alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES  SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
          COMMISSION
 
 FORM 20-F/A
  ☐
            REGISTRATION STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(b) OR (g) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934    ☒
            ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934    OR
  ☐
            TRANSACTION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934    OR
 
 ☐
            SHELL COMPANY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934      TIKCRO TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
   N/A
   ISRAEL
   38 Hanasi Weizmann, Hadera 3842247, Israel
   Aviv Boim, T: +972-4-671-5933, info@tikcro.com
 38 Hanasi Weizmann, Hadera 3842247, Israel
  
  
 Title of each class
              Name of each exchange on which registeredNone
 
  
 Ordinary Shares, no par value
    
 None
     9,878,861 Ordinary Shares, no par value
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
  
 Large accelerated filer
            ☐
            Accelerated filer
            ☐Non-accelerated filer
            ☒
            Emerging growth company
            ☐ 
  
  
 U.S. GAAP  ☒
            IFRS as issued by the IASB  ☐
            Other  ☐ 
  
    
 
 
 
 
 
 Explanatory Note
  We are filing this Amendment No. 1 on Form 20-F/A to amend our Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2019 (the “Form 20-F”), as filed
            with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on June 1, 2020 (the “Original Filing”), to include information required by the SEC order issued on March 25, 2020 (Release No. 34-88465) (the “SEC Order”), which provides conditional relief
            to public companies that are unable to timely comply with their filing obligations as a result of the novel coronavirus outbreak.  This information is being added because it was not included in the Original Filing.
 
 On April 28, 2020, we submitted with the SEC a Report on Form 6-K stating that we are relying on the SEC Order to extend the filing date of the Form 20-F
            and estimated that we will be able to file the Form 20-F on or about June 1, 2020, which is within the additional 45-day period from the original due date provided for in the SEC Order.
 
 We were unable to file the Form 20-F by the original deadline of April 30, 2020, due to circumstances related to COVID-19. During the period of the
            preparation of the Form 20-F, we were following the guidelines of the Israeli government to minimize the risk of exposure of its team members to the novel coronavirus. As a result, the Company’s personnel, advisors and contractors were working
            remotely during this period, and we were unable to adequately coordinate and complete matters pertaining to the Form 20-F in a timely manner.
 
 This Amendment No. 1 is not intended to update any other information presented in the Original Filing.
 
 
 SIGNATURE
    TIKCRO TECHNOLOGIES LTD.By:
            /s/ Aviv BoimAviv BoimChief Executive Officer
Certification filed December 12, 2019

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-19-00316-CR

__________

IN RE CHRISTOPHER COBOS

Original Proceeding

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

I have reviewed the “Motion to Disqualify or Recuse and Reverse Judgments” 

filed in this cause on December 5, 2019. To the extent the document seeks my 

recusal, I have reviewed the document in chambers. See TEX. R. APP. P. 16.3(b). I 

find no reason to recuse myself and, under Rule 16.3(b), certify the issue of my 

recusal to the entire court for a determination by the other justices of this court. See 

Manges v. Guerra, 673 S.W.2d 180, 185 (Tex. 1984); McCullough v. Kitzman, 50 

S.W.3d 87, 88 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, pet. denied).

