alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|   | 1) | the                Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                             |                                                                                      |                                                |
|----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
| Date:              July 20, 2007 | By:                                                                             | /s/              Jean              Bernhard Buttner |
|                             | Jean                Bernhard ButtnerChairman                & Chief Executive Officer |

----
EX-10.28





 Exhibit 10.28 

THE SYMBOL “[***]” DENOTES PLACES WHERE CERTAIN IDENTIFIED 

INFORMATION HAS BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THE EXHIBIT BECAUSE IT IS BOTH (i) 

NOT MATERIAL, AND (ii) WOULD LIKELY CAUSE COMPETITIVE HARM TO THE 

COMPANY IF PUBLICLY DISCLOSED 
 This
document is an English translation of a document prepared in German. In preparing this document, an attempt has been made to translate as literally as possible without jeopardizing the overall continuity of the text. Inevitably, however, differences
may occur in translation and if they do, the German text will govern by law. 
 In this translation, German legal concepts are expressed in English
terms and not in their original German terms. The concepts concerned may not be identical to concepts described by the English terms as such terms may be understood under the laws of other jurisdictions. 

Amendment no. 3 - Agreement regarding an extension to the lease agreement 

to the lease agreement of 17.08.2011 for commercial premises and Amendment no. 1 of 17.02.2012, as well as Amendment no. 2 of 01.02.2013 

between: 
 As the Lessor: 

Wolfram Richter 
 Kupferbergterrasse 15, 17-19 
 55116 Mainz 
 Tel.:
[***]; Fax: [***] 
 Lessor tax registration number: [***] 

As the Lessee: 
 BioNTech AG 

Represented by the Chair of the Board of Directors [***], (with German business degree) 

Hölderlinstraße 8 

D-55131 Mainz 
 registered
in the Commercial Register held at Mainz District Court, registration number: HRB 41865 
 for the office space on the property Kupferbergterrasse 15, 17-19; 55116 Mainz, on the second floor of the front building, the third floor of the front building (loft), the second floor of the original building and the ancillary areas. 

With immediate effect, by way of deviation from sections 3 (1) and (2) of the lease of 17.08.2011 and from the agreement in Amendment no. 1 of
17.02.2012, the Parties agree as follows: 
 The leasehold is extended to 31.03.2014. Within an appropriate timeframe and before the end of the leasehold,
the parties shall come to an agreement on the possibility of further extending the lease and on the duration of any such extension. 
 All other provisions
laid down in the lease of 17.08.2011 and Amendments nos. 1 and 2 shall remain in place and continue to apply without amendments. 
 Signature and stamp of
the Lessor: 
 Mainz, on 11.04.2013 pp. [signature] 
  

			
	 Signature and stamp of the Lessee;
 [***], Chair
of the Board of Directors of BioNTech AG     
	  	 [Stamp: BioNTech AG

Hölderlinstraße 8
 55131 Mainz

Tel.: +49 (0) 6131 / 57 62 70 0 –
 Fax: +49 (0) 6131 /
[illegible]

	
	Mainz, on 06.03.2013 [signature]
EXHIBIT 99.2

                                 M. MARIO PEREZ

May 19th, 2003

Mr. Dominick F. Maggio, President
US Data Authority, Inc.
150 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 404
Miami, Florida 33131

Re:   Beheer-En Belegginsmaatschappij Selmok - BV Golden Worldwide Business
      Corp.

Dear Mr. Maggio:

Please be advised that on behalf of the above-referred entities who are
shareholders in US Data Authority, Inc. ("The Company"), we hereby reject your
view that the March 7th, 2003 correspondence from the Company constitutes a
notice of default under the terms of the Amended and Restated Investors
Questionnaire and Subscription Agreement dated November 1st, 2002 ("The
Agreement").

The Agreement provides that funding $4,000,000 is required by August 1st, 2003,
not before. Further, unless the investment distribution committee unanimously
requests a disbursement pursuant to the provisions of the Agreement, none is
required. No such request has been made.

The only exception to this requirement involves funds related to the Cisco
Capital Agreement dated January 30th, 2000, and the outstanding debt to the IRS
for non-payment of payroll taxes.

