alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011253EN.01000101.xml

| 30.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6303 — Antin Infrastructure Partners FCPR/RREEF Pan European Infrastructure Fund LP/Andasol-1 Central Termosolar Uno SA and Andasol-2)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 253/01

On 22 August 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 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 32011M6303. 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 32011M6303. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 21.1

                        SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

(All Subsidiaries are Wholly Owned by the Registrant)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                           Percentage Owned
Name                                             Jurisdiction of Organization               by Registrant
----                                             ----------------------------               -------------
<S>                                              <C>                                       <C>
Rogue Wave Software GmbH                                     Germany                             100%
Rogue Wave Software BV                                     Netherlands                           100%
Inmark Development Corporation                             California                            100%
Rogue Wave Software UK LTD                               United Kingdom                          100%
Stingray Software, Inc.                                  North Carolina                          100%
NobleNet, Inc.                                              Delaware                             100%
</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

AGCO CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:09cv276/RS-AK

J. D. SWEARINGEN EQUIPMENT CO.,

INC.; J. D. SWEARINGEN, SR., Individually;

and RENA SWEARINGEN,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

ORDER

The relief requested by the Second Consent Motion For Extension Of Time

(Doc. 26) is granted.

ORDERED on May 7, 2010.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Exhibit
10.25


 


THIRD AMENDMENT


TO AGREEMENT


BETWEEN


SENIOR WHOLE HEALTH, LLC 


AND 


PHONEDOCTORX, LLC


This Third Amendment ("Amendment")
is made and entered into by and between PhoneDOCTORx, LLC ("Group") and Senior Whole Health, LLC ("SWH").


 


WHEREAS,
Group and SWH are parties to the Multispecialty Group Practice Agreement dated March 1st,
2009 ("Agreement");
and 


 


WHEREAS, Group and SWH wish to correct
a provision in the Agreement that was verbally changed and mutually agreed to by the parties prior to implementation of the Agreement
but not subsequently codified as part of this Agreement by letter, amendment or some other form of binding documentation.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration
of the mutual covenants contained herein and intending to be legally bound, the parties hereto agree as follows:


 


		1.	The following language in Exhibit B of the Agreement under "Telemedicine
Services" is hereby deleted: 



 


"Group will be reimbursed
$3.00 per Member per day for each Member in a SNF where Group provides Telemedicine services."


 


The above language is hereby replaced
with the following:


 


"Group will be reimbursed
$2.00 per Member per day for each Member in a SNF where Group provides Telemedicine services."


 


		2.	The parties acknowledge that, except for an initial period of approximately
six (6) months, whereby SWH paid, and PDR accepted payment of $3.00 per Member per Day in a SNF where the Group provided Telemedicine
Services, the verbal agreement to pay $2.00 per Member per day for each Member in a SNF where Group provides Telemedicine services
has been honored and accepted as payment in full and this Amendment is an affirmation and codification of that verbal agreement
and its fulfillment. Both parties knowingly and willfully waive, and indemnify each other against any cause of action they have,
or may now have as a result of past payments associated with the language identified in Paragraph No.1, above. 



 


		3.	This Amendment is effective retroactively to March 1, 2009. 



 


		4.	Except to the extent specifically amended by this Amendment, the
Agreement remains unchanged and in full force and effect. This Amendment controls in the event of any conflict between this Amendment
and the Agreement.



 





		5.	This Amendment may be executed in
counterparts, or counterpart pages, each one of which shall be deemed an original, and
all the counterparts together shall constitute one and the same Amendment. 