/s/ Jim R. Wright

JIM R. WRIGHT

SENIOR CHIEF JUSTICE
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

United States Coast GuardU.S. Department of Homeland Security

Search
Search

Search

-  Home    -  News Room             
  -  Reserve             
  -  Forcecom             
  -  Operations             
  -  Mission Support             
  -  Atlantic Area             
  -  Pacific Area             
  -  History 
-  Units    -  Organization             
  -  Coast Guard A to Z             
  -  Atlantic Area             
  -  Pacific Area             
  -  Force Readiness Command 
-  Leadership    -  Commandant’s Initiatives             
  -  Senior Leadership             
  -  Deputy Commandant for Operations             
  -  Deputy Commandant for Mission Support             
  -  Atlantic Area Commander             
  -  Pacific Area Commander             
  -  Reserve             
  -  Auxiliary 
-  Resources    -  CG Support             
  -  Legal      -  JoinCGJAG             
    -  Legal_Assistance        -  Find-A-Legal-Assistance-Lawyer             
      -  FAQ 
  -  Civil Rights             
  -  Work-Life             
  -  Administrative Law Judges      -  Virtual Hearing 
  -  Newsroom             
  -  Family             
  -  Library             
  -  CG Web Mail             
  -  Return 2 Service      -  FAQ 
-  Community    -  Art Program             
  -  Girl Scouts / Boy Scouts      -  Eagle Scout Recognition 
  -  Coast Guard Band             
  -  Coast Guard Cities             
  -  Honor Guard             
  -  JROTC      -  NEWS 
  -  Special Programs      -  Industry Academy        -  Contacts             
      -  2018 
  -  Trademark             
  -  Resources      -  History             
    -  CGC Eagle 
-  Mariners    -  National Vessel Documentation Center             
  -  National Maritime Center             
  -  National Pollution Funds Center      -  NRD        -  NRD_FAQs             
      -  Trustee_Links             
      -  NRD_DOCS             
      -  About_NRD_Funding 
  -  Boating Safety 
-  doing business		 
-  Join		 
-  Recruiting		 
-  contact		 
-  About		 

HomeHomeUnitsUnit Display

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Great Lakes (D9) 

#### 

Ninth District Command Center Number: (216) 902-6117 - For maritime emergency use only

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6053 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6053

     To amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to provide for timely 
consideration of claims submitted by States and political subdivisions 
                  for reimbursement of removal costs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 30, 2010

 Mr. Meek of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred 
         to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to provide for timely 
consideration of claims submitted by States and political subdivisions 
                  for reimbursement of removal costs.

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

SECTION 1. REIMBURSEMENT OF STATES AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS FOR 
              REMOVAL COSTS.

    Section 1012(e) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 
2712(e)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Regulations issued under this subsection shall ensure that a State or 
political subdivision receives payment for eligible removal costs not 
later than 30 days after the date of submission of a claim for such 
costs.''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.1**
 
 
 
 
 **Stratus Services Group, Inc.**
 **Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
 **(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)**
 
 
 In connection with the quarterly report of Stratus Services Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph J. Raymond, Chairman, 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; and2.
the information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 
 
 Dated: May 16, 2005By: /s/ Joseph J. RaymondJoseph J. RaymondChairman of the Board of Directors,President and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2021284EN.01001801.xml

| 16.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/18

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10295 — ORANGE POLSKA/APG/FIBERCO JV)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 284/06)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Orange Polska S.A. (‘OPL’, Poland) |
| --- | --- |

—

Orange Polska S.A. (‘OPL’, Poland)

| — | APG Asset Management N.V. (‘APG’, Netherlands) |
| --- | --- |

—

APG Asset Management N.V. (‘APG’, Netherlands)

| — | Joint venture Światłowód Inwestycje sp. z o.o. (‘FiberCo’, Poland) |
| --- | --- |

—

Joint venture Światłowód Inwestycje sp. z o.o. (‘FiberCo’, Poland)

OPL and APG acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of FiberCo.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | for OPL: the provision of fixed and mobile telecommunications services, broadband and Pay-TV services in Poland, and other telecommunications value added services. |
| --- | --- |

—

for OPL: the provision of fixed and mobile telecommunications services, broadband and Pay-TV services in Poland, and other telecommunications value added services.

| — | for APG: management of assets for pension funds in various sectors, including education, government construction, energy and utility companies, and infrastructure investments. |
| --- | --- |

—

for APG: management of assets for pension funds in various sectors, including education, government construction, energy and utility companies, and infrastructure investments.

| — | for FiberCo: expansion and builing of fiber infrastructure in order to offer wholesale access services in less dense areas in Poland. |
| --- | --- |

—

for FiberCo: expansion and builing of fiber infrastructure in order to offer wholesale access services in less dense areas in Poland.

