alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.1


                       RECKSON OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P.
                                  EXHIBIT 99.1
              CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63
                      OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE


I, Donald J. Rechler, Co-Chief Executive Officer of Reckson Associates Realty
Corp., the sole general partner of Reckson Operating Partnership, L.P. (the
"Company"), certify pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

         1)       The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
                  quarterly period ended September 30, 2002 (the "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 Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.

Dated:  November 12, 2002


                               Reckson Operating Partnership, L.P.
                                 By: Reckson Associates Realty Corp.,
                                     its sole general partner



                                By /s/ Donald J. Rechler
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                   Donald J. Rechler, Co-Chief Executive Officer
STATE of North Carolina v. John Anthony ROUSE.

No. 430P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 24, 2008.

John A. Rouse, Pro Se.

Derrick C. Mertz, Assistant Attorney General, C. Branson Vickory, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 31st day of August 2007 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th day of January 2008."
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 731/2014Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 731/2014 of 2 July 2014 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 731/2014                     

# of 2 July 2014

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 2 July 2014.

*For the Commission,*                            

*On behalf of the President,*                            

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
VI 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 419 

For the relief of Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elna Cobian Arreola, 

Nayely Bibiana Arreola, and Cindy Jael Arreola. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 29, 2007 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elna 

Cobian Arreola, Nayely Bibiana Arreola, and Cindy Jael 

Arreola. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi5 sion of law or any order, for the purposes of the Immigra6 tion and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), 

7 Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elna Cobian Arreola, 

8 Nayely Bibiana Arreola, and Cindy Jael Arreola shall be 

9 deemed to have been lawfully admitted to, and remained 

10 in, the United States, and shall be eligible for issuance 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•S 419 IS

1 of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status under 

2 section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 

3 U.S.C. 1255). 

4 (b) APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF FEES.—Sub5 section (a) shall apply only if the applications for issuance 

6 of immigrant visas or the applications for adjustment of 

7 status are filed with appropriate fees within 2 years after 

8 the date of enactment of this Act. 

9 (c) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS.— 

10 Upon the granting of immigrant visas to Esidronio 

11 Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elna Cobian Arreola, Nayely 

12 Bibiana Arreola, and Cindy Jael Arreola, the Secretary 

13 of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 4, 

14 during the current or subsequent fiscal year, the total 

15 number of immigrant visas that are made available to na16 tives of the country of the aliens’ birth under section 

17 202(e) or 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

18 (8 U.S.C. 1152(e), 1153(a)), as applicable. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 561 

To repeal the sunset of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation 

Act of 2001 with respect to the expansion of the adoption credit and 

adoption assistance programs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2007 

Mr. BUNNING (for himself, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. 

BURR, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. HATCH, Mrs. 

HUTCHISON, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. SMITH, Mr. VITTER, and 

Mr. WARNER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To repeal the sunset of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 

Reconciliation Act of 2001 with respect to the expansion 

of the adoption credit and adoption assistance programs. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as ‘‘The Adoption Tax Relief 

5 Guarantee Act’’. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 561 IS

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF APPLICABILITY OF SUNSET OF THE 

2 ECONOMIC GROWTH AND TAX RELIEF REC3 ONCILIATION ACT OF 2001 WITH RESPECT TO 

4 ADOPTION CREDIT AND ADOPTION ASSIST5 ANCE PROGRAMS. 

6 Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 

7 Reconciliation Act of 2001 is amended by adding at the 

8 end the following new subsection: 

9 ‘‘(c) EXCEPTION.—Subsection (a) shall not apply to 

10 the amendments made by section 202 (relating to expan11 sion of adoption credit and adoption assistance pro12 grams).’’. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Theodis Beck, Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Correction, in his official capacity, and Gerald J. Branker, Warden of Central Prison, in his official capacity v. NORTH CAROLINA MEDICAL BOARD.

No. 51PA08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 10, 2008.

Thomas J. Pitman, Special Deputy Attorney General, Joseph Finarelli, Assistant Attorney General, for Dept. of Correction, et al.

Thomas W. Mansfield, Brian L. Blankenship, D. Todd Brosius, for Medical Board.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiffs on the 6th day of February 2008 in this matter for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 prior to a determination by the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th day of April 2008."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties, unless already submitted to the Court of Appeals, shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 13.
ex10-1.htm




FORM OF OPTION TERMINATION AGREEMENT


 


THIS MUTUAL TERMINATION AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) effective as of the     day of November, 2010.







BETWEEN







GLOBAL HEALTH VENTURES INC.


