alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010352EN.01000301.xml

| 23.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 352/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 352/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5992 — Sud-Chemie/Ashland/ASK JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 352/05

On 29 November 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5992. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5992. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

KATHERINE DALLAS and

ALISA JONES,

Plaintiffs,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10cv258/RS-EMT

CALHOUN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the Report Of The Parties’ Planning Meeting (Doc. 11), which

disregards the instructions in the Initial Scheduling Order about the discovery deadline

and trial date. Attorney Harris contends this case should not be subject to the normal

schedule because he will be involved in lobbying for several months. Three members

of the Messer, Caparello & Self law firm have filed appearances as attorneys of record

for Defendant in this case. Attorney Dean was also one of the three attorneys of record

from Messer, Caparello & Self in Perry v. State of Florida Department of Corrections,

5:10cv52/RS, which was tried successfully to a defense verdict before this court this

week by two other members of that firm, Messrs Telfer and Findley. There is no dearth

of employment discrimination trial talent in the Messer law firm to warrant the inordinate

delay proposed by Mr. Harris because of his absence mainly during discovery. 

Not later than December 20, 2010, the parties are directed to file an amended

joint report which provides for a discovery deadline of approximately April 16, 2011, and

trial on approximately July 11, 2011, or July 25, 2011.
ORDERED on December 10, 2010.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
#### STATE v. WHITLEY

No. 58 PC.

Case below: 42 N.C. App. 731.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 November 1979. Motion of plaintiff to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 6 November 1979.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

EVANS LEE WRIGHT,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00185-MP -GRJ

ALACHUA COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 24, Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, which recommends this case be dismissed for failure to state a claim and as

frivolous. Despite several opportunities, Plaintiff has failed to provide any facts supporting a

cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has not objected to the recommendation, and

the time for doing so has passed. Finding no plain error, it is accordingly

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Doc. 24, is ADOPTED

and incorporated herein.

2. This complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim for

relief and as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. §1915A.

DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of January, 2011

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
# C_2010272EN.01000201.xml

| 8.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5956 — EADS/OPIP/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 272/02

On 23 September 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5956. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5956. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Carnegie Development INC. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2021, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned Timothy Barton, as Principal Executive Officer of the Company, and Robert W. Bueker as Principal Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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. |

 

| Date: March 27, 2022 |   | */s/ Timothy Barton*        |        |
|----------------------|--------|-----------------------------|--------|
|                      |        | Timothy Barton              |        |
|                 |   | President                   |   |
|                      |        | Principal Executive Officer |        |
|                 |   |                        |   |
|                 |   | */s/ Robert W. Bueker*      |   |
|                 |   | Robert W. Bueker            |   |
|                 |   | Principal Financial Officer |   |
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,OF THE UNITED STATES CODE (18U.S.C.1350)ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002In connection with the Annual Report of CanAlaska Uranium Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20F for the year ended April 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Peter Dasler, the 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 to my knowledge:(1)           the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(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 resultof the operations of the Company. Date:           August 17, 2011.“Peter Dasler”                                                      Chief Executive Officer
# C_2010345EN.01001101.xml

| 18.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 345/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 345/11

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

17 December 2010

2010/C 345/02

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3260 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 111,26 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4498 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85185 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0223 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2738 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8925 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,218 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 272,75 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7098 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9798 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2935 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,0371 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3428 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3358 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,3124 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7976 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7427 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 533,35 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,0581 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,8252 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3878 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 976,33 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,1524 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,737 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 40,7185 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,982 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2640 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,4795 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 60,1236 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3260

JPY

Japanese yen

111,26

DKK

Danish krone

7,4498

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85185

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0223

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2738

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8925

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,218

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

272,75

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7098

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9798

RON

Romanian leu

4,2935

TRY

Turkish lira

2,0371

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3428

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3358

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,3124

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7976

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7427

KRW

South Korean won

1 533,35

ZAR

South African rand

9,0581

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,8252

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3878

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 976,33

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,1524

PHP

Philippine peso

58,737

RUB

Russian rouble

40,7185

THB

Thai baht

39,982

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2640

MXN

Mexican peso

16,4795

INR

Indian rupee

60,1236

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

CHAD WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00203-MP-GRJ

MICHAEL J ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Enlargement of Time. (Doc.

