alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



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 ILEX Oncology, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Jeffrey H. Buchalter, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ Jeffrey H. BuchalterName:
    Jeffrey H. BuchalterTitle:
    President and Chief Executive OfficerDate:
    November 9, 2004 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 906), or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section
906, has been provided to ILEX Oncology, Inc. and will be retained by ILEX
Oncology, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 235 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 235

          To permanently extend the Internet Tax Freedom Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2015

 Mr. Goodlatte (for himself, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Cohen, and Mr. 
   Marino) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To permanently extend the Internet Tax Freedom Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Permanent Internet Tax Freedom 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PERMANENT MORATORIUM ON INTERNET ACCESS TAXES AND MULTIPLE AND 
              DISCRIMINATORY TAXES ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE.

    (a) In General.--Section 1101(a) of the Internet Tax Freedom Act 
(47 U.S.C. 151 note) is amended by striking ``during the period 
beginning November 1, 2003, and ending October 1, 2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxes imposed after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 23

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference into the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-55180, 333-63268, 333-68718, 333-81290,
333-104402, 333-108529, 333-125194, 333-135553 and 333-149067) of Paid, Inc. and
subsidiary of our report dated March 31, 2008, on our audit of the consolidated
financial statements of Paid, Inc., which appears in the December 31, 2007
annual report on Form 10-KSB of Paid, Inc. and subsidiary.


/s/ Carlin, Charron & Rosen, LLP
Westborough, Massachusetts
March 31, 2008
sr/m: of /M

Btxtx

MOTION TO

ASIDE INOIC

<>2> ~o

CO ■.-.'-

;.•'

/a/ if Mi's

IN addihctv vy &t-i,r

W-f- He

Court fit

Sy /an

/■ 71*/ //-

/fat perse* fa

J. /t

fit-
32A.

ART, it 4. Ol. T*/+t

*S

fc aefa j{<//J<

On, fails

This arhe'fe "«S

(I) 100 dHf/S

// Mt

ar lk& fn+ry
Mf.it. IE.

fit s.

Hi

h/l -/it/-

**/ /(rfcU I*- 60/... 4^

to

SB

y>^

Ji/t. 0?j Mf

r*f*

-H)

—~r

ok hi
$4,6 is Urth

fk<L
C3,

so

Q!

f—

vn

"So

re*

.VXJ

■=!■

- j

..,

■' ■.-■

CO

rl

31

-■■

VI
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001018738
<NAME> COBBLESTONE TEXAS, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          24,504
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,292,445
<ALLOWANCES>                                   134,829
<INVENTORY>                                    145,272
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               776,823
<PP&E>                                      14,552,643
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,108,843
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,263,890
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          587,912
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,613,821
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,263,890
<SALES>                                      1,233,204
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,447,636
<CGS>                                          532,187
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,335,045
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                50,559
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,608
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,107,983
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,107,983
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,107,983
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### LIVINGSTON v. SPERO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

October 29, 1896.)

Action by Meyer W. Livingston against Louis Spero.

Oppenheim & Severance (W. P. Severance, of counsel), for appellant.

L. Brenner (M. L. Erlanger, of counsel), for respondent.

McADAM, J.

The action is by the plaintiff, as assignor of Mitchell L. Erlanger, an attorney at law, to recover $99 for professional services rendered to the defendant in the following matters: $75 for services rendered in the case of Schultz against Spero; $25 for services growing out of a report made by Dun’s Agency concerning the defendant; and $5 concerning a satisfaction piece. The answer was a general denial, with a plea of payment, and counterclaim of $250 by reason of the gross negligence of the plaintiff’s assignor as an attorney and counsel- or, by which the defendant sustained damages in that sum. The justice found for the plaintiff, and awarded him judgment for $75, disallowing the defendant’s counterclaim and the second and third items of plaintiff’s bill. The plaintiff proved the rendition of the services in the Schultz Case at the request of the defendant, and that they were reasonably worth $75, the sum for which the justice rendered judgment. The claim that the services were rendered gratuitously, or had in any manner been paid_ for, entirely failed. The counterclaim for negligence grows out of the same matters which have been gone over in the opinion filed this day in suit No. 1 between the same parties (41 N. Y. Supp. 606), and need not be again discussed. This action, like that, is by an assignee, and substantially the same rulings were made here as there, and all these are effectually disposed of by the opinion in that case. We find no error, and the judgment must be affirmed, with costs.
#### GINDRE et al., Respondents, v. BENGAMIN, Appellant.

(Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.

May 11, 1894.)

Action by Claude Gindre and others against Edward M. Bengamin.