Your letter dated March 7th, 2003, did not constitute a proper "Request" under
the Agreement. First, it requested a total sum of $4.9 million ($4,000,000 of
which is not required until August 1st, 2003). Second, it only refers to
"budgeted" items for the IRS ($870,000) and for Cisco Systems ($300,000). It was
understood that a request for funds relating to these two items would be made at
such time that a binding agreement was entered which would resolve these
liabilities, subject to funding. As you know, there is no agreement relating to
the Cisco matter and the IRS "settlement" now contemplates a greatly reduced
number and still has not been accepted by the IRS. Accordingly, we know of no
basis to conclude that we are in default under the terms of the Agreement.

In addition, we have been working and continue to work hard to meet the
Company's new funding needs and are confident we will be successful.

Very truly yours,


M. Mario Perez
P.O.A.

                           Gables International Plaza
          2655 LeJeune Road # Suite 700 # Coral Gables # Florida 33134
                   Main: (305) 777-0510 # Fax: (305) 774-0154
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1753 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1753

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 419 Rutherford Avenue, N.E., in Roanoke, Virginia, as the ``M. 
                Caldwell Butler Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2001

Mr. Goodlatte (for himself, Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia, Mr. Schrock, 
 Mr. Scott, Mr. Goode, Mr. Cantor, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Boucher, 
Mr. Wolf, and Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 419 Rutherford Avenue, N.E., in Roanoke, Virginia, as the ``M. 
                Caldwell Butler Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. M. CALDWELL BUTLER POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 419 Rutherford Avenue, N.E., in Roanoke, Virginia, shall be 
known and designated as the ``M. Caldwell Butler Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the M. Caldwell 
Butler Post Office Building.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002(SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OFSECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)

 

Pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of theregistrant certifies, to the best of his knowledge, that the registrant’sQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in theReport, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the registrant.

 
|   | Dated: November 13, 2003 | /s/ Kári Stefánsson                                          |   |
|--------|--------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                     |   Kári Stefánsson                                  |
|   |                     |   Chairman,  President, Chief    Executive Officer |
|   |                     |                                                                   |
|   |                     |                                                                   |
|   | Dated: November 13, 2003 | /s/ Lance Thibault                                                     |   |
|   |                     |   Lance Thibault                                             |
|   |                     |   Chief  Financial Officer and    Treasurer        |

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-227-01-SM

Sylvia Casto

O R D E R

The government’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and trial

is granted (document 19). Trial has been rescheduled for the July 2008 trial

period .

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that the government’s uncontroverted proffer

establishes that the defendant absented herself from this district in contravention

of the express terms of her pretrial release, and , having been apprehended in

Florida, she remains in transit (in custody) to this district to face appropriate

charges. It is apparent that she was not present in this district on the date set for

jury selection due to her own misconduct. In addition, the failure to grant a

continuance would unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary

for effective preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under

the circumstances, and, jeopardy not having attached, the trial could not have

proceeded in her absence in any event. The motion for continuance is granted,

Case 1:07-cr-00227-SM Document 20 Filed 06/05/08 Page 1 of 2
2

nunc pro tunc to June 2, 2008. The following revised schedule is hereby adopted

as an order of the court: 

Final Pretrial Conference: July 1, 2008 at 4:00 p.m.

Jury Selection: July 8, 2008 at 9:30 a.m.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

June 5, 2008 

cc: Bjorn Lange, Esq.

William Morse, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00227-SM Document 20 Filed 06/05/08 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 07-cr-229-01-SM

Tony Rosas

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 34) for 30

days is granted. Trial has been rescheduled for the March 2009 trial period.

Defendant shall file a Waiver of Speedy Trial Rights not later than February 23, 2009.

On the filing of such waiver, his continuance shall be effective.

The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance to 

provide defense counsel additional time to prepare outweigh the best interest of

the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in

that failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the defendant the

reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into account the

Case 1:07-cr-00229-SM Document 35 Filed 02/17/09 Page 1 of 2
2

exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Final Pretrial Conference: March 9, 2009 at 4:15 PM 

Jury Selection: March 17, 2009 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

February 17, 2009 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Counsel of Record

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00229-SM Document 35 Filed 02/17/09 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

BILLY TYLER,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

4:23CV3099

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on what the Court construes as Plaintiff’s Notice 

of Appeal, Filing No. 9, and a memorandum from the Clerk of the Court requesting a 

ruling as to Plaintiff’s authorization to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, Filing No. 

10. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(a)(3), Plaintiff may not take this appeal in forma pauperis.

A litigant seeking to appeal a judgment must either pay the required filing fees, 

see Fed. R. App. P. 3(e), or proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to § 1915(a). Section 

1915(a)(3) provides that “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial 

court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” An appellant demonstrates 

good faith by seeking appellate review of any issue that is not frivolous. Coppedge v. 

United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); Ellis v. United States, 356 U.S. 674, 674 

(1958). 

An appeal is frivolous when none of the legal points are arguable on their merit. 

See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Misischia v. St. John’s Mercy Health 

Sys., 457 F.3d 800, 806 (8th Cir. 2006). And while such a finding should be made only 

in extreme cases, it is proper when a party attempts to appeal from an order that is 

4:23-cv-03099-JFB-PRSE Doc # 11 Filed: 07/14/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 32
2

clearly not appealable. See Cohen v. Curtis Publ’g Co., 333 F.2d 974, 978 79 (8th Cir. 

1964).

Here, Plaintiff seeks to “appeal all of the stalling in this case,” Filing No. 9, but he 

does not identify any specific order that he wishes to appeal. Assuming Plaintiff is 

attempting to appeal from the Court’s previous order entered on June 29, 2023, 

directing Plaintiff to update his address after mail sent to him was returned to the Court

as undeliverable,

1

that order is clearly not appealable. The order does not qualify as a 

“final decision[]” capable of appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. In addition, the order does 

not fall within the narrow class of appealable interlocutory orders under 28 U.S.C. § 

1292(a). 

Because Plaintiff is attempting to appeal from an order that is not appealable, the 

Court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff may not proceed on appeal in forma 

pauperis.

Dated this 14th day of July, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

Joseph F. Bataillon

Senior United States District Judge

1 The envelope in which Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal was mailed contains the same address which the 

Court has on file so the Court assumes that is Plaintiff’s correct address.

4:23-cv-03099-JFB-PRSE Doc # 11 Filed: 07/14/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 33
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-214-PB

Kip’s Seafood Company and

Karl S. Crute

O R D E R

The defendants, through counsel, have moved to continue the

January 8, 2007 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to complete extensive discovery and prepare for

trial. The government does not object to a continuance of the

trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from January 8, 2008 to April 1, 2008. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial

Case 1:07-cr-00214-PB Document 15 Filed 12/12/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The December 19, 2007 final pretrial conference is continued

to March 27, 2008 at 4:30 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

December 12, 2007

cc: Steven M. Gordon, Esq.

Jay P. McCloskey, Esq.

Donald Feith, AUSA 

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00214-PB Document 15 Filed 12/12/07 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                       5
<LEGEND>
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                           0001023877
<NAME>                          Goung Hei Investment Co., Ltd.
<MULTIPLIER>                                                          1
<CURRENCY>                                                   US Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                           DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                                              JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                                JUN-30-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                       1
<CASH>                                                                0
<SECURITIES>                                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                         0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                      0
<PP&E>                                                                0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                        0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                 0
<BONDS>                                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                                           0
<COMMON>                                                             17
<OTHER-SE>                                                          (17)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                          0
<SALES>                                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                      0
<CGS>                                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                         0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                   0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                       0
<CHANGES>                                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                                          0
<EPS-BASIC>                                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                         0




</TABLE>
Exhibit 12.2

CERTIFICATION



I, Jenn Hepburn,
certify that:



1. I have reviewed
this annual report on Form 20-F/A of Emerald Health Therapeutics, Inc.;



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;



|Date: August 3, 2020 | By: | /s/
    Jenn Hepburn                        
|-------------------- | --- | --------------------------------------------
|                     |     | Jenn Hepburn                                
|                     |     | Chief Financial Officer                     
|                     |     | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
7

A.3. Volume of Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersBillions of dollars