8.) Defendant requests a seven (7) day extension of time to file his answer to the

complaint. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1 counsel certifies that an attempt was made to

contact Plaintiff’s counsel, but the office of Plaintiff’s counsel is closed through January

3, 2011. Nonetheless, the Court finds that the short extension of time requested would

not cause undue prejudice to Plaintiff. 

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion For Enlargement of Time (doc. 8) is GRANTED. 

Defendant shall file his answer to the Complaint by January 6, 2011. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 28 day of December, 2010. th

s/Gary R. Jones

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

MILTON EARL MCFARLANE,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 5:10cv223-SPM/GRJ

BENNY R. INGRAM, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s report

and recommendation (doc. 10) dated November 24, 2010. Plaintiff was

furnished a copy, and has filed a “Motion for Relief,” dated December 8, 2010,

(doc. 14), which will be treated as an objection. Plaintiff also filed requests for

extensions of time to file a prison trust account statement (doc. 12) and to

complete legal work (doc. 13). 

Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), I find that the

report and recommendation should be adopted. As explained in the report and

recommendation and the Magistrate Judge’s order directing Plaintiff to amend his

complaint (doc. 6) , federal courts do not operate as appellate courts for prison
Page 2 of 2

disciplinary proceedings.1 A federal court’s review of prison disciplinary

proceedings is very limited, and Plaintiff has not alleged any viable federal claims

regarding his disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The report and recommendation (doc. 10) is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This case is dismissed for failure to state a claim for relief.

3. The requests for extensions of time (docs. 12 and 14) are denied 

as moot.

DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of December, 2010. 

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge

1

 In Florida, appellate review of prison disciplinary proceedings is

available by petition for writ of mandamus to the state circuit court after

exhaustion of administrative remedies. See Stokes v. Dep’t of Corr., 948 So.2d

75, 76 n.1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). 

CASE NO. 5:10cv223-SPM/GRJ
Exhibit 10.2


 


Foamix Pharmaceuticals Ltd.


 


Lease Agreement – Premises
in Rehovot


 


On May 7, 2008 Foamix Pharmaceuticals
Ltd. (the “Company”) executed a lease agreement with Gav Yam Real Estate Ltd. (the “Lessor” and the
“Original Agreement”).


 


Leased property: 1,069 square
meters (approximately 11,507 square feet) in A2 building, first floor, located in the Science Park in Rehovot.


 


Original Agreement Period: March
3, 2008 to February 28, 2010 with an option to extend the lease term for 24 months, from March 1, 2010 until February 28, 2012.


 


Rent: Monthly rental
fees of NIS 59 per square meter (a total of NIS
63,071) plus VAT. The rental fees are linked to the Consumer Price Index according to the Original Agreement. In addition,
management fees (NIS 9 per square meter, a total of NIS 9,621 per month) are paid monthly, linked to the Consumer Price Index
according to the Original Agreement.


 


Under the terms of the Original Agreement,
the Company submitted to the Lessor a bank guarantee in the amount of NIS 189,213.


 


On March 1, 2010, upon the exercise
of the Company’s aforesaid option, the Company and the Lessor extended the Original Agreement, under the same terms, until February
28, 2012.


 


On March 1, 2012 the Company and
the Lessor amended the Original Agreement and extended the lease period for an additional 30-month period, with regard to a smaller
space (991 square meters – approximately 10,667 square feet), under the same terms, until August 31, 2014.


 


On August 5,
2014, the Company and the Lessor amended the Original Agreement and extended the lease period for an additional 36-month period,
from September 1, 2014 until August 31, 2017, with regard to a smaller space (i.e. – the lease with regard to the
office space sub-leased by the Company, as defined below was not extended, so that the extended lease shall apply to 678 square
meters – approximately 7,298 square feet), under the same terms.


 


The Company was also granted the right
to terminate the extended lease period, by submitting a 180-day prior notice, during an 18-month period, commencing as
of September 1, 2014.


 



    	 



    	 



    




Sublease Agreement - Premises in
Rehovot


 


On July 1, 2012, the Company executed
a sublease Agreement with Objet Ltd and subleased to Objet Ltd 313 square meters (approximately 3,369 square feet), leased by
the Company from the Lessor.