Argued before DALY, C. J., and BOOKSTAVER and PRYOR, JJ.

Smith & Dougherty, for appellant.

Stephen Van Wyck, for respondents.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2345 

To extend the date after which interest earned on obligations held in the 

wildlife restoration fund may be available for apportionment. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 14, 2015 

Mr. WITTMAN (for himself and Mr. THOMPSON of California) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To extend the date after which interest earned on obligations 

held in the wildlife restoration fund may be available 

for apportionment. 

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

3 SECTION 1. INTEREST ON OBLIGATIONS HELD IN THE 

4 WILDLIFE RESTORATION FUND. 

5 Section 3(b)(2)(C) of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife 

6 Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669b(b)(2)(C)) is amended by 

7 striking ‘‘2016’’ and inserting ‘‘2026’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2428 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to 

humanitarian device exemption applications. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 19, 2015 

Mr. SHIMKUS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with 

respect to humanitarian device exemption applications. 

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

3 SECTION 1. HUMANITARIAN DEVICE EXEMPTION APPLICA4 TION. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 520(m) of the Federal 

6 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360j) is amend7 ed— 

8 (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ‘‘fewer than 

9 4,000’’ and inserting ‘‘not more than 8,000’’; 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2428 IH

1 (2) in paragraph (2)(A) by striking ‘‘fewer than 

2 4,000’’ and inserting ‘‘not more than 8,000’’; and 

3 (3) in paragraph (6)(A)(ii), by striking ‘‘4,000’’ 

4 and inserting ‘‘8,000’’. 

5 (b) GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON PROBABLE BEN6 EFIT.—Not later than 18 months after the date of enact7 ment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human 

8 Services, acting through the Commissioner of Food and 

9 Drugs, shall publish a draft guidance document that de10 fines the criteria for establishing ‘‘probable benefit’’ as 

11 that term is used in section 520(m)(2)(C) of the Federal 

12 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360j(m)(2)(C)). 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[865 NE2d 1247, 834 NYS2d 81]

#### Ada Zona et al., Appellants, v JELD-WEN, Inc., et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1.) Ada Zona et al., Appellants, v JELD-WEN, Inc., et al., Respondents. (Action No. 2.)

Decided March 29, 2007

*912APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Osborn, Reed & Burke, LLP,*Rochester *(Thomas J. Rzepka*of counsel), for appellants.

*Hodgson Russ LLP,*Albany *(Noreen DeWire Grimmick*of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the memorandum of the Appellate Division (34 AD3d 1189 [2006]).

Concur: Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones.
#### Raymond Michaels Holding Corp., Appellant, v John R. Scott et al., Respondents.

A review of the record and of the applicable regulations contained in the New York State Sanitary Code reveals that there was a rational basis for the rejection of the petitioner’s application for a variance from water disinfection requirements. Accordingly, the determination of the Dutchess County Department of Health was correctly confirmed *(see, Matter of Colton v Berman,*21 NY2d 322). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.
# C_2021351EN.01002401.xml

| 1.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 351/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 351/24

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10440 — SEGRO/PSPIB/Varia Class Logistics)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 351/11)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | SEGRO plc (‘SEGRO’, United Kingdom), |
| --- | --- |

—

SEGRO plc (‘SEGRO’, United Kingdom),

| — | Public Sector Pension Investment Board (‘PSPIB’, Canada), |
| --- | --- |

—

Public Sector Pension Investment Board (‘PSPIB’, Canada),

| — | Varia Class Logistics SL (‘Target Asset’, Spain). |
| --- | --- |

—

Varia Class Logistics SL (‘Target Asset’, Spain).

SEGRO and PSPIB acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of the Target Asset.

2.

| — | For SEGRO: ownership, asset management and development of modern warehousing and light industrial properties located around major conurbations and at key transportation hubs across a number of EU countries. |
| --- | --- |

—

For SEGRO: ownership, asset management and development of modern warehousing and light industrial properties located around major conurbations and at key transportation hubs across a number of EU countries.

| — | For PSPIB: management of a diversified global investment portfolio including stocks, bonds and other fixed-income securities, and investments in private equity, real estate, infrastructure, natural resources and private debt. |
| --- | --- |

—

For PSPIB: management of a diversified global investment portfolio including stocks, bonds and other fixed-income securities, and investments in private equity, real estate, infrastructure, natural resources and private debt.

| — | For the Target Asset: ownership of an industrial site situated in Martorelles, Barcelona. |
| --- | --- |

—

For the Target Asset: ownership of an industrial site situated in Martorelles, Barcelona.