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.10295 — ORANGE POLSKA/APG/FIBERCO JV

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

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 13, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-60275

Summary Calendar

 

EDDIE BLACK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WACKENHUT; W.M. WILLIAMS, Warden;

DR. VIRGINIA VITTOR; MELANIE

GILLILAND, Head Nurse; GEORGE

SNYDER, Warden,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:03-CV-157

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

Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Eddie Black has filed an application for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following a summary judgment in

favor of Dr. Virginia Vittor, which resulted in the dismissal of

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit. By moving for leave to proceed

IFP, Black is challenging the district court’s certification that

IFP should not be granted on appeal because his appeal is not
No. 05-60275

-2-

taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th

Cir. 1997). 

Black contends that Vittor changed his medication and the

dosage without first advising him of the alteration. He has not

established that Vittor’s actions evinced deliberate indifference

to his serious medical needs. See Johnson v. Treen, 759 F.2d

1236, 1238 (5th Cir. 1985); see also Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d

320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). Black also contends that the district

court erred in not ordering the defendants to answer his

interrogatories. He has not established that the district court

abused its discretion in denying such discovery after the

magistrate judge had issued his report and recommendation. 

See Moore v. Willis Indep. School Dist., 233 F.3d 871, 876 (5th

Cir. 2000).

Black’s appeal is thus without arguable merit and is

frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.

1983). Accordingly, we uphold the district court’s order

certifying that the appeal is not taken in good faith and denying

Black IFP status on appeal, we deny the motion for leave to

proceed IFP, and we DISMISS Black’s appeal as frivolous. See

Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
(9 Misc. Rep. 100.)

#### WOLFF et al. v. HORN et al.

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

June *4,*1894.)

Costs—Fees of Referee—Stipulation.

A stipulation by parties to pay referee larger fees than the law fixes will not be disregarded by the court in the absence of fraud, collusion, or deceit.

Appeal from special term.

Action by Arrowitz Wolff and others against Edward C. Horn and others. From an order retaxing plaintiff’s bill of costs, and disallowing certain sums paid the referee and stenographer, plaintiffs appeal.

Reversed.

Argued before DALY, C. J., and BO OKSTAVER and BISCHOFF, JJ.

W. W. Culver, for appellants.

Thomas O’Callaghan, Jr., for respondents.

BOOKSTAVER, J.

While the bill, as taxed by the clerk, appears to be very large considering the amount involved, yet we think, on the papers presented to him and printed in the appeal book, he was correct in taxing the amount he did. It was in strict accordance with the stipulation made between the parties to the action by their counsel, which was as follows:

> “It is stipulated by the respective parties that the fees of the stenographer shall be taxed as a disbursement in favor of the successful party; also, that the fees of the referee shall be ten dollars for a hearing of two hours, fifteen dollars in excess of two hours, and five dollars for an adjournment.”

It is true that, on the argument of this appeal, respondent’s counsel claimed that it was understood between the parties and the referee that no adjournment fee would be charged in case notice was sent before the hour set for the hearing; and it was also claimed that the referee especially charged two adjournments to the appellants herein, and which are not to be taxed as costs, and that other adjournments were had for the referee’s own convenience. But there is nothing in the papers submitted to us on which such a contention can be based. Nor is there anything in the papers to show why $30 was deducted from the fees charged by the stenographer, which are sworn to by him to be fair and reasonable, and according to the custom obtaining in such matters regarding stenograher’s fees. It also appears that both the referee and stenographer were paid the full amount for which their fees were taxed by the clerk, and we think the appellants were justified in paying the amounts they did under the stipulation. If parties by their counsel will enter into agreements or stipulations to pay fees larger than the law fixes, such agreement being allowed by law (Thurman v. Fiske, 30 How. Pr. 397; Coveil v. Hart, 14 Hun, 252; Code, § 3296; Mark v. City of Buffalo, 87 N. Y. 184), the court cannot be called upon to annul or disregard them in the absence of fraud, collusion, or deceit. If the fact was as claimed on the argument in regard to the adjournments and to the ste*76nographer’s fees, they should have been presented by affidavit. We cannot be controlled in our decisions by the statements made by counsel on the. argument, and which were not before the clerk for his consideration when he taxed the bill. The order should be reversed, and the clerk’s taxation affirmed, with costs of this appeal.
CERTIFICATIONS

