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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on August 21, 2007, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301,                     *et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Industrial Macromolecular Crystallography Association (“IMCA”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, LLC, Raritan, NJ has been added as a party to this venture; 3-Dimensional Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Exton, PA has withdrawn as a party to this  venture; and Pfizer Global Research and Development has changed its principal place of business to Groton, CT.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and IMCA intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On October 23, 1990, IMCA filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on December 3, 1990 (55 FR 49952).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on November 17, 2003. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on December 12, 2003 (68 FR 69422).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 07-5561 Filed 11-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ROBERT FLOYD,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10cv289-RH/WCS

WALTER McNEIL et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________/

ORDER DENYING CLASS-CERTIFICATION MOTION

AND DENYING SUMMARY-JUDGMENT MOTION

The plaintiff is a state prisoner. He asserts the defendant prison authorities

are providing him—and all other prisoners—an unconstitutionally deficient diet. 

The plaintiff has moved for class certification. The defendants have moved for

summary judgment. The case is before the court on two reports and

recommendations, ECF Nos. 27 and 33. No objections have been filed. 

The class-certification motion is plainly unfounded. The plaintiff has no

attorney and cannot effectively represent a class.

The report and recommendation concludes the summary-judgment motion is

premature. Whether that is so is less than clear. The governing rule allows a

Case 4:10-cv-00289-RH-WCS Document 40 Filed 05/16/11 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

defendant to move for summary judgment at any time—as early as the day a

complaint is filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b). If the plaintiff’s diet is causing him

harm, he presumably knows it and can submit his own declaration describing the

diet’s effects. And he was required to have a basis, before filing the complaint, for

the assertion that the diet was unconstitutionally deficient. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. 

The Supreme Court has noted the appropriateness of early summary-judgment

motions: “federal courts and litigants must rely on summary judgment and control

of discovery to weed out unmeritorious claims sooner rather than later.” 

Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507

U.S. 163, 168-69, 113 S. Ct. 1160, 122 L. Ed. 2d 517 (1993). 

Still, delaying consideration of a summary-judgment motion is sometimes

appropriate. Indeed, the summary-judgment rule expressly so provides. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 56(d). The defendants have not objected to the report and

recommendation and have instead sought their own delays in responding to the

plaitniff’s discovery requests. See, e.g., ECF No. 39. This order accepts the report

and recommendation and denies the summary-judgment motion. But the plaintiff

should take note: he should expect to meet the next summary-judgment motion on

the merits, without substantial further delay. 

For these reasons, 

Case No: 4:10cv289-RH/WCS

Case 4:10-cv-00289-RH-WCS Document 40 Filed 05/16/11 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

IT IS ORDERED:

The reports and recommendations, ECF Nos. 27 and 33, are ACCEPTED. 

The defendants’ summary-judgment motion, ECF No. 24, is DENIED without

prejudice. The plaintiff’s class-certification motion, ECF No. 28, is DENIED. The

defendants must file an answer by May 26, 2011. The case is remanded to the

magistrate judge for further proceedings.

SO ORDERED on May 14, 2011.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

United States District Judge 

Case No: 4:10cv289-RH/WCS

Case 4:10-cv-00289-RH-WCS Document 40 Filed 05/16/11 Page 3 of 3
Page 1 of 2

 IN T H E U N IT E D STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JUSTIN WILSON WITHEY,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:11cv16/MCR/CJK

SERGEANT WARD, et al.,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff commenced this civil rights action on January 11, 2011, by filing a

civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). On October 21, 2011, the

Court issued an order requiring plaintiffto submit an amended complaint within thirty

days. (Doc. 7). Plaintiff was warned that failure to do so would result in a

recommendation that this case be dismissed. (Id.).

A copy of the October 21, 2011 order was mailed to plaintiff at his address of

record, the Escambia County Jail. It was returned on October 28, 2011 as

undeliverable, marked “Return to Sender, No Longer At This Address.” (Doc. 8). 

TheCourt ascertained plaintiff’s whereaboutsfromthe Escambia County Jail’s online

Inmate Lookup and, on November 28, 2011, re-mailed a copy of the order to

plaintiff’s stated address upon release. The mail was not returned; however, plaintiff

still did not comply or otherwise respond to the October 21, 2011 order. Accordingly,

Case 3:11-cv-00016-MCR-CJK Document 10 Filed 02/02/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

on January 12, 2011, the Court issued an order requiring plaintiff to show cause

within fourteen days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with

an order of the Court. (Doc. 9). To date, plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s

October 21, 2011 order, or responded to the show cause order. 