 


Agreement Period: July 1, 2012
to August 31, 2014 (Without extension option).


 


Rent: Monthly rental
fees of NIS 59 per square meter (a total of NIS 18,467), plus VAT. The rental
fees are linked to the Consumer Price Index according to the Original Agreement. In addition, management fees of NIS 9 per  square
meter are paid monthly, linked to the Consumer Price Index, according to the Original Agreement.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

TAMMY WHITE,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10cv230/RS-GRJ

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION

d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the Stipulation Of Dismissal Without Prejudice (Doc. 44).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. This case is dismissed without prejudice.

2. The clerk is directed to close the file.

ORDERED on February 4, 2011.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
#### JARMAN v. JARMAN

No. 128 PC.

Case below: 14 N.C. App. 531.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 31 July 1972.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-10791

Conference Calendar

__________________

DAVID A. DEARDORFF,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

T. GERARDI, Watauga City Police Officer,

G. SPINELLA, Watauga City Police Officer,

T. WRIGHT, Watauga City Police Officer,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:94-CV-654-Y

- - - - - - - - - -

February 29, 1996

Before GARWOOD, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David A. Deardorff appeals the district court's imposition

of a $500 sanction for his abuse of the discovery process. 

Because the litigation is still pending, this court lacks

jurisdiction to review the district court's order. 

APPEAL DISMISSED.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

CLEVEN MOORER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:11cv167/MCR/EMT

RICHARD VIVIANO,

Defendant.

_______________________/

ORDER

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated June 28, 2011 (doc. 15). Plaintiff 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). I have made a de novo

determination of any timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections thereto

timely filed, 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. This action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim on which relief may be

granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

3. The clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of August, 2011.

s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:11-cv-00167-MCR-EMT Document 23 Filed 08/01/11 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1

Case No. 4:11cv107-RH/WCS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JAMES W. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:11cv107-RH/WCS

DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE,

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Defendant.

______________________________________/

ORDER STACKING THE TRIAL

The pretrial order, ECF No. 62, noted that the trial would be stacked to begin 

on April 23 or 30, 2012, depending on the schedule for an unrelated criminal trial. 

As it turns out, the criminal trial will begin on April 23. The trial in the case at bar 

will begin on April 30. 

 SO ORDERED on March 30, 2012.

s/Robert L. Hinkle

United States District Judge

Case 4:11-cv-00107-RH-CAS Document 63 Filed 03/30/12 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

WILLIE F. WHITEHEAD,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:11cv119/LAC/CJK

SANTA ROSA CORRECTIONAL

INSTITUTION,

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

commenced this civil rights action on March 8, 2011, by filing a complaint under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. (Doc. 1)

The case was transferred to this district, where plaintiff was given thirty (30) days to

amend his complaint, and to either submit the $350.00 filing fee or file a motion for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 5) Plaintiff thereafter filed an amended

complaint (doc. 8) and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis(doc. 9), but the motion

was found to be deficient. On May 2, 2011, plaintiff was given another thirty (30)

days to submit a consent form and printout reflecting transactions in his account for

the six-month period preceding the filing of his complaint. (Doc. 10) Over the next

eight months, plaintiff filed two pleadings which were both found to be deficient. 

Plaintifffailed, however, to pay the filing fee, orsubmit an in forma pauperis motion. 

On December 27, 2011, an order was entered giving plaintiff fourteen (14) days to

Case 3:11-cv-00119-LC-CJK Document 16 Filed 03/02/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and

failure to comply with an order of the court. (Doc. 15) To date, plaintiff has failed

to comply or explain his inability to do so.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

1. That this cause be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for plaintiff’s

failure to prosecute and failure to comply with orders of the court.

2. That all pending motions be DENIED as moot.

3. That the clerk be directed to close the file.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 2nd day of March, 2012.

 

/s/Charles J. Kahn, Jr.

CHARLES J. KAHN, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

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

fourteen days after being served a copy hereof. Any different deadline that may

appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only, and does not

control. A copy of any objections shall be served upon any 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: 3:11cv119/LAC/CJK

Case 3:11-cv-00119-LC-CJK Document 16 Filed 03/02/12 Page 2 of 2