alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bruce Cannon, Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 720]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (John J. Brunetti, A.J.), entered February 7, 2005. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that Supreme Court erred in determining that he is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 *et seq.).*The sworn statement upon which the court based its determination was reliable hearsay (see *People v Wroten,*286 AD2d 189, 199 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 610 [2002]), and the court’s determination of defendant’s risk level is supported by the requisite clear and convincing evidence *(see*Correction Law § 168-n [3]; *People v Warwick,*5 AD3d 1050 [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 605 [2004]). Present—Gorski, J.P., Smith, Centra and Green, JJ.
# C_2007117EN.01002001.xml

| 26.5.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 117/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/20

---

Action brought on 3 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-192/07)

(2007/C 117/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and W. Bogensberger, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (1), or, by not informing the Commission of such provisions, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (1), or, by not informing the Commission of such provisions, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposition of Directive 2003/86/EC expired on 3 October 2005.

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12.

1

---
# C_2006253EN.01000602.xml

| 19.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4256 — Xstrata/Falconbridge)

(2006/C 253/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 13 July 2006, 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:

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

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/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 under document number 32006M4256. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4256. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)

---
### §3042. Major defense acquisition program

For the definition of the term "major defense acquisition program" for purposes of this part, see section 4201 of this title.

(Added Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title XVIII, §1806(c)(1), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4154.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 3061 was renumbered section 7061 of this title.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 2022, with additional provisions for delayed implementation and applicability of existing law, see section 1801(d) of Pub. L. 116–283, set out as an Effective Date of 2021 Amendment note preceding section 3001 of this title.
§ 39.117 How does a school provide gifted and talented services for a student? Gifted and talented services are provided through or under the supervision of highly qualified professional teachers. To provide gifted and talented services for a student, a school must take the steps in this section. ( a ) The multi-disciplinary team formed under § 39.116(b) will sign a statement of agreement for placement of services based on documentation reviewed.
( b ) The student's parent or guardian must give written permission for the student to participate.
( c ) The school must develop a specific education plan that contains: ( 1 ) The date of placement;
( 2 ) The date services will begin;
( 3 ) The criterion from § 39.114 for which the student is receiving services and the student's performance level;
( 4 ) Measurable goals and objectives; and
( 5 ) A list of staff responsible for each service that the school is providing.
Amendment to the MediciNova, Inc. Amended and Restated 2004 Stock Incentive Plan


 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT TO THE 
 MEDICINOVA, INC. 
 AMENDED AND RESTATED 2004 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 
 This Amendment (this
“Amendment”) to the Amended and Restated 2004 Stock Incentive Plan (the “2004 Plan”) of MediciNova, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), is made effective as of June 6, 2008. Unless
otherwise specifically defined herein, each capitalized term used herein shall have the meaning afforded such term under the 2004 Plan. 
 WITNESSETH: 
 WHEREAS, at a duly noticed meeting of the Board of Directors held on March 18, 2008, the Board of
Directors determined it to be in the best interests of the Company to amend the 2004 Plan to increase the number of Shares authorized for issuance thereunder by one million (1,000,000) Shares; 
 WHEREAS, immediately prior to the adoption of this Amendment, there were two million six hundred thirty thousand (2,630,000) Shares
authorized for issuance under the 2004 Plan; 
 WHEREAS, at the Company’s Annual Meeting of Stockholders held on June 6,
2008, the Company’s stockholders approved the increase in the authorized number of Shares reserved for issuance under the 2004 Plan by one million (1,000,000) Shares, or from two million six hundred thirty thousand (2,630,000) Shares
to three million six hundred thirty thousand (3,630,000) Shares. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the 2004 Plan is hereby
amended as follows: 
 1. Stock Subject to Plan. Section 5(a) of the 2004 Plan shall be amended by increasing the number of
Shares authorized for issuance as Awards under the 2004 Plan by one million (1,000,000) Shares. 
 2. Date of Amendment. To
record the adoption of this Amendment to the 2004 Plan by the Board of Directors as of March 18, 2008, and the approval by the Company’s stockholders of this Amendment effective as of June 6, 2008, the Company has caused its
authorized officer to execute the same as of the date first set forth above. 
  