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

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

failure to comply with an order of the Court.

2. That the Clerk be directed to close the file. 

At Pensacola, Florida, this 2nd day of February, 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 thereof. 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 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 (11 Cir. 1988). th

Case No: 3:11cv16/MCR/CJK

Case 3:11-cv-00016-MCR-CJK Document 10 Filed 02/02/12 Page 2 of 2
# C_2011159EN.01000901.xml

| 28.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 159/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 159/9

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5047 — REWE/ADEG)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 159/04

On 29 April 2011, 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 German 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 32011M5047. 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 32011M5047. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

BAILEY INDUSTRIES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:10mc64/MCR/EMT

CLJP, INC.,

 Defendant.

_______________________

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Before the court is Defendant’s “Motion to Dismiss with Reservation of Jurisdiction” (Doc.

28). On September 30, 2010, the court entered a lengthy order on Plaintiff’s motion to compel

which included a schedule for final compliance with the court’s rulings. Defendant filed a motion

to extend the time for compliance, which motion it recently withdrew (Docs. 26, 27). In the instant

motion to dismiss, Defendant states that the parties have now resolved all outstanding issues raised

in Plaintiff’s motion to compel, and it asks that this matter therefore be dismissed with prejudice,

with a reservation of jurisdiction for twenty (20) days. Defendant certifies that Plaintiff does not

object to its motion.

Upon consideration, the court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The above-entitled

action therefore shall be DISMISSED from the active docket of the court. In the event of a change

in the parties’ current agreement on the resolution of their dispute, the court reserves the power,

upon motion filed by either party within twenty (20) days of the date of this order, to amend or

vacate and set aside this Order of Dismissal and reinstate this case. The clerk shall be directed to

close the file in this case for administrative purposes at this time, and upon the expiration of twenty

(20) days without activity, close the case in its entirety for all purposes.
Page 2 of 2

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 28) is GRANTED. The above-entitled action

therefore is DISMISSED from the active docket of the court. 

2. In the event of a change in the parties’ current agreement on the resolution of their

dispute, the court reserves the power, upon motion filed by either party within twenty (20) days of

the date of this order, to amend or vacate and set aside this Order of Dismissal and reinstate this

case. 

 3. The clerk shall close the file in this case for administrative purposes at this time, and

upon the expiration of twenty (20) days without activity, close the case in its entirety for all

purposes.

DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of October 2010.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case No. 3:10mc64/MCR/EMT
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RICHARD ZELONIS

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 20

- 0009 9

- CR

Appeal from the

34th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 201 8 0D03785 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s t hird motion for extension of time within which to

file the brief until February 2, 2021 . NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE THE APPELLANT ’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ordered that the Hon. T odd Morten

, the Appellant ’s attorney, prepare the

Appellant ’s Brief and forward the same to this Court on or before February 2, 2021

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 5 t h day of J anuary 2021.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez , C.J., P alafox and Alley , JJ.
exhibit_10-12.htm










Exhibit 10.12


 




	

I.



	
Summary of Lease Agreement dated October 2, 2013, as supplemented on October 2, 2013, and February 10, 2014 













	
   1.

	
Parties: S.M.L. Solomon Industrial Buildings Ltd. and Infrastructure Mgmt. & Dev. Est. by C.P.M. Ltd. (“Lessor”) and Silenseed Ltd. ("Company").







 



	
   2.

	
Signing Date: October 2, 2013, and February 10, 2014.







 



	
   3.

	
Lease Period: February 2, 2014, until February 1, 2018 (the “Lease Period”). In addition, the Company has an option to extend the lease by a five (5) year period, subject to the terms set in section 7.2 to the lease agreement (the “Option Period”).







 



	
   4.

	
The Premises: A certain area (approximately 271 square meters) on the south wing of the third floor of the building (known as "Artium 1") located in the Modiin Technology Park, Modiin, Israel, and two parking spaces.







 



	
   5.  

	
Lease Fees: Lease fees are monthly, payable in the following amounts (linked to the Israeli Consumer Price Index as of August 2013):







 



	  	
5.1.

	
During the Lease Period, NIS 45 per one square meter (plus applicable taxes).


	  	 	  
	  	
5.2.

	
During the Lease Period, NIS 200 per month for each parking space (plus applicable taxes).


 


	  	
5.3.