 


The authorized representatives of the parties have caused this Amendment
to be executed effective as of the date set forth above.
# CA2011068EN.01000101.xml

| 3.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 68/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 68/1

---

Corrigendum to the notice of open competition EPSO/AST/112/10 — Assistants (AST 3)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 341 A of 16 December 2010
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 341 A of 16 December 2010

(2011/C 68 A/01)

On page 3, in Section IV.2:

for:

| ‘Test (d) | Professional capability:


  accuracy and precision | Marking: 0-20


  Pass mark: 10 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Test (e) | Professional capability:


  prioritising and organising | Marking: 0-20


  Pass mark: 10’ |

‘Test (d)

Professional capability:

accuracy and precision

Marking: 0-20

Pass mark: 10

Test (e)

Professional capability:

prioritising and organising

Marking: 0-20

Pass mark: 10’

read:

| ‘Test (d) | Professional capability:


  accuracy and precision | Marking: 0-20 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Test (e) | Professional capability:


  prioritising and organising | Marking: 0-20 |
| | The aggregate pass mark for tests (d) and (e) is 20’ |

‘Test (d)

Professional capability:

accuracy and precision

Marking: 0-20

Test (e)

Professional capability:

prioritising and organising

Marking: 0-20

The aggregate pass mark for tests (d) and (e) is 20’

---
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5375 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5375

   To require the Secretary of the Treasury to submit to Congress a 
   comprehensive customer service strategy for the Internal Revenue 
                                Service.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 21, 2018

  Mr. Reed (for himself, Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Bishop of 
  Michigan) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require the Secretary of the Treasury to submit to Congress a 
   comprehensive customer service strategy for the Internal Revenue 
                                Service.

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

SECTION 1. COMPREHENSIVE CUSTOMER SERVICE STRATEGY.

    Not later than the date which is 1 year after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury, after 
consultation with the National Taxpayer Advocate, shall submit to 
Congress a written comprehensive customer service strategy for the 
Internal Revenue Service. Such strategy shall include--
            (1) a plan to provide assistance to taxpayers that is 
        designed to meet reasonable taxpayer expectations and is in 
        conformity with best practices of customer service provided in 
        the private sector, including online services, telephone call 
        back services, and training of employees providing customer 
        services,
            (2) a thorough assessment of the services that the Internal 
        Revenue Service can offer as self-service options,
            (3) proposals to protect taxpayer identity and to reduce 
        taxpayer identity theft,
            (4) proposals to improve Internal Revenue Service customer 
        service in the short term (the current and following fiscal 
        year), medium term (approximately 3 to 5 fiscal years), and 
        long term (approximately 10 fiscal years), and
            (5) identified metrics and benchmarks for quantitatively 
        measuring the progress of the Internal Revenue Service in 
        meeting each element of such strategy.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2011111EN.01000901.xml

| 9.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 111/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 111/9

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6147 — Rosneft Oil Company/BP/Ruhr Oel)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 111/03

On 10 March 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 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 32011M6147. 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 32011M6147. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                0000202932  
<NAME>               PRO-FAC COOPEATIVE, INC.         
<MULTIPLIER>                            1000
       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              JUN-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                   SEP-28-1996
<CASH>                           6,682
<SECURITIES>                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                   68,288
<ALLOWANCES>                         0
<INVENTORY>                    193,635
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               292,189
<PP&E>                         269,254
<DEPRECIATION>                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 706,279
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          189,287
<BONDS>                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              334
<PREFERRED>                     78,463
<COMMON>                             0
<OTHER-SE>                      40,163
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   706,279
<SALES>                        174,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               174,000
<CGS>                          132,309
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  132,309
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               9,881
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (1,106)
<INCOME-TAX>                       527
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (1,633)
<DISCONTINUED>                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      0
<CHANGES>                        4,516
<NET-INCOME>                     2,883
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                        0
        


</TABLE>
CH

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0567

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

LESLIE DEAN ERNST, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to

and including September 23, 2024, within which to prepare, file, and serve the 

State’s response brief. 

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 2 2024

08/02/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0567
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

** **

I, David Kestenbaum, certify that:

 

1.  I havereviewed this report on Form 20-F of XTL Biopharmaceuticals Ltd. (the “Company”);

 

2.  Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report;

 

3.  Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;

 

4.  The Company’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Company and have:

 

(a)  Designedsuch 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 Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)  Designedsuch internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under oursupervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financialstatements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

 

(c)  Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(d)  Disclosedin this report any change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period coveredby this report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal controlover financial reporting; and

 

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

 

(a)  Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and

 

(b)  Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.

