. M. Iglesias Monravá, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 April 2013 (Case R 1446/2012-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Grupo Osborne and Jordi Nogues.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 April 2013 (Case R 1446/2012-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 April 2013 (Case R 1446/2012-2);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Jordi Nogues, SL; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Jordi Nogues, SL;

| 3. | Orders Grupo Osborne, SA to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Grupo Osborne, SA to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.

1

---
Exhibit 23






                 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No: 33-43087) pertaining to
the Ennis Business Forms, Inc. 1991 Incentive Stock Option
Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-58963)
pertaining to the Ennis Business Forms, Inc. 1998 Option and
Restricted Stock Plan, and the Registration Statements (Form
S-8 Nos. 333-38100 and 333-44624) pertaining to the Ennis
Business Forms, Inc. 401(k) Plan, of our report dated April
14, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Ennis Business Forms, Inc. and
subsidiaries included in their Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended February 29, 2004.



                                   /s/  ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Dallas, Texas
April 29, 2004
EX-4.1



 Exhibit 4.1 





 
  
 DELAWARE

 SEAL 
 2009 
 CORPORATE 

Kite Pharma, Inc. 
 CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER AND 
 CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER 
 THIS CERTIFIES THAT 
 IS THE RECORD HOLDER OF 
 INCORPORATED UNDER THE
LAWS 
 OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS 
 CUSIP 49803L
10 9 
 FULLY PAID AND NONASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK, $0.001 PAR VALUE, PER SHARE, OF 

Kite Pharma, Inc. 
 transferable on the books of the Corporation in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate 

is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by the Registrar. 

WITNESS the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers. 

Dated: 
 COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED: 
 AMERICAN STOCK
TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY, LLC 
 (Brooklyn, NY) 

TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR 
 By: 
 AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE 

Kite Pharma, Inc. 
 KP 
 CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 







 



 
  
 FOR VALUE
RECEIVED, hereby sell(s), assign(s) and transfer(s) unto 
 PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER 

IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE 
 PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE 
 Shares 
 of the common stock represented by the
within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint 
 Attorney 

to transfer the said stock on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.

 Dated 
 Signature(s) Guaranteed 
 By 

THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS, 

STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN 

APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM), PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15. 

GUARANTEES BY A NOTARY PUBLIC ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. SIGNATURE GUARANTEES MUST NOT BE 

DATED. 
 THE SIGNATURE(S) TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME(S) AS WRITTEN UPON THE 
 FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY 
 CHANGE WHATSOEVER. 
 X 

X 
 NOTICE: 
 The following abbreviations, when used in
the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out 
 in full
according to applicable laws or regulations: 
 TEN COM 

TEN ENT 
 JT TEN 
 as tenants in common 

as tenants by the entireties 
 as joint tenants with right of 
 survivorship and
not as tenants 
 in common 
 UNIF GIFT MIN ACT– Custodian 
 (Cust) (Minor)

 under Uniform Gifts to Minors 
 Act 
 (State) 

– 
 – 
 – 

Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132374 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132374 

 COA: 271901 

St Clair CC: 05-001438-FH 

ROBERT CARL WEBB, SR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 12, 2006 

order 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. 

t0723 

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. 

July 30, 2007 

 Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENTS OF LOSS AND ACCUMULATED DEFICIT AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE  TO SUCH 10QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED December 31,
1999.


<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          Jun-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               Dec-31-1999
<CASH>                                            1475
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1475
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1475
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      10000
<COMMON>                                          1935
<OTHER-SE>                                      (10460)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1475
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     1528
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (1528)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.001)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.001)



</TABLE>
Pcc^ ^ %^ii-6ih5 

!:v:crii 

n 0 n 0' 

December 6, 2011 

Mr. Dennis DeVany 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

U. S. Department of Transportation 

400 Seventh Street SW 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Mr. DeVany, 

It has just come to our attention that the Department of Transportation has awarded 

the Brainerd, MN airport contract to Great Lakes Airlines. As Mayors of 

communities directly impacted by this decision, we wish to express our deep 

concern. 