	
During the Option Period, NIS 47.25 per one square meter (plus applicable taxes).


	  	  	  
	  	
5.4

	
During both the Lease Period and Option Period, NIS 35 per one square meter (plus applicable taxes) for an additional storage space of approximately 4 square meters.













	
   6.  

	
Guarantees: In order to secure its undertakings under this agreement, the Company shall provide the Lessor with a bank guarantee in an amount equal to 3 months' of lease payments (+ VAT) and a promissory note in an amount equal to 6 months lease payments (+ VAT).


 


	
   7. 

	
General: As of the date of signing, the building (known as "Artium 1") is not ready for occupancy.
# National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day, 2007

On December 7, 1941, our Nation was viciously attacked at Pearl Harbor, America's Pacific Fleet was battered and broken, and more than 2,400 American lives were lost. On National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day, America honors those brave individuals who made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our homeland, and we recognize those veterans who with strength and resolve defended our Nation and advanced the cause of freedom during World War II. 

When it mattered most, an entire generation of Americans stepped forward to protect our freedom and to defend liberty. Their devotion to duty and willingness to serve a cause greater than self helped secure our future and our way of life. Liberty prevailed because of the sacrifice of these courageous patriots, and America and her allies preserved a world where democracy could flourish. Our Nation remains forever in the debt of these brave Americans. 

From the unprovoked attack at Pearl Harbor grew a steadfast resolve that has made America a defender of freedom around the world, and our mission continues as our men and women in uniform serve at home and in distant lands. Today, as we defend our Nation's founding ideals, we pay special tribute to those who lost their lives at Pearl Harbor, honor our veterans of World War II, and celebrate the liberty that makes America a lasting symbol of hope to the world. 

The Congress, by Public Law 103-308, as amended, has designated December 7 of each year as “National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day.” 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim December 7, 2007, as National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day. I encourage all Americans to observe this solemn occasion with appropriate ceremonies and activities. I urge all Federal agencies, interested organizations, groups, and individuals to fly the flag of the United States at half-staff this December 7 in honor of those who died as a result of their service at Pearl Harbor. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fourth day of December, in the year of our Lord two thousand seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-second. 

[FR Doc. 07-5991

Billing code 3195-01-P
# C_2010261EN.01000701.xml

| 28.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/7

---

Calls for proposals under the 2011 and 2012 work programmes of the 7th Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities

2010/C 261/05

Notice is hereby given of the launch of calls for proposals under the 2011 and 2012 Cooperation work programme of the Seventh Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (2007 to 2013).

Proposals are invited for the following calls. Call deadlines and budgets are given in the call texts, which are published on the relevant European Commission website.

Cooperation Specific Programme:

Cooperation Specific Programme:

| Theme | Call Identifier |
| --- | --- |
| Information and Communication Technologies | FP7-2011-ICT-7 |
| FP7-ICT-2011-EU-BRASIL |

Theme

Call Identifier

Information and Communication Technologies

FP7-2011-ICT-7

FP7-ICT-2011-EU-BRASIL

These calls for proposals relate to the work programme adopted by Commission Decision C(2010) 4900 of 19 July 2010.

Information on the modalities of the calls, the work programme, and the guidance for applicants on how to submit proposals is available through the relevant European Commission website.

---
EXHIBIT 32.2






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 on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 2) (the “Report”) of Oilsands Quest Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended April 30, 2010, the undersigned Annie Lamoureux, Vice President and Controller of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge and belief:






(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.




May 16, 2011/s/ Annie LamoureuxAnnie Lamoureux, Vice President and Controller













EX-6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

RONNIE JONES,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 5:11-cv-47-RS-EMT

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 23). 

No objections have been filed.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is approved 

and incorporated in this Order.

2. The decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED, and the 

Commissioner is ordered to remand this case to the 

Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings consistent with 

the Report and Recommendation.

3. The clerk is directed to close the file.

ORDERED on March 26, 2012.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:11-cv-00047-RS-EMT Document 24 Filed 03/26/12 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 31.2



Certification Pursuant to

Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, Kenneth Eade, certify that:



(1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Independent Film Development Corporation;



(2) Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;



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



(4) The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and



(5) The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.



Dated:  May 20, 2010



/s/ Kenneth G. Eade

Kenneth G. Eade

Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE v. ROBERTS

No. 176 PC.

Case below: 51 N.C. App. 221.

N Application by defendant for further review denied 8 July 1981.