alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Europeiska unionens C 163A/5 ju

| | ISSN 1725-2504 |
| --- | --- |
| Europeiska unionens
  officiella tidning | C 163A |
| | |
| Svensk utgåva | Meddelanden och upplysningar | 48 årgången5 juli 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2504

Europeiska unionens

officiella tidning

C 163A

Svensk utgåva

Meddelanden och upplysningar

48 årgången5 juli 2005

---

| Informationsnummer | Innehållsförteckning | Sida |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Upplysningar |
| | Kommissionen |
| 2005/C 163A/1 | Utlysning av tjänsten som direktör för Europeiska arbetsmiljöbyrån (lönegrad A*14) KOM/2005/10001 | 1 |

Informationsnummer

Innehållsförteckning

Sida

III   Upplysningar

Kommissionen

2005/C 163A/1

Utlysning av tjänsten som direktör för Europeiska arbetsmiljöbyrån (lönegrad A*14) KOM/2005/10001

1

| SV | |
| --- | --- |

SV

---

III Upplysningar

Kommissionen

| 5.7.2005 | SV | Europeiska unionens officiella tidning | CA 163/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2005

SV

Europeiska unionens officiella tidning

CA 163/1

---

Utlysning av tjänsten som

DIREKTÖR

för Europeiska arbetsmiljöbyrån

(lönegrad A*14)

KOM/2005/10001

(2005/C 163 A/01)

Europeiska arbetsmiljöbyrån utlyser tjänsten som direktör för byrån.

Sökande till tjänsten skall vara medborgare i någon av Europeiska unionens medlemsstater.

Direktören kommer att utses av byråns styrelse bland de personer som kommissionen valt ut och fört upp på en särskild förteckning. För tjänsten gäller de löne- och anställningsvillkor som enligt tjänsteföreskrifterna gäller för tjänstemän i lönegrad A*14 vid Europeiska gemenskaperna. Byrån och kommissionen för en politik för lika möjligheter.

Befattningsbeskrivning, ansökningsformulär och anvisningar för hur ansökan skall inges kan hämtas på Internet på följande adresser:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/personnel_administration/working_senior_mgt_fr.htm

eller

http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/news/2005/jul/bilbao_vacancy_en.html

Sista ansökningsdag är den 10 augusti 2005 (poststämpelns datum gäller).

---
EXHIBIT 10


EXHIBIT 10.1


	
10.1
	
Kreisler Manufacturing Corporation 2007 Stock Incentive Plan*



______________ 

*Incorporated by reference to Appendix A to the Company's definitive proxy statement for the 2007 annual meeting of stockholders, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2007.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

Tuesday, January 9, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.

# PLACE:

999 E Street NW, Washington, DC.

# STATUS:

This meeting will be closed to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109.

Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.

      ( print page 528)    

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Laura E. Sinram,

Deputy Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2018-00057 Filed 1-2-18; 4:15 pm]

 BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
Aissa GONZALEZ, Appellant, v. U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, etc., Appellee.

No. 3D16-2036

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed January 24, 2018

Thompson Legal, P.A. and Stephanie M. Taylor (Davie), for appellant.

Phelan Hallinan Diamond & Jones, PLLC and John D. Cusick (Ft. Lauderdale); Rothman & Robin, P.A. and Michael Rothman and Ellen Patterson, for appellee.

Before SUAREZ, LAGOA, and SALTER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Spikes v. OneWest Bank FSB*, 106 So.3d 475 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) ; *Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Kim*, 898 So.2d 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Elder Mistreatment.                    

*Date:*                         January 24, 2018.                    

*Time:*                         1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, Suite 2W200, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Kimberly Firth, Ph.D., National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7702,                         *firthkm@mail.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

      ( print page 61309)    
Dated: December 20, 2017.

Melanie J. Pantoja,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2017-27937 Filed 12-26-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Eric Arnold LEE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-1537

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 06, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
**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 TXP Corporation (the "Company") on
      Form
      10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Shores, Chief
      Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and 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.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      TXP Corporation and will be retained by TXP Corporation and furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




November
              14,
              2006*/s/ Michael
                  Shores*Michael
              ShoresChief
                  Executive*Officer (Principal Executive
                  Officer)*
C.C., Respondent, v. R.J., Appellant.

