alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011330EN.01000801.xml

| 12.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/8

---

Commission information notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services

2011/C 330/05

| Member State | Finland |
| --- | --- |
| Route concerned | Mariehamn (MHQ)–Stockholm Arlanda (ARN) |
| Date of entry into force of the public service obligations | 1 March 2012 |
| Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public service obligation can be obtained | Ålands landskapsregering |
| PB 1060 |
| AX-22111 Mariehamn |
| Åland |
| SUOMI/FINLAND |
| E-mail: registrator@regeringen.ax |

Member State

Finland

Route concerned

Mariehamn (MHQ)–Stockholm Arlanda (ARN)

Date of entry into force of the public service obligations

1 March 2012

Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public service obligation can be obtained

Ålands landskapsregering

PB 1060

AX-22111 Mariehamn

Åland

SUOMI/FINLAND

E-mail: registrator@regeringen.ax

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JEFFERY E. PARRISH,

Petitioner,

vs. CASE NO.: 3:10cv32/MCR/MD

MICHAEL BABCOCK, 

Respondent.

_________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's report and

recommendation dated November 9, 2010. The petitioner previously has been

furnished a copy of the report and recommendation and has been afforded an

opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section

636(b)(1), and I have made a de novo determination of those portions to which an

objection has been made.

Having considered the report and recommendation and all objections thereto

timely filed by the parties, I have determined that the report and recommendation

should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The respondent’s motion to dismiss (doc. 16), is GRANTED.

3. The petitioner’s habeas claims are DISMISSED as moot.

4. Petitioner’s money damages claim is DISMISSED without prejudice.

5. The clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of December, 2010.

 s/M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Doc 

United States District Court

Southern District of New York

Office of the Clerk

U.S. Courthouse

500 Pearl Street, New York, N.Y. 10007-1213

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -X

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT

07cv3527

Brooks v. Henry E. Maurek

 

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 

 

Pursuant to the memorandum of the Case Processing Assistant, the above-entitled action is 

reassigned to the calendar of

Judge Batts

All future documents submitted in this action are to be presented in the Clerk=s

Office of the Southern District Court for filing and shall bear the assigned judge=s

initials after the case number.

The attorney(s) for the plaintiff(s) are requested to serve a copy of the Notice of

assignment on all defendants.

J. Michael McMahon, CLERK

Dated: 5/09/2007

By: Jenny R. Horne

 Deputy Clerk 

 

 

cc: Attorneys of Record 

PS REASSIGNMENT FORM 

 

Data Quality Control 

Revised: March 9, 2001

Case 1:07-cv-03527-DAB Document 3 Filed 05/10/2007 Page 1 of 1
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 18, 2016. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, October 18, 2016 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A17D0112. RYAN ANTWAIN HARRIS v. THE STATE. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 15CR67
EXHIBIT 99.2
				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 Annual Report of Lescarden Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the period ended February 28, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, William E. Luther, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to the best of my knowledge:

   (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 result of
        operations of the Company.


                         /s/ William E. Luther
                             William E. Luther
                  President, Interim Chief Executive Officer
                       and Chief Financial Officer
                             April 9, 2003
00000000http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/wordml013f

[sloanauditorsreport2005001.jpg]



AUDITORS’ REPORT









To the Shareholders of

Bontan Corporation Inc.



We have audited the consolidated balance sheets of Bontan Corporation Inc. as at March 31, 2005 and 2004, and the consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity and cash flows for the years then ended. These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards and the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform an audit to obtain reasonable assurance whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.

In our opinion, these consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all materials respects, the financial position of the company as at March 31, 2005 and 2004, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the years then ended in accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles.

The consolidated financial statements for the year ended March 31, 2003 were audited by another firm of Chartered Accountants, who expressed an opinion without reservation on those consolidated financial statements in their report dated June 16, 2003.