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 3 10 25 100

Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sm

Period Total livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid1995...... 84.1 12.7 5.2 27.3 2.7 36.1 5.4 8.3 16.0 54.4 1996...... 87.3 10.6 4.0 35.9 2.4 34.5 5.0 7.1 13.9 61.3 1997...... 71.4 8.0 5.3 23.6 2.7 31.9 5.0 7.4 15.8 43.3 1998...... 68.0 6.1 4.4 25.2 4.9 27.5 4.5 6.7 14.9 41.9 1999...... 60.6 4.9 4.2 28.4 5.2 18.0 4.2 6.6 15.1 34.9 2000...... 50.2 4.8 4.5 27.6 3.9 9.3 4.2 6.5 12.6 26.8 2001...... 51.6 5.1 4.7 21.7 4.1 16.1 3.7 5.9 12.6 29.3 2002...... 56.2 5.3 5.1 28.8 2.9 14.1 4.1 6.3 14.3 31.5 2003...... 51.1 7.9 4.5 24.5 4.3 10.0 3.4 5.3 13.5 28.8 2004...... 64.4 6.0 6.7 29.9 6.0 15.9 3.3 5.4 13.2 42.5 2005...... 59.3 6.6 5.1 26.9 6.7 14.0 2.9 4.7 12.5 39.2 2006...... 67.9 7.4 6.4 30.3 7.9 15.8 2.8 5.4 14.0 45.7 2003: Q2... 44.4 4.9 3.8 22.9 4.3 8.4 4.0 5.4 13.1 21.9  Q3... 43.9 6.6 3.6 20.8 3.9 9.0 3.3 4.8 11.0 24.7  Q4... 55.2 11.1 6.0 24.1 2.9 11.1 3.3 5.4 14.6 31.9 2004: Q1... 72.2 5.2 5.4 39.7 6.7 15.1 3.1 5.0 14.9 49.1  Q2... 60.2 3.8 4.7 30.2 3.9 17.6 4.0 6.5 13.0 36.7  Q3... 54.2 2.3 7.3 21.1 5.9 17.6 3.5 5.3 10.3 35.1  Q4... 71.0 12.6 9.2 28.6 7.4 13.2 2.6 4.8 14.7 48.9 2005: Q1... 55.2 5.3 5.3 34.4 2.5 7.7 2.4 4.2 13.7 34.8  Q2... 76.6 7.7 3.7 29.9 11.0 24.3 3.8 5.9 12.7 54.1  Q3... 59.1 3.4 6.1 24.4 10.1 15.2 3.2 4.7 12.6 38.7  Q4... 46.4 10.2 5.5 18.8 3.2 8.7 2.2 4.1 11.0 29.1 2006: Q1... 67.0 5.3 6.2 40.2 4.5 10.9 2.9 4.7 14.3 45.1  Q2... 80.2 5.0 6.2 34.8 16.6 17.7 3.3 6.7 15.4 54.7  Q3... 63.5 9.2 7.3 21.8 5.2 20.0 2.6 5.6 12.2 43.2  Q4... 60.8 10.0 6.1 24.5 5.4 14.8 2.3 4.7 14.1 39.7  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates aannual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
# 6H

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 23 - 0655 LEAH STEMBLER,

Petitioner and Appellee, v. VINCENT GELDERLOOS,

Respondent and Appellant. ORDER OF MEDIATOR APPOINTMENT
This appeal being subject to M.R.App.P. 7, and the parties having failed to jointly and timely select a mediator under M.R.App.P., 7(4),(c), IT IS ORDERED THAT **Steven Allen**  **Hanson,** whose name appears next on the list of attorneys desiring appointment as mediators for Domestic Relations appeals which is maintained pursuant to M.R.App.P., 7(4)(e), is hereby appointed to conduct the mediation process required by M.R.App.P., 7(5), and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time periods set forth in M.R.App.P., 7(5)(d) shall run from the date o f this order of appointment. A true copy of this order is being mailed to counsel of record for the parties, or to the parties individually if not represented by counsel, on the date hereof. DATED this November 29, 2023.

Bowen Greenwood, Clerk of the Supreme Court c: Jami L. Rebsom, Helene Orenstein, Steven Allen Hanson 11/29/2023
Case Number: DA 23-0655