No. ED 106682

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Filed: April 2, 2019

William P. Hogan, 1900 Locust Street, Suite 302, St. Louis, MO. 63103, for appellant.

Clayton Clemmons, 3504 Natural View Street, Las Vegas, NV. 89129, for respondent.

Before Roy L. Richter, P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., Angela T. Quigless, J.

*681***ORDER***

PER CURIAM.

R.J. ("Mother") appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, granting C.C.'s ("Father") petition seeking to modify a child custody and child support decree entered in the State of Mississippi. On appeal, Mother argues the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to modify the Mississippi decree under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, failed to give full faith and credit to the Mississippi decree, and failed to appoint a next friend for the minor children. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the circuit court did not err. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to MO. R. CIV. P. 84.16(b) (2018).
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 19

- 1234

_____________________________
K ENNETH S. R OTE , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County

. Leandra G. Johnson , Judge

. August 8, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. R AY , C.J., and K ELSEY and W INOKUR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Kenneth S. Rote, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
It is also not the first lawsuit he has filed making the same challenges and arguments about campaign financing.

1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

September 13, 2005 Session

JOHN JAY HOOKER v. PHIL BREDESEN, ET AL.

Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County

No. 04-405-III Ellen Hobbs Lyle, Chancellor

No. M2004-02185-COA-R3-CV - Filed October 25, 2005

PATRICIA J. COTTRELL, J., dissenting in part.

The trial court specifically found that the complaint herein was “duplicative of matters

already settled and litigated by rulings of superior courts.” Nonetheless, the court decided sanctions

were not appropriate due to the ambiguity created by the Special Master’s determination the case

could proceed under the order limiting the cases filed by the plaintiff. The majority opinion agrees

that the lawsuit’s clearance underthe screening order and the Attorney General’s failure to challenge

the result of that screening justify the refusal to impose sanctions. Thus, the test applied by the trial

court and the majority of this court is whether the complaint complied with the screening order.

In my opinion, that is not the question and, consequently, I respectfully disagree with my

colleagues. Whether or not sanctions should have been imposed herein can only be determined by

application of the appropriate legal principles that are relevant to any Rule 11 case. Every other

lawyer or litigant is subject to the requirements of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 11. The screening mechanism

imposed by the Davidson Countytrial courts neither relieves Mr. Hooker of the obligation to comply

with Rule 11 nor protects him from sanctions if he does not. Even if this were the first lawsuit Mr.

Hooker ever filed, which it clearly is not, his signing and filing the complaint would have been 1

subject to the requirements of Rule 11. One of those requirements is that the claims and other legal

contentions in the complaint be warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the

modification or reversal of existing law. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 11.02(2). Applying a test of objective

reasonableness, the question is whether, under all the circumstances, the complaint was based on “a

plausible view of the law.” Andrews v. Bible, 812 S.W.2d 284, 288 (Tenn. 1991). This test was not

applied to the complaint herein.

The screening order was put in place because of prior abuse of the litigation process. It

cannot have been intended to provide greater protection to Mr. Hooker than is provided to other

litigants and attorneys who have not been the subject of such orders.
-2-

Because the trial court did not apply the relevant standards under Rule 11 and did not make

the factual findings relevant thereto, I would vacate the order of the trial court and remand for

consideration under the correct applicable legal principles. See Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82,

85 (Tenn. 2001) (holding that a trial court abuses its discretion when it applies incorrect legal

principles).

I concur in the majority opinion on the merits of Mr. Hooker’s appeal.

____________________________________

PATRICIA J. COTTRELL, JUDGE
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 36

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲ ▲

▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

07/09

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 09 Jul 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.56 N 76.20 W Meters AGL
Derrick Dewon THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D16-2985

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[January 31, 2018]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Tom Wm. Odom, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mitchell A. Egber, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.* *See* *State v. Born-Suniaga* , 219 So.3d 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).