[sloanauditorsreport2005002.jpg]



July 27, 2005 Chartered Accountants Thornhill, Ontario

1.
.- :-- T..-,. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ,I 8. 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

............................................................... S 

IN RE: Fosamax Products Liability : 

Lltlgation 

1:06-md-1789 (JFK) 

Order -------.--------------------------- X 

This Document Relates to: All Actions : 

--.--------.----------------.-.---- X 

JOHN F. KEENAN, United States District Judge: 

Anthony G. Brazil's application for admission pro hac 

vice is DENIED because the applicant has not submitted a 

certificate of good standing "which has been issued within thirty 

(30) days" by a court in the state to which he is a member of the 

bar, as requlred by Rule 1.3(c) of the Local Rules of the United 

States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of 

New York. 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: New York, New York 

November LL, 2007 

JOHN F. KEENAN '. 

United States District Judge 

Case 1:07-cv-03462-JFK Document 16 Filed 11/26/2007 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE>
                                                                                                 EXHIBIT 12

                     KENTUCKY POWER COMPANY
        Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                (in thousands except ratio data)
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                    Twelve
                                                                                                    Months
                                                              Year Ended December 31,               Ended
                                                  1994       1995       1996       1997      1998   9/30/99
<S>                                             <C>        <C>        <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>
Fixed Charges:
  Interest on First Mortgage Bonds . . . . . .  $19,090    $19,090    $14,914   $14,867   $13,936   $13,383
  Interest on Other Long-term Debt . . . . . .     -         2,422      6,446     8,597    12,188    12,837
  Interest on Short-term Debt. . . . . . . . .    1,621      2,242      2,849     3,034     2,455     2,321
  Miscellaneous Interest Charges . . . . . . .      485        510        555       559       634       764
  Estimated Interest Element in Lease Rentals.      700        700        800     1,700     1,500     1,500
       Total Fixed Charges . . . . . . . . . .  $21,896    $24,964    $25,564   $28,757   $30,713   $30,805

Earnings:
  Net Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  $25,273    $25,128    $16,973   $20,746   $21,676   $24,205
  Plus Federal Income Taxes. . . . . . . . . .    2,178      3,914      5,119     9,415     9,785    12,247
  Plus State Income Taxes. . . . . . . . . . .    1,154      1,420        598     2,190     2,096     2,471
  Plus Fixed Charges (as above). . . . . . . .   21,896     24,964     25,564    28,757    30,713    30,805
       Total Earnings. . . . . . . . . . . . .  $50,501    $55,426    $48,254   $61,108   $64,270   $69,728

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges . . . . . .     2.30       2.22       1.88      2.12      2.09      2.26
</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7378

JOE PRADUBSRI,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CAPTAIN SMITH; WENDY REYNOLDS, Nurse, Manning

Correctional Institute Medical Staff,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.

(CA-01-4077-3-24-BC)

Submitted: January 10, 2003 Decided: January 30, 2003

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joe Pradubsri, Appellant Pro Se. John Eric Fulda, Irmo, South

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Joe Pradubsri appeals the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning

of the district court. See Pradubsri v. Smith, No. CA-01-4077-3-

24-BC (D.S.C. filed Aug. 20, 2002, entered Aug. 21, 2002). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### IN RE KIRKMAN

No. 161 P.C.

Case below: 38 N.C. App. 515.

Petition by Kirkman for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 February 1979. Motion of appellee to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 5 February 1979.
Case 1:07-cv-03477-LAK     Document 16-6      Filed 04/08/2008     Page 1 of 25