First: Great Lakes Airlines did not, and continues to not, meet the minimum bidding 

requirements. 

Second: the load factor for Brainerd is quite high. Service will be considerably 

diminished through the use of smaller planes that, in addition, do not offer 

accessibility for those needing assistance without impacting the remaining 

passengers. Fewer seats also impacts business development in the area. 

Third: we have yet to be assured that there will be flow-through with Delta so that 

luggage will automatically be transferred for flight continuations. 

Finally, it is our opinion that the Department of Transportations should ensure that 

air travel from the Brainerd Airport should improve with a new carrier - it should 

not be a step backward...which this decision definitely is. 

Sincerely, 

Joann Weaver, Mayor 

Breezy Point, MN 

Darrell Schneider, Mayor 

Crosslake, MN 

•Jon Lubke, Mayor 

Jenkins, MN 

Brian Lehman, Mayor 

Nisswa, MN 

Nancy Adams, Mayor 

Pequot Lakes, MN 

Jim Sabas, Mayor 

Pine River, MN
No. 10-5850.

#### Nathan Saunders, Petitioner v. Dale Artus, Superintendent, Clinton Correctional Facility.

562 U.S. 1169, 131 S. Ct. 899,

178 L. Ed. 2d 804,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 509.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

*805Same case below, 587 F.3d 543.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 131 (Thursday, July 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 37108]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18164]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-269-000]


Wyoming Interstate Company, Ltd.; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

July 2, 1998.
    Take notice that on June 29, 1998, Wyoming Interstate Company, Ltd. 
(WIC), tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First 
Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed in Appendix A to the 
filing, to be effective August 1, 1998.
    WIC states that the purpose of this filing is to conform WIC's 
First Revised Volume No. 1 tariff to requirements of Order No. 587-G. 
As WIC's Volume No. 1 tariff is only for individually-certificated 
service, it is proposing to make these changes, and minor housekeeping 
changes related to capitalizing of defined terms, as a limited Section 
4 tariff filing.
    WIC further states that copies of this filing have been served on 
WIC's jurisdictional customers and public bodies.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a 
motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-18164 Filed 7-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of our report dated January 28, 2000 included in this Form 10-K
into Weatherford International, Inc.'s previously filed Registration Statement
File Nos. 33-31662, 33-56384, 33-56386, 33-65790, 33-64349, 333-13531,
333-44345, 333-53633, 333-80215, 333-83739, 333-87057, 333-88149, and 333-31852.




ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
Houston, Texas
March 16, 2000
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENTS OF LOSS AND ACCUMULATED DEFICIT AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE  TO SUCH 10QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED March 31,
1999.
       
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          Jun-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               Mar-31-1999
<CASH>                                            4794
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      751
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  5545
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    5800
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      10000
<COMMON>                                          1935
<OTHER-SE>                                       (6642)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      5800
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      688
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (688)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (688)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.000)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.000)

        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.2**

**RULE 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION******

I, Lawrence Safarek, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of First Niles Financial, Inc.;

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 statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material aspects the consolidated 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 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 our evaluation; and

> c) disclosed in this report any changes in the registrant's internal control over
> financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter
> that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
> registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

5. The registrant's other certifying officer 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 registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

> 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:  August 14, 2003

|/s/ | Lawrence Safarek
Lawrence Safarek
  Vice President and Treasurer
(Principal Financial Officer)
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 10-7320.

#### Christopher Ysais, Petitioner v. Consuelo Angela Ysais.

562 U.S. 1130, 131 S. Ct. 935,

178 L. Ed. 2d 741,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 503.

January 10, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New Mexico dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
For accessible content (in English): https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/campaign/tips/resources/ads/pdf-print-ads/cdc-tips-heart-health-korean-english-print-508.pdf