Gerber, C.J., Taylor and Conner, JJ., concur.
-86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

36 38 40 42



### ★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 2000 1000 18 12 06 00 07/18 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 18 Jul 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.92 N 77.01 WMeters AGL
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 60 (Tuesday, March 31, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 14555]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-7190]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8787-6]


Notice of Proposed Administrative Settlement Pursuant to the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; 
U.S. Colloidal Essence Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice, request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (``CERCLA''), 
as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a proposed 
Administrative Agreement for Recovery of Past Response Costs 
(``Agreement,'' Region 9 Docket No. 9-2009-08) pursuant to Section 
122(h) of CERCLA concerning the U.S. Colloidal Essence Site (the 
``Site''), located in Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, 
California. The settling party is Walton CWCA Goldenwest 70 LLC. 
Through the proposed Agreement, the Respondent will reimburse the 
United States $10,000 for response costs incurred at the Site. The 
Agreement provides Respondent with a covenant not to sue for past 
response costs at the Site, and contribution protection. For thirty 
(30) days following the date of publication of this Notice, the Agency 
will receive written comments relating to the proposed Agreement. The 
administrative record and the Agency's response to any comments 
received will be available for public inspection at EPA's Region IX 
offices, located at 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 
94105.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 30, 2009.

ADDRESSES: The proposed Agreement may be obtained from the EPA Region 9 
Superfund Records Center, at 95 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 
California 94105 (415) 536-2000. Comments regarding the proposed 
Agreement should be addressed to Andrew Helmlinger at the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (ORC-3), 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, California 94105, and should reference the U.S. Colloidal 
Essence Site Agreement, and Region IX Docket No. 9-2009-08.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Helmlinger, Office of Regional 
Counsel, (415) 972-3904, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 
9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.

    Dated: March 16, 2009.
Keith A. Takata,
Director, Superfund Division.
 [FR Doc. E9-7190 Filed 3-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-2654

___________________________

Aaron Olson

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

United States Post Office

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis

____________

 Submitted: March 1, 2016

Filed: March 4, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
Minnesota resident Aaron Olson appeals the district court’s dismissal of his

1

pro se complaint alleging that he was assaulted by a postal worker, and the court’s

denial of his motion to amend the complaint. After careful de novo review, see In re

NVE Corp. Sec. Litig., 527 F.3d 749, 752 (8th Cir. 2008) (de novo review of denial

of motion to amend complaint based on futility); Riley v. United States, 486 F.3d

1030, 1031 (8th Cir. 2007) (de novo review of dismissal for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction), we conclude that dismissal was appropriate for the reasons stated by the

district court. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District 1

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Becky R.

Thorson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-2-
---

Exhibit 21

Subsidiaries

Orgenesis Inc. had the subsidiaries shown below as of March 30, 2016. Orgenesis Inc. had no parent.

|Name of Subsidiary         | Jurisdiction of Organization | Percentage owned
|-------------------------- | ---------------------------- | ----------------
|                           |                              |                 
|Orgenesis Maryland Inc.    | Maryland                     | 100%            
|                           |                              |                 
|Orgenesis Ltd.             | Israel                       | 100%            
|                           |                              |                 
|Orgenesis SPRL             | Belgium                      | 95%             
|                           |                              |                 
|Cell Therapy Holding SA(2) | Belgium                      | 100%            
|                           |                              |                 
|MaSTHerCell SA             | Belgium                      | 100%            

---
Paula KEATON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-2594

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed December 12, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32


                                  CERTIFICATION
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of SATUSA CORPORATION (the
"Company") for the year ended August 31, 2017, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Kevin Nichols, as
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 results of
          operations of the Company.


Date: November 15, 2018                By: /s/ Kevin Nichols
                                           -----------------
                                              Kevin Nichols
                                              Chief Executive Officer
                                              Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to ss. 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 ss.18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                5


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               FEB-28-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  MAR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                          0
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                0
<PP&E>                          0
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           0
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        60,253
<OTHER-SE>                      (60,253)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    0
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                0
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0
<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>                    0
<EPS-BASIC>                   (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (.00)



</TABLE>