			
	MEDICINOVA, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Shintaro Asako
		 	 Shintaro Asako
 Chief Financial
Officer
# C_2007082EN.01003001.xml

| 14.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/30

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 February 2007 — CAS v Commission

(Case T-23/03) (1)

1

(Association Agreement between the EEC and the Republic of Turkey - Remission of import duty - Fruit juice concentrate from Turkey - Community Customs Code - Movement certificates - Special situation - Rights of the defence)

(2007/C 82/65)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: CAS SpA (Verona, Italy) (represented by: D. Ehle, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis, Agent, and M. Nuñez Müller, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment in part of the Commission's decision of 18 October 2002 (REC 10/01) concerning an application for remission of import duties

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 83, 5.4.2003.

1

---
### §1271. Repealed. Pub. L. 86–230, §24, Sept. 8, 1959, 73 Stat. 466

Section, act Mar. 4, 1923, ch. 252, title II, §212, 42 Stat. 1469, related to deposits in Federal reserve member banks.
EX-34.5


(logo) pwc


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors, PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.:

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on
Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that Midland
Loan Services, a division of PNC Bank, National Association ("Midland" or the
"Company") complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the
Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the commercial
mortgage-backed securities transactions (the "Platform"), as of December 31,
2013 and for the year then ended, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii),
1122(d)(3)(i)(B), 1122(d)(3)(i)(C), 1122(d)(3)(i)(D), 1122(d)(3)(ii),
1122(d)(3)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(iv), and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Company has
determined are not applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with
respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance
with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on
management's assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly,
included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance
with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as
we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing
of selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform,
testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and
determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and
performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing
criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing
activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report.
Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors
that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have
affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during
the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a
reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal
determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that Midland complied with the
aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2013 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

February 24, 2014


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 1100 Walnut, Suite 1300, Kansas City, MO 64106
T: (816) 472 7921, F: (816) 218 1890, www.pwc.com/us
§ 109.23 Dissemination, distribution, or republication of candidate campaign materials. ( a ) *General rule.* The financing of the dissemination, distribution, or republication, in whole or in part, of any broadcast or any written, graphic, or other form of campaign materials prepared by the candidate, the candidate's authorized committee, or an agent of either of the foregoing shall be considered a contribution for the purposes of contribution limitations and reporting responsibilities of the person making the expenditure. The candidate who prepared the campaign material does not receive or accept an in-kind contribution, and is not required to report an expenditure, unless the dissemination, distribution, or republication of campaign materials is a coordinated communication under 11 CFR 109.21 or a party coordinated communication under 11 CFR 109.37.
( b ) *Exceptions.* The following uses of campaign materials do not constitute a contribution to the candidate who originally prepared the materials: ( 1 ) The campaign material is disseminated, distributed, or republished by the candidate or the candidate's authorized committee who prepared that material;
( 2 ) The campaign material is incorporated into a communication that advocates the defeat of the candidate or party that prepared the material;
( 3 ) The campaign material is disseminated, distributed, or republished in a news story, commentary, or editorial exempted under 11 CFR 100.73 or 11 CFR 100.132;
( 4 ) The campaign material used consists of a brief quote of materials that demonstrate a candidate's position as part of a person's expression of its own views; or
( 5 ) A national political party committee or a State or subordinate political party committee pays for such dissemination, distribution, or republication of campaign materials using coordinated party expenditure authority under 11 CFR 109.32.
[68 FR 451, Jan. 3, 2003, as amended at 71 FR 33210, June 8, 2006]
**Exhibit 32.2****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, José A. Segrera, hereby certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:     (1) The accompanying annual report on Form 10-K/A forthe fiscal year ended March 31, 2005 fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and     (2) The information contained in such report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of Terremark Worldwide, Inc.     /s/ José A. Segrera           José A. Segrera *Executive Vice President and* *Chief Financial Officer* *(Principal Accounting Officer)*Dated: August 16, 2005
### §4747. Reimbursement by Fund

