alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019182EN.01001401.xml

| 27.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 11 February 2019 — Industria Italiana Autobus SpA v Comune di Palermo

(Case C-111/19)

(2019/C 182/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Industria Italiana Autobus SpA

Defendant: Comune di Palermo

Question referred

Does EU law (in particular the principles of legitimate expectations, legal certainty, freedom of movement, freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services) preclude a national legislative provision, such as Article 83(9), Article 95(10) and Article 97(5) of the Italian ‘Codice dei contratti pubblici’ (‘Public Procurement Code’), under which failure to indicate labour costs and costs relating to the safety of workers by a tenderer in a public procurement procedure results in any event in the tenderer being excluded from the procedure without the tenderer being given, at a later stage, the benefit of the ‘soccorso istruttorio’ procedure (whereby a tenderer is given an opportunity to remedy shortcomings in his tender documentation after submission of his tender), even where the existence of such an obligation to indicate those costs is apparent from sufficiently clear legal provisions in the public domain and irrespective of the fact that the contract notice does not expressly refer to the legal obligation to provide specific information?

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          16,754
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,948
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (452)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,334
<PP&E>                                          10,740
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,005)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  68,163
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,233
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            17
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,863
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    68,163
<SALES>                                         23,218
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,218
<CGS>                                            4,004
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,499
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   232
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  23
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,877)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,880
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,757)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,757)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.25)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.16  AMENDMENT
NO. 2 TO LEASE   THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 is made and entered into this 7TH day
of April, 2000, by and between A&P FAMILY INVESTMENTS, a California general
partnership, as LANDLORD, and NEOMAGIC CORPORATION, a California corporation,
as TENANT.  RECITALS   A.     WHEREAS, by Lease Agreement
dated February 5, 1996 Landlord leased to Tenant all of that certain 45,000+
square foot building located at 3260 Jay Street, Santa Clara, California, the
details of which are more particularly set forth in said February 5, 1996 Lease
Agreement, and  B.      WHEREAS, said Lease was
amended by the Commencement Letter dated May 7, 1996 which confirmed the May 1,
1996 Lease Commencement Date and the April 30, 2003 Lease Termination Date,
and,  C.      WHEREAS, said lease was
amended by Amendment No. 1 dated October 15, 1997, which amended the Lease by
adding a co-terminous paragraph and a cross default paragraph in relation to a
separate lease agreement dated October 9, 1997 between the parties hereto, and  D.WHEREAS, it is
now the desire of the parties hereto to amend the Lease by amending the Basic
Rent Schedule and Aggregate Rent under the Lease as hereinafter set forth.  AGREEMENT   NOW THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, and in consideration of the hereinafter mutual promises, the
parties hereto do agree as follows:  1.     BASIC RENT:  As an accommodation to Tenant, Landlord has
agreed to allow Tenant to sublease one hundred percent of the Leased Premises
for a period of two years, commencing April 15, 2000 through April 14,
2002.  In consideration for Landlords
approval, the Basic Rent due for the last year of the Lease Term shall be
increased by $1.20 per square foot per month, and the total monthly Basic Rent
shall be amended as follows:  On June 1, 2002,
the sum of ONE HUNDRED THIRTY TWO THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY AND NO/100
DOLLARS ($132,750.00) shall be due, and a like sum due on the first day of each
month thereafter, through and including May 1, 2003.  The Aggregate Rent
shall be increased by $648,000.00, or from $5,833,832.66 to $6,481,832.66.  EXCEPT AS MODIFIED HEREIN, all other terms, covenants, and conditions
of said February 5, 1996 Lease Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.   
   IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
Landlord and Tenant have executed this Amendment No. 2 to Lease as of the day
and year last written below.  LANDLORD:
  
  TENANT:A&P
  FAMILY INVESTMENTS
  
  NEOMAGIC
  CORPORATIONa
  California corporationRICHARD
  T. PEERY 1976 CHILDRENS TRUSTBy
  
  
  ByJohn
  Arrillaga, 
  as General PartnerDate:
  
  
  Print
  Name/TitleDate:   2
#### In the Matter of the Town of Oyster Bay, Petitioner, v Arthur Y. Webb et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, dated March 2, 1984, which, after a hearing, approved the establishment of a community residential facility at the location desired by respondents, rather than at the alternative site proposed by petitioner.

Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

We find that the record contains substantial evidence to support a finding that the alternative site proposed by petitioner for a community residential facility was not the superior site, and as such, we must confirm the determination *(see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176; *Matter of Stork Rest, v Boland,*282 NY 256). In addition, the fact that the determination was not rendered within 30 days of the hearing, pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 41.34 (c) (5), does not require annulment of that determination. We have previously held that the 30-day time requirement was directory rather than mandatory, and at least in cases such as this one in which there was no undue delay, the determination will not be annulled on that ground *(see, Town of Pleasant Val. v Wassaic*
      *761
      *Developmental Disabilities Servs. Off.,*92 AD2d 543). Lazer, J. P., Bracken, O’Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 27, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 40211]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15920]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. DEA-867]


Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Novitium 
Pharma, LLC

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.

ACTION: Notice of application.

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

SUMMARY: Novitium Pharma, LLC has applied to be registered as a bulk 
manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to 
Supplementary Information listed below for further drug information.

DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), 
and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to 
the issuance of the proposed registration on or before September 27, 
2021. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the 
application on or before September 27, 2021.

ADDRESS: Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement 
Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 
8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this 
is notice that on June 17, 2021, Novitium Pharma, LLC., 70 Lake Drive, 
East Windsor, New Jersey 08520, applied to be registered as a bulk 
manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled 
substance(s):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Drug
          Controlled substance             code          Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Psilocybin..............................    7347  I
Psilocyn................................    7348  I
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to bulk manufacture the above controlled 
substances to produce Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) and 
finished dosage forms for clinical trial purposes. No other activities 
for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.

Brian S. Besser,
Acting Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021-15920 Filed 7-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
# C_2021357EN.01002001.xml

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Carbajo Ferrero v Parliament

(Case T-670/19) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Procedure of appointment to a director’s post - Notice of vacancy - Rejection of the applicant’s application and appointment of another applicant - Obligation to state reasons - Plea of illegality in respect of the measures setting the internal rules of procedure - Irregularity of the recruitment procedure - Manifest error of assessment - Inaccuracy of the information sent to the Appointing Authority - Transparency - Equal treatment - Liability - Material and non-material damage)

(2021/C 357/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Fernando Carbajo Ferrero (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: I. Terwinghe and C. González Argüelles, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 for, first, annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 10 December 2018 rejecting the applicant’s application and appointing another applicant to the post of director for media in the Directorate-General for Communication, and, secondly, for compensation for the damage the applicant allegedly suffered owing to that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 10 December 2018 rejecting the applicant’s application and appointing another applicant to the post of director for media in the Directorate-General for Communication; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 10 December 2018 rejecting the applicant’s application and appointing another applicant to the post of director for media in the Directorate-General for Communication;

| 2. | Orders Parliament to pay the sum of EUR 40 000 to the applicant in compensation for material damage; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Parliament to pay the sum of EUR 40 000 to the applicant in compensation for material damage;

| 3. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 4. | Orders the Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.

---
# C_2019082EN.01006101.xml

| 4.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/61

---

Action brought on 4 January 2019 — Clatronic International/EUIPO (PROFI CARE)

(Case T-5/19)

(2019/C 82/73)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Clatronic International GmbH (Kempen, Germany) (represented by: O. Löffel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative sign PROFI CARE — Application for registration No 1 372 358

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 October 2018 in Case R 504/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
Exhibit 32

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of CuraGen Corporation (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2008 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Timothy M. Shannon, M.D., Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, and Sean A. Cassidy, Vice-President and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.



|                        |  |     |  |                                                               
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 7, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/ Timothy M. Shannon, M.D.                                  
|                        |  |     |  | Timothy M. Shannon, M.D.                                      
|                        |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer and President                         
|                        |  |     |  | (principal executive officer of the registrant)               
|                        |  |    
|Dated: November 7, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/ Sean A. Cassidy                                           
|                        |  |     |  | Sean A. Cassidy                                               
|                        |  |     |  | Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer                    
|                        |  |     |  | (principal financial and accounting officer of the registrant)
#### In re SIMES.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

Sept. 25, 1907.)

In the matter of the application of Ernest A. Simes for an order, etc.

PER CURIAM.

Order modified, so as to al-low the appellant §300 for services, besides §115.42 for disbursements, and direct payment of the balance, with interest, and, as modified, affirmed, with §10 costs and disbursements to appellant.