409 Granville Street, Suite 1023


Vancouver, BC, Canada V6C 1T2


(the "Company")







AND







[Name]


409 Granville Street, Suite 1023


Vancouver, BC, Canada V6C 1T2


(the “Optionee”)












WHEREAS:








	
A.  

	
The Company and the Optionee entered into an Option Agreement (the “Option Agreement”) effective as of July 29, 2009 pursuant to which the Company granted to the Optionee options to acquire up to               shares of common stock of the Company (the “Options”) at a purchase price of $0.70 per share as compensation for services as a director or officer of the Company;













	
B.

	
As of the date of this Agreement all    Options remain unexercised and outstanding; and













	
C.

	
The Company and the Optionee desire to terminate the Option Agreement and cancel all of the Options.












NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged by each of them, the Optionee and the Company agree as follows:








	
1.  

	
The Option Agreement is hereby terminated and all Options are hereby cancelled.













	
2.  

	
The Optionee represents and warrants to the Company that it has not sold, mortgaged or otherwise encumbered the Options and no third party has any right, title or interest in or to the Options.













	
3.  

	
The Optionee and Company each quitclaim, release and discharge the other from any and all obligations or actions of whatever nature, expected, real or apparent, which they may have or have against the other or their respective directors, officers, employees, agents, shareholders, consultants, agents, advisors, successors, heirs or assigns, by reason of or arising from the Option Agreement.













	
4.  

	
Neither the Optionee nor Company shall institute any action in relation to the Option Agreement, whether civil, criminal, labor or administrative against the other, or against their respective directors, officers, employees, consultants, agents, shareholders, advisors, successors, heirs or assigns, and all such actions which either of them plan or may have commenced either solely in their name or jointly with others shall be withdrawn.













	
5.  

	
This Agreement may be executed by facsimile and in counterparts and delivered electronically, each of which shall be deemed an original for all purposes.







 




  





1











  






 




IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Agreement has been executed by the parties to it, the day, month and year first written above.


 







 



	 	 	GLOBAL HEALTH VENTURES INC.
	 	 	 
	 	 	Per: 
	 
Hassan Salari

	 	Name:
	 	 	Title:





 




2
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**


**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 Sign Media Systems, Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2005, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Antonio
      F. Uccello, III, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to 18
      U.S.C. 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.





Dated: November
      11, 2005





/s/
      Antonio F. Uccello,
      III


Antonio
      F. Uccello, III


Chief
      Financial Officer
# CE2004070EN.01006401.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/64

---

(2004/C 70 E/066)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1786/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject:   Contact with Roma NGOs and governmental agencies

Subject:

What contact has the European Commission had recently with Roma NGOs and governmental agencies in the accession countries?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2003)

(27 June 2003)

The Commission is — in Brussels as well as through its Delegations in the Candidate Countries — in contact with a number of Roma non-governmental organisations (NGOs), such as e.g. the ‘International Romani Union’, the ‘Roma National Congress’, the ‘European Roma Rights Centre’, the ‘Pakiv European Roma Fund’ and the ‘European Roma Information Office’ in Brussels. In addition, the Commission has contacts with NGOs in the field of human rights, that also cover Roma issues, such as ‘Amnesty International’, the ‘Open Society Institute’ or ‘Project for Ethnic Relations’. In a number of cases, NGOs working on Roma projects are funded in the framework of PHARE, such as e.g. in the Czech Republic ‘Romodrom’ or Athinganoi', or in Romania ‘Romani Criss’, the ‘Resource Centre for Roma Communities in Romania’ and others.

In the context of preparing the Regular Reports on the candidate countries' progress towards accession, the Commission has also been regularly contacting NGOs dealing with Roma issues, as well as other intergovernmental organisations such as the Council of Europe or the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

In the framework of the accession preparations, discussions with representatives of the governments from Candidate Countries and the Commission are regularly taking place on various levels. In addition, regular meetings in the context of the Europe Agreements provide for the possibility to raise Roma issues with representatives from the governments of the Candidate Countries. For example, meetings of the Association Committees with Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, which are chaired by the Commission, will take place in June and July 2003.

---
STATE v. Eugene Tyrone DeCASTRO.

No. 221A93-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 17, 2007.