#### (a) Reimbursements

Not later than 30 calendar days after receiving a report filed in compliance with section 4746 of this title, the Fund shall reimburse the participating State in an amount equal to 50 percent of the amount of contributions by the participating State to the reserve funds that are subject to reimbursement by the Fund pursuant to section 4746 of this title and this section. The Fund shall reimburse participating States, as it receives reports pursuant to section 4746(a) of this title, until available funds are expended.

#### (b) Size of assisted borrower

The Fund shall not provide any reimbursement to a participating State with respect to an enrolled loan made to a borrower that has 500 or more employees at the time that the loan is enrolled in the Program.

#### (c) Three-year maximum

The amount of reimbursement to be provided by the Fund to a participating State over any 3-year period in connection with loans made to any single borrower or any group of borrowers among which a common enterprise exists shall not exceed $75,000. For purposes of this subsection, "common enterprise" shall have the same meaning as in part 32 of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor to that part.

#### (d) Loans totaling less than $2,000,000

In connection with a loan in which the covered amount of the loan plus the covered amount of all previous loans enrolled by a participating financial institution does not exceed $2,000,000, the amount of reimbursement by the Fund to the participating State shall not exceed the lesser of—

(1) 75 percent of the sum of the premium charges paid to the reserve fund by the borrower and the participating financial institution; or

(2) 5.25 percent of the covered amount of the loan.

#### (e) Loans totaling more than $2,000,000

In connection with a loan in which the sum of the covered amounts of all previous loans enrolled by the participating financial institution in the Program equals or exceeds $2,000,000, the amount of reimbursement to be provided by the Fund to the participating State shall not exceed the lesser of—

(1) 50 percent of the sum of the premium charges paid by the borrower and the participating financial institution; or

(2) 3.5 percent of the covered amount of the loan.

#### (f) Other amounts

In connection with the enrollment of a loan that will cause the aggregate covered amount of all enrolled loans to exceed $2,000,000, the amount of reimbursement by the Fund to the participating State shall be determined—

(1) by applying subsection (d) to the portion of the loan, which when added to the aggregate covered amount of all previously enrolled loans equals $2,000,000; and

(2) by applying subsection (e) to the balance of the loan.

(Pub. L. 103–325, title II, §257, Sept. 23, 1994, 108 Stat. 2212.)
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVA NIA** 

IN RE: ORDER APPROVING THE REVISION OF THE COMMENT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF EVIDENCE 902 : : : : : : : NO. 741 SUPREME COURT RULES DOCKET

**ORDER**
**PER CURIA M**  **AN D**  **NOW**, this 12th day of June , 201 7 , upon the recommendation of the Committee on Rules of Evidence; the proposal having been publis hed for public comment at 46 Pa.B. 3793 (July 16, 2016) : I t is Ordered pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania that the Comment to Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 902 is revised in the attached form. This Order shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and shall be effective November 1 , 201 7

.
Additions to the rule are shown in bold and are underlined. Deletions to the rule are shown in bold and in brackets.
#### § 108.2 Plot plans, blueprints, and legends required.