McLennan, P. J., and SPRING, J., dissent
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 38 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 38

 Disapproving a rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to 
  the certification of nonimmigrant workers in temporary or seasonal 
                      nonagricultural employment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 21, 2012

  Mr. Graham (for himself, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Burr, and Mr. 
Shelby) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice 
             and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 Disapproving a rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to 
  the certification of nonimmigrant workers in temporary or seasonal 
                      nonagricultural employment.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
final rule published by the Department of Labor in the Federal Register 
on February 21, 2012, entitled ``Temporary Non-Agricultural Employment 
of H-2B Aliens in the United States'' (77 Fed. Reg. 10038), relating to 
the certification of nonimmigrant workers in temporary or seasonal 
nonagricultural employment, and such rule shall have no force or 
effect.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2021028EN.01003801.xml

| 25.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 28/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2020 — Kalai v Council

(Case T-178/19) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment - Proportionality - Right to property)

(2021/C 28/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Nader Kalai (Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada) (represented by: G. Karouni, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and P. Plaza García, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/87 of 21 January 2019 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 18 I, p. 13), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/85 of 21 January 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2019 L 18 I, p. 4), Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 36), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/798 of 17 May 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 1), Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/719 of 28 May 2020 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2020 L 168, p. 66), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/716 of 28 May 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2020 L 168, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant, and, second, application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant on account of those acts.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Nader Kalai to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Nader Kalai to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.

---
Exhibit 10.8



 Exhibit 10.8 
 

 
  
 Sales Agency Agreement 
 This Agreement is entered into between the parties concerned on the
basis of equality and mutual benefit to develop business on terms and conditions mutually agreed upon as follows: 
 1. 
 Contracting Parties 
 ( ): 
 Supplier: (hereinafter called “party A”) 
 IMD 
 IMD China Co., Ltd. 
 (Address): 
 B , 28 12 1-2 
 1-2 Floor Building 12, No. 28 Yuhua Road, Area B, Beijing Tianzhu Airport Industrial Zone, Beijing, China 
 ( ): 
 Agent: (hereinafter called “party B”) 
 Beijing DeHaier Medical Technology
Co., Ltd. 
 (Address): 
 31 1223 
 1223 Epoch Center 31 Zizhuyuan Road,
Haidian District, Beijing, China 
 IMD 
 Beijing DeHaier to act as IMD’s exclusive agent for range of products specified. 
 2. 
 Name of device 
 C 
 Mobile C-arm X-ray Unit 
 Model 
 RADIUS S9/ RADIUS R9 
 Quantity 
 50 
 1 







 

 
  
 ,
200 , 
 It is mutually agreed that Party B shall undertake to sell not less than USD 2 million of the aforesaid
commodity in the duration of this Agreement. 
 3. 
 Territory 
 Mainland of China 
 4. 
 Confirmation of Orders 
 The quantities prices and shipments of the commodities stated in this Agreement shall be confirmed in each transaction, the particulars of which are to be specified in the Sales
Confirmation signed by the two parties hereto. 
 5. 
 Payment 
 After confirmation of the order, Beijing Dehaier shall arrange the payment to Party A by check during the required time in the confirm letter so that Party A can get prepared for delivery. 
 6. 
 Validity of Agreement 
 2010 01 01 2011 01 01 1 
 This Agreement, after its being signed by the parties concerned, shall remain in force for One year from January 1, 2010
(date) to January 1, 2011, (date). If either Party wishes to extend this Agreement, he shall notice, in writing, the other party one month prior to its expiration. The matter shall be decided by the agreement and by consent of the parties hereto.
Should either party fail to implement the terms and conditions herein, the other party is entitled to terminate this Agreement. 
 7. 
 Other Terms & Conditions 
 (1) 
 Party A shall not supply the contracted commodity to any other buyer (s) in the above mentioned territory. Direct enquiries, if any, will be referred to Party B. However, should any 
 2 







 

 
  
 other buyers wish to deal with Party A directly. Party A may do so. 
 (2) 50 
 Should Party B fail to pass on his orders to Party A in a period of ... months for a minimum of USD500, 000, Party A shall
not bind himself to this Agreement. 
 (3) 
 This Agreement shall be subject to the terms and conditions in the Sales Confirmation signed by both parties hereto.

 ( ) 
 This Agency Agreement is executed in two counterparts each in Chinese and English, each of which shall be deemed equally authentic. This Contract is in one copy effective since being
signed/sealed by both parties. 
 : : 
 Party A: Party B: 
 (Signature) (Signature) 
 Dec. 21, 2009 

3