 

 

Date: April 2, 2014
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

SCOTT CARSWELL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. CASE NO.: 4:10cv486-SPM/WCS

LISA ECHEVERRI, et al.,

Defendants.

____________________________/

ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND

Upon consideration, the unopposed motions for extension of time to

respond to the amended complaint (docs. 19 and 22) are granted. Defendant

Cameron and Haliliburton Energy Services, Inc. shall have thirty days following

the Court’s ruling on the motion to stay to respond to the amended complaint.

SO ORDERED this 2nd day of December, 2010.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge
# CA2010352EN.01000101.xml

| 23.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 352/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 352/1

---

RESERVE LISTS (1)

1

OPEN COMPETITION EPSO/AST/99/09

PROOFREADERS (AST 3)

with English (EN) as their main language

(2010/C 352 A/01)

| ALDSON | Frances |
| --- | --- |
| BENNETT | David |
| BIRDSEYE | Kevin |
| BYWELL | David |
| CORMACK | Janet |
| DA ROLD | Enzo |
| DUNN | Melanie |
| FERGUSON | Alastair |
| FURZER | Catherine |
| KELLEY | Alisa |
| NEBE | Sandra |
| NUGENT | Michelle |
| RUSSON | Benjamin |
| SHELLEY | Stuart |
| SORS | Julie |
| WALSH | Paul |

ALDSON

Frances

BENNETT

David

BIRDSEYE

Kevin

BYWELL

David

CORMACK

Janet

DA ROLD

Enzo

DUNN

Melanie

FERGUSON

Alastair

FURZER

Catherine

KELLEY

Alisa

NEBE

Sandra

NUGENT

Michelle

RUSSON

Benjamin

SHELLEY

Stuart

SORS

Julie

WALSH

Paul

The reserve lists will be valid until 31 December 2011 and may be extended.

31 December 2011

---

(1)  A successful candidate may explicitly request her/his name not be published.

1

---
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

EDDIE T. WILLIAMS,

 Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 5:11cv68/RH/EMT

WARDEN PAIGE AUGUSTINE,

 Respondent.

_______________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 1). On May 20, 2011, this court entered an order

(doc. 9) directing Petitioner to file a reply to Respondent’s answer to the habeas petition. Petitioner

failed to comply with the order; therefore, on September 30, 2011, the court issued an order

requiring Petitioner to show cause, within fourteen (14) days, why this action should not be

dismissed for failure to comply with an order of the court (doc. 11). The order was returned to the

court as undeliverable (doc. 12). The court notes that Petitioner has not filed a change of address

(although he previously filed such a notice for an earlier change, see doc. 7) and that he also failed

to respond to the court’s order directing him to file a reply to the response to his petition for habeas

corpus (doc. 9). 

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Petitioner’s failure to keep

the court comprised of his current address and failure to prosecute this action. 

At Pensacola, Florida, this 18th day of October 2011.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Case 5:11-cv-00068-RH-EMT Document 13 Filed 10/18/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

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: 5:11cv68/RH/EMT

Case 5:11-cv-00068-RH-EMT Document 13 Filed 10/18/11 Page 2 of 2
# C_2010243EN.01001001.xml

| 10.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/10

---

Corrigendum to Call for expressions of interest for membership of the Scientific Panels of the European Food Safety Authority (Parma, Italy)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 151 of 10 June 2010
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 151 of 10 June 2010

2010/C 243/05

On page 6, ‘Closing date for sending applications’:

for:

‘... 15 September 2010 ...’,

read:

‘... 30 September 2010 ...’.

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 40 (Thursday, March 1, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 9344]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-926]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, Development of Automated Methods 
for Autoimmune Disease Identification.
    Date: March 7, 2007.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6700-B Rockledge Drive, 
Room 3136, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Mercy R. Prabhudas, PhD., Scientific Review 
Administrator, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural 
Activities, NIAID/NIH/DHHS, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, 
Bethesda, MD 20892-7616, 301-451-2615, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b4d9c4808183daf4dadddc9ad3dbc2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="036e733736346d436d6a6b2d646c75">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 20, 2007.
Anna Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-926 Filed 2-28-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>