Each applicant for an establishment license shall prepare a plot plan showing all buildings for each particular land area, blueprints for each building used in the preparation of biological products and legends containing a brief description of all activities in each room or area.
§ 9008.50 Scope and definitions. ( a ) *Scope.* This subpart B governs registration and reporting by host committees and municipal funds representing convention cities. Unsuccessful efforts to attract a convention need not be reported by any city, committee or other organization. Subpart B also describes permissible sources of funds and other permissible donations to host committees and municipal funds. In addition, subpart B describes permissible disbursements by host committees and municipal funds to defray convention expenses and to promote the convention city and its commerce.
( b ) *Definition of host committee.* A *host committee* is any local organization, such as a local civic association, business league, chamber of commerce, real estate board, board of trade, or convention bureau, that satisfies all of the following conditions: ( 1 ) It is not organized for profit;
( 2 ) Its net earnings do not inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual; and
( 3 ) Its principal purpose is the encouragement of commerce in the convention city, as well as the projection of a favorable image of the city to convention attendees.
( c ) *Definition of municipal fund.* A *municipal fund* is any fund or account of a government agency, municipality, or municipal corporation whose principal purpose is the encouragement of commerce in the municipality and whose receipt and use of funds is subject to the control of officials of the State or local government.
[68 FR 47417, Aug. 8, 2003]
I 

# / / AVIATION

**p~** !-

**~J ~.-**  -· ·. " June 5, 2015 SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY TO: Federal DocketManagementSystem, www.regulations.gov U.S. DepartmentofTransportation Docket Operations West Building, Room W12-140 1200 NewJerseyAvenue, SE Washington, D.C. 20590-0001 Subject: Second status request regarding petition for exemption under docket FAA-2014-0714 for Brim EquipmentLeasing, Inc. dba. Brim Aviation Ladies and Gentlemen: This letter is in regard to the petition for exemption submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration on September 10, 2014 under docket number FAA-2014-0714. We respectfully request, at your earliest convenience,the status ofthis matter. BB/jp


## I I 

# I PO Box 3009, Ashland, OR 97520 Tel: 541-482-1008 • Fax: 866-929-5133 www.brimaviation.com
-  Home 
-  Technical Resources 

# In This Section

                      -  HazMat Technical Resources 
                      -  Technical Reports 

## Related Links

                  -                                          Fatigue Life Improvement of DOT-CFFC Composite Cylinders                   

## Related Documents

                  -                                          Fatigue Life Improvement of DOT-CFFC Composite Cylinders PDF                   

# Fatigue Life Improvement of DOT-CFFC Composite Cylinders

**Dec 1, 2015**

The main purpose of this research work was to addresses the efficacy of a re-Autofrettage process of the cylinder for improving the fatigue performance of past service life DOT-CFFC composite overwrapped Type III pressure cylinders. Previous research has found that hard water exposure of the 6061 T6 aluminum liner associated with the DOT-CFFC cylinder design had a detrimental effect on the fatigue life of the liner. The hard water exposure facilitates an ion exchange between the mineral rich water and the 6061 aluminum alloy which leads to intercrystalline cracking. Hard water exposure of the aluminum liner is characterized by a discoloration of the liner, with a small flaw initiation site at a grain boundary; when subjected to pressure fatigue cycles the flaw eventually grows through wall, rendering the cylinder incapable of holding pressure. It is pointed out that DOT-CFFC cylinders are designed in a leak-before burst fashion and are thus a fail-safe design. However, in breathing air applications a leak is still an adverse failure mechanism.

This study was a follow up to previous research projects, Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) Composite Cylinder Life Extension Research Project completed in June 2014 and SCBA) Composite Cylinder Environmental Exposure Effects on DOT-CFFC Cylinders with Modal Acoustic Emission Examination research project completed in June 2015. These R&D projects were developed by PHMSA, Hazardous Materials Engineering and Research Division. The final report for this R&D project includes mechanical (performance) and nondestructive testing (NDT) data and conclusion. The R&D project will be used as basis for equivalent-safety-evaluation (ESE) of these SCBA composite cylinders that may be used beyond their 15 year service life under a certain conditions and operational controls which includes requalification of each cylinder by using Modal Acoustic Emission (MAE) testing. For technical question, contact Mr. Mark Toughiry, 202-366-4545.