Case 1:07-cv-03477-LAK     Document 16-6      Filed 04/08/2008     Page 2 of 25

Case 1:07-cv-03477-LAK     Document 16-6      Filed 04/08/2008     Page 3 of 25

Case 1:07-cv-03477-LAK     Document 16-6      Filed 04/08/2008     Page 4 of 25

Case 1:07-cv-03477-LAK     Document 16-6      Filed 04/08/2008     Page 5 of 25

Case 1:07-cv-03477-LAK     Document 16-6      Filed 04/08/2008     Page 6 of 25

Case 1:07-cv-03477-LAK     Document 16-6      Filed 04/08/2008     Page 7 of 25

Case 1:07-cv-03477-LAK     Document 16-6      Filed 04/08/2008     Page 8 of 25

Case 1:07-cv-03477-LAK     Document 16-6      Filed 04/08/2008     Page 9 of 25

Case 1:07-cv-03477-LAK     Document 16-6      Filed 04/08/2008     Page 10 of 25

Case 1:07-cv-03477-LAK     Document 16-6      Filed 04/08/2008     Page 11 of 25

Case 1:07-cv-03477-LAK     Document 16-6      Filed 04/08/2008     Page 12 of 25

Case 1:07-cv-03477-LAK     Document 16-6      Filed 04/08/2008     Page 13 of 25

Case 1:07-cv-03477-LAK     Document 16-6      Filed 04/08/2008     Page 14 of 25

Case 1:07-cv-03477-LAK     Document 16-6      Filed 04/08/2008     Page 15 of 25

Case 1:07-cv-03477-LAK     Document 16-6      Filed 04/08/2008     Page 16 of 25

Case 1:07-cv-03477-LAK     Document 16-6      Filed 04/08/2008     Page 17 of 25

Case 1:07-cv-03477-LAK     Document 16-6      Filed 04/08/2008     Page 18 of 25

Case 1:07-cv-03477-LAK     Document 16-6      Filed 04/08/2008     Page 19 of 25

Case 1:07-cv-03477-LAK     Document 16-6      Filed 04/08/2008     Page 20 of 25

Case 1:07-cv-03477-LAK     Document 16-6      Filed 04/08/2008     Page 21 of 25

Case 1:07-cv-03477-LAK     Document 16-6      Filed 04/08/2008     Page 22 of 25

Case 1:07-cv-03477-LAK     Document 16-6      Filed 04/08/2008     Page 23 of 25

Case 1:07-cv-03477-LAK     Document 16-6      Filed 04/08/2008     Page 24 of 25

Case 1:07-cv-03477-LAK     Document 16-6      Filed 04/08/2008     Page 25 of 25
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

LEONARD TAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

v. 3:10cv76-WS

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

et al.,

Defendants.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation docketed

May 23, 2012. See Doc. 27. The magistrate judge recommends that this case be

dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the court's instructions regarding

the filing of an amended complaint. The plaintiff has filed objections (docs. 29 & 30) to

the report and recommendation. 

Having considered the record in light of the plaintiff's objections, the court finds

that the magistrate judge's report and recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 27) is hereby

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this order.

Case 3:10-cv-00076-WS-EMT Document 32 Filed 06/15/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

2. The plaintiff's fifth amended complaint (doc. 24) and this action are

DISMISSED without prejudice.

3. The clerk shall enter judgment stating: "All claims are DISMISSED without

prejudice."

DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of June , 2012.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00076-WS-EMT Document 32 Filed 06/15/12 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 99.1



Statement of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code



Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned, Michael J. Hagan, the Chief
Executive Officer of Nutri/System, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that:



| | 1) |  | The Companys Form 10-K Annual Report for the period ended December 31, 2002 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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:
|
#### STEPHENS v. BANK

No. 154.

Case below: 12 N.C. App. 323.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 2 November 1971. Appeal dismissed *ex mero motu*for lack of substantial constitutional question 2 November 1971.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

TERRANCE A. BARGNARE,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv41/MCR/EMT

SANTA ROSA COUNTY JAIL,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the court upon referral from the clerk. Plaintiff commenced this action

by filing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). On March 12, 2010, this court

entered an order giving Plaintiff thirty (30) days in which to pay an initial partial filing fee in the

amount of $22.50 (Doc. 6). Plaintiff failed to comply with the order; therefore, on April 20, 2010,

the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause, within twenty (20) days, why this action

should not be dismissed for failure to comply with an order of the court (Doc. 10). The time for

compliance with the show cause order has now elapsed and Plaintiff has not paid the initial partial

filing fee or shown cause for his failure to do so.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with an

order of the court.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 17th day of May 2010.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 2 of 2

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within

fourteen (14) days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may appear

on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only. A copy of objections shall be

served upon all other parties. Failure to object may limit the scope of appellate review of

factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir.