3.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10440 — SEGRO/PSPIB/Varia Class Logistics

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

2

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

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

|   |    /s/  Granger      Cobb |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------|
|   | Granger      Cobb                                  |
|   | Co-Chief      Executive Officer                    |
|   | May      11, 2009                                  |
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

287 

CAF 10-01473 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF CATHERINE MYERS, 

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RICHARD J. TRACY, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

 

SUSAN P. REINECKE, CLARENCE, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

PAUL R. DIDIO, BUFFALO, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Patricia

A. Maxwell, J.), entered June 1, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to

Family Court Act article 4. The order confirmed the determination of

the Support Magistrate. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

without costs. 

Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order confirming

the Support Magistrate’s determination that he willfully failed to

obey a child support order and imposing a suspended sentence of 90

days in jail. The Support Magistrate’s finding of a willful violation

of the support order was based upon admissions made by the father in

open court when the parties entered into a settlement agreement. 

Because the father consented to the order confirming the Support

Magistrate’s determination, including his recommended sentence, the

appeal must be dismissed. It is well settled that “[n]o appeal lies

from an order entered by consent upon the stipulation of the appealing

party” (Matter of Starz v Tissiera, 206 AD2d 432; see Matter of Adney

v Morton, 68 AD3d 1742; Matter of Culton v Culton, 2 AD3d 1446). In

any event, we note that the father’s sole contention on appeal that he

was denied effective assistance of counsel is based largely on matters

dehors the record and thus should be raised by way of a motion to

vacate the order in Family Court (see generally Matter of Commissioner

of Social Servs. of Rensselaer County [Faresta] v Faresta, 11 AD3d

750). 

Entered: March 16, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
1 The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 00-2853

___________ Lani Brown; Mike Brown, * * Appellants, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the J. Miles Sweeney; Bruce Hunt; Jeff * Western District of Missouri. Monroe; Missouri Court of Appeals; * Missouri Supreme Court; Jay Nixon, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: December 4, 2000 Filed: December 8, 2000

___________ Before BEAM, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Laniand Mike Brown appeal from the district court’s 1 dismissal of their complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3) and 18 U.S.C. § 1964(a). The Browns claimed that defendants conspired to deny them, as pro se litigants, equal protectionand meaningful access to the state courts in their pursuit of dental malpractice actions. Upon de novo review, we conclude dismissal was proper because2 Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. , 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462 (1983). -2- the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. See Lemonds v. St. Louis County , 222 F.3d 488, 492-95 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of review for Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) dismissal; Rooker-Feldman 2 doctrine forecloses indirect attempts to undermine state court decisions; federal constitutional claim is “inextricably intertwined” with state court judgment if federal claim succeeds only to extent state court wrongly decided issue before it; doctrine applies even where party to federal action was not party to state action); Keene Corp. v. Cass , 908 F.2d 293, 297 (8th Cir. 1990) ( Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies to claims for injunctive and declaratory relief). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     Financial Data Schedule for the First Quarter 1998
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0001000779
<NAME>                         Consolidated Delivery & Logistics, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     $1.00
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                     $1.00
<CASH>                                             853
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,251
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (1,663)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,162
<PP&E>                                          14,080
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (7,936)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,304
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,327
<BONDS>                                          2,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,848
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    32,304
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                42,686
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,278
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   213
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 264
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    401
<INCOME-TAX>                                       160
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                241
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       241
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .04
        



</TABLE>
, Pickering

Parraguirre compelling his attendance at a deposition in Nevada because real parties in interest improperly filed the underlying confession of judgment with the same district court case number as a previous district court action that was dismissed on the parties' stipulation, making the order compelling petitioner's deposition in the confessed judgment proceeding void.

Having considered the petition, answer, reply, and the appendices, we conclude that our extraordinary intervention is not warranted at this time. 

### Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. In particular, petitioner did not provide this court with a copy of a written order memorializing the district court's ruling that petitioner appear in Washoe County for a deposition, 

### see Rust v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 688-89, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) (recognizing that an oral ruling is ineffective for any purpose), and we are not otherwise convinced that petitioner's argument regarding the district court's jurisdiction over the confession of judgment proceedings warrants our extraordinary intervention, at least at this point in the proceedings. 

### See Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844; 

### Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. Thus, under these circumstances, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.'

J.

'In light of our resolution of this matter, we vacate the temporary stay imposed by our April 4, 2014, order.

SUPREME COURT OF 2 NEVADA
(0) 1947A

### cc: Hon. Brent T. Adams, District Judge Robison Belaustegui Sharp & Low Gordon Silver/Reno Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 

### 3

(0) 1947A