I, Peter B. Day, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Endo Networks, Inc.;

2.  Based on my  knowledge,  this  annual  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 such statements
were made,  not  misleading  with  respect to the period  covered by this annual
report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included  in this annual  report,  fairly  present in all  material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the  registrant  and have:

a) designed  such  disclosure  controls and  procedures  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 annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated  the  effectiveness  of the  registrant's  disclosure  controls and
procedures  as of a date  within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual
report (the  "Evaluation  Date");  and

c) presented in this annual report our conclusions  about the  effectiveness  of
the  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  based  on our  evaluation  as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's   board  of  directors  (or  persons   performing   the  equivalent
functions):

a) all significant  deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which  could  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability  to record,  process,
summarize and report  financial data and have  identified  for the  registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any  fraud,  whether  or not  material,  that  involves  management  or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls;


<PAGE>

6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I have  indicated in this
annual report whether there were significant  changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls  subsequent to
the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective  actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: February 2, 2004
                                /s/ Peter B. Day
                                ---------------------------
                                    Peter B. Day
                                    Chief Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT
      23.1**





**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**





We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
      Form
      S-8 (No. 333-107519) of DiCon Fiberoptics, Inc. of our report dated May
      11,
      2005, except as to Note 18, which is as of June 13, 2005 relating
      to the consolidated financial statements of DiCon Fiberoptics, Inc. and the
      financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-KSB.








/s/
      Burr, Pilger & Mayer LLP




**Burr,
      Pilger & Mayer LLP**


**San
      Francisco, California**


**June
      28, 2005**
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

No. 96-403

HAYDEN B. MCQUEEN, APPELLANT,

V.

ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI,

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.

Before FARLEY, IVERS, and STEINBERG, Judges.

O R D E R

In a panel opinion dated December 16, 1999, McQueen v. West, 13 Vet.App. 237 (1999), the

Court affirmed an April 8, 1996, decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) that concluded

that the appellant had failed to submit well-grounded claims, as required under 38 U.S.C. § 5107 as

it existed at that time, to establish secondary service connection for a chronic acquired low back

disorder, carcinoma in situ of the bladder, and impotence. The appellant subsequently appealed,

through counsel, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit). 

On November 9, 2000, the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-475,

114 Stat. 2096 (Nov. 9, 2000) (VCAA) was enacted. The VCAA, inter alia, amended 38 U.S.C.

§ 5107(a) to eliminate the well-grounded-claim requirement. VCAA, § 4, 114 Stat. at 2098-99 (to

be codified at 38 U.S.C. § 5107(a)); see Luyster v. Gober, 14 Vet.App. 186 (2000) (per curiam

order). Pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the VCAA, that amendment to 38 U.S.C. § 5107 is applicable

to "any claim . . . filed before the date of the enactment of [the VCAA] and not final as of that date."

In an opinion dated December 14, 2000, the Federal Circuit vacated this Court's opinion in this case

and remanded the appeal with instructions to this Court to remand the case to the appropriate

authority in the agency for prompt readjudication of the appellant's claims pursuant to the

requirements set forth in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Adjudication Procedure Manual,

M21-1, for veterans seeking benefits for secondary service connection. Because the Board denied

the appellant's claims as not well grounded, a remand is required in order to provide the Board with

an opportunity to readjudicate the appellant's claims. See Luyster, supra.

On remand, the appellant is free to submit additional evidence and argument necessary to the

resolution of his claims. See Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet.App. 369, 372-73 (1999) (per curiam

order). The Board shall proceed expeditiously. See Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act, Pub. L.

No. 103-446, § 302, 108 Stat. 4645, 4658 (1994) (found at 38 U.S.C. § 5101 note) (requiring

Secretary to provide for "expeditious treatment" of claims remanded by Board or Court); Drosky

v. Brown, 10 Vet.App. 251, 257 (1997).
2

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that the April 8, 1996, Board decision is VACATED and the matters are

REMANDED to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this order and the opinion of the

Federal Circuit.

DATED: March 13, 2001 PER CURIAM.