Barry McNeill, Special Deputy Attorney General, Susan Doyle, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the third motion filed on the 14th day of September 2007 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Petition for Writ of Certiorari:

> "Motion Allowed. Defendant (DeCastro) shall have up to and including the 11th day of October 2007 to file and serve his/her Petition for Writ of Certiorari with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 17th day of September 2007."
# C_2023223EN.01004101.xml

| 26.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/41

---

Action brought on 11 May 2023 — Quality First v EUIPO (MORE-BIOTIC)

(Case T-243/23)

(2023/C 223/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Quality First GmbH (Elmshorn, Germany) (represented by: J. Schneider and M. Kleinn, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU word mark ‘MORE-BIOTIC’ — Application No 18 634 806

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2023 in Case R 1708/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | allow the trade mark at issue to be granted protection through registration in the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

—

allow the trade mark at issue to be granted protection through registration in the European Union;

| — | 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, in so far as ‘MORE-BIOTIC’ is vague and undefined and, therefore, is distinctive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in so far as ‘MORE-BIOTIC’ is vague and undefined and, therefore, is distinctive;

| — | ‘MORE-BIOTIC’ is an unusual combination and is distinctive; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘MORE-BIOTIC’ is an unusual combination and is distinctive;

| — | ‘MORE-BIOTIC’ does not convey a purely promotional message; |
| --- | --- |

—

‘MORE-BIOTIC’ does not convey a purely promotional message;

| — | No direct description in respect of the goods and services; |
| --- | --- |

—

No direct description in respect of the goods and services;

| — | Infringement of the principle of equal treatment. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principle of equal treatment.

---
----

----

|   | (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:  July 14,  2011 | /s/ David K. Young                                                                                                                             |   |
|                                      | David K. Young                                                                                                                                 |   |
|                                      | President, Chief Operating Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer (Principal  Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer) |   |

----

----
EXHIBIT 4.28

Schedule identifying material details of warrants issued by the Company
substantially identical to the Warrant filed in Exhibit 4.27

NOTE:  All share amounts and exercise prices reflect pre-split values.

`Date				Warrant	Number		Exercise Price
Issued	Warrant Holder		No.	of Shares	Expiration Date

1/19/00	Gulfstream Financial	99-1	700,000   	Exercise Price: $2.00
	Partners, LLC					Expires: 1/19/05
							Cancelled

1/19/00	Blake Capital Partners	99-2	250,000		Exercise Price:  $2.00
							Expires:  1/19/2005
							Cancelled

1/19/00	Wayne W. Mills		99-3	500,000		Exercise Price:  $2.00
							Cancelled
							Expires:  1/19/2005

1/19/00	Continental Holdings	99-4	350,000		Exercise Price:  $2.00
							Expires:  1/19/2005

1/19/00	Ralph H. Grills, Jr.	99-5	100,000   	Exercise Price:  $2.00
							Expires:  1/19/2005

1/19/00	Barry Hollander		99-6	100,000		Exercise Price:  $2.00
							Expires:  1/19/2005

1/19/00	McCandish Partners	99-7	50,000		Exercise Price:  $2.00
							Expires:  1/19/2005

1/19/00	Falconberg Corporation	99-8	250,000		Exercise Price:  $2.00
							Cancelled
							Expires:  1/19/2005
							Transferred balance to 99-11

1/19/00	US Bank Trust, NA	99-9	25,000		Exercise Price:  $2.00
Trustee FBO William M. Mower IRA			Expires:  1/19/2005
							Transferred balance to 99-12

1/19/00	William M. Mower	99-10	25,000		Exercise Price:  $2.00
							Cancelled
							Expires:  1/19/2005`
----

(2004/C 33 E/101)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1252/03

by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 April 2003)

Subject:   Common European packaging return scheme

European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC (1) refers to the need to harmonise national measures concerning the management of packaging and packaging waste in order to prevent or reduce its impact on the environment, thus providing a high level of environmental protection, and to ensure the functioning of the internal market and to avoid obstacles to trade and distortion and restriction of competition within the Community.

Since this directive was adopted, various packaging return schemes have been set up in some Member States, including Denmark where Dansk Retursystem A/S uses a deposit system to ensure re-collection of the packaging of beer and some soft drinks. In practice, however, this system, which was introduced to protect the environment, has first and foremost closed the Danish market to imports of foreign beer.

Does the Commission therefore intend to submit a proposal for a common, uniform and harmonised deposit system applicable to all Member States in order to prevent effectively technical obstacles to trade and distortion and restriction of competition?

----

(1)OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10.

----
STATE v. RANKINS.

No. COA08-841.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 17, 2009.

Certification Date March 9, 2009.

Appeal from Guilford (07CRS 106698).

Case reported without published opinion. No Error.