1988).

Case No: 3:10cv41/MCR/EMT
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 28, 2013

h1021

Order 

Clerk

October 28, 2013

147409

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147409

COA: 315841

Wayne CC: 12-005595-FC

STEVEN L. POWELL,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 23, 2013 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 13.1





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 annual report on Form 20-F/A of Bontan Corporation Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended March 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I hereby 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 annual report on Form 20-F/A of the Company 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 annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Bontan Corporation Inc.








Date:  January 10, 2013








/s/ Kam Shah





Kam Shah


Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer








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



EXHIBIT 13.1
 COMPANYS OFFICERS CERTIFICATE
 GRACECHURCH CARD FUNDING (NO. 6) PLC
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
  1.
    
    I am a duly appointed, qualified and acting Director of the Issuer;2.
    
    I am duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officers Certificate on behalf of the Issuer; and3.
    
    To the best of my knowledge, the Issuer has complied with all conditions and covenants under the
Relevant Documents for the issue of Notes for the period between January 1, 2005 and the end of
the Issuers fiscal year on December 31, 2005.
   By:
    
    /s/ Paul Gerard TurnerName:   Paul Gerard TurnerTitle:     Director
 - 29 -
Document

SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AND NON-COMPETITION AGREEMENT (SCOTT L. THOMPSON)


This is a Second Amendment to Employment and Non-Competition Agreement (the “Second Amendment”), between Tempur Sealy International, Inc. (the “Company”), and Scott L. Thompson (“Mr. Thompson” or the “Employee”) (the “Parties”).
WHEREAS, the Parties are parties to an Employment and Non-Competition Agreement, dated as of September 4, 2015 (the “Employment Agreement”), as amended by the First Amendment to Employment and Non-Competition Agreement, dated as of November 27, 2017 (the “First Amendment”), and
WHEREAS, the Company wishes to extend the Initial Term under the Employment Agreement, as amended by the First Amendment, and the Employee has agreed to such an extension.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereto agree as follows:
1.    Amendment to Employment Agreement.
Section 1.1 (“Terms of Employment”) is hereby amended by replacing “December 31, 2021” in the fourth line with “December 31, 2022”.
2.    No Other Amendments. Except as expressly set forth above, the Employment Agreement remains in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.
3.    Defined Terms. Capitalized terms used herein without definition have the meanings given them in the Employment Agreement.
4.    Counterparts. This Second Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall be deemed to be one and the same agreement. A signed copy of this Second Amendment delivered by facsimile, e-mail or other means of electronic transmission shall be deemed to have the same legal effect as delivery of an original signed copy of this Second Amendment.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Second Amendment as of this 25th day of March, 2020.


The Company
TEMPUR SEALY INTERNATIONAL, INC.


By: /s/ Richard W. Neu              
Title: Richard W. Neu, Director




Employee


/s/ Scott L. Thompson             
Scott L. Thompson
# C_2012313DE.01001501.xml

| 17.10.2012 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | C 313/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.10.2012

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

C 313/15

---

Berichtigung der Mitteilung der Kommission — Ausführliche Anleitung für die Erstellung, Prüfung und Vorlage der Berichte über bei klinischen Prüfungen von Humanarzneimitteln auftretende unerwünschte Ereignisse/Nebenwirkungen („CT-3“)

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union C 172 vom 11. Juni 2011
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union C 172 vom 11. Juni 2011

2012/C 313/11

Auf Seite 2, Nummern 16 und 17:

anstatt:

„Der Prüfer“

muss es heißen:

„Der Sponsor“.

---