alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Village of Port Chester, Petitioner, v Thomas Ayotte et al., Respondents.

[823 NYS2d 352]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of Thomas Maul, Commissioner of the State of New York Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, dated February 3, 2005, which, after a hearing, rejected the petitioner’s objection to the establishment of a community residential facility for the developmentally disabled in the Village of Port Chester.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The determination of the respondent Thomas Maul, Commissioner of the State of New York Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, is supported by substantial evidence (see Mental Hygiene Law § 41.34 [c] [5]; *Matter of Village of Wappingers Falls v Maul,*306 AD2d 416 [2003]; *Matter of Silberman v New York State Off. of Mental Retardation & Dev. Disabilities,*302 AD2d 599 [2003]). The petitioner failed to meet its burden of adducing clear and convincing evidence that the establishment of the subject community residential facility would result in an overconcentration of the same or similar facilities so as to substantially alter the nature and character of the area *(see Matter of Town of Mt. Pleasant v Toulon,*292 AD2d 615 [2002]; *Matter of Incorporated Vil. of Westbury v Maul,*263 AD2d 508 [1999]; *Matter of Town of Oyster Bay v Maul,*247 AD2d 545 [1998]). Schmidt, J.P., Adams, Dillon and Covello, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Joseph L. Turner, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Myogen, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and
c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors or (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and
b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
Date: November 10, 2004                          /s/ Joseph L. Turner   Joseph L. Turner Senior Vice President, Finance andAdministration
Video Transcript – SAMHSA FFR Video

**********************DISCLAIMER!!!**********************

THIS FILE MAY CONTAIN ERRORS. THIS IS NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT AND IS NOT FOR USE IN A COURT OF 

LAW.

**********************DISCLAIMER!!!**********************

Submitting an FFR

You will login to Commons, search for your grant, create a new FFR, save an FFR, edit your FFR, view an 

FFR as a PDF, and submit an FFR.

Log in to Commons

Note the FSR role

Click on FFR

Search for your grant using the IC and Serial Number from your grant number

Click on create new

Click Save to save your work

View an FFR as a PDF by clicking the PDF button

Edit an FFR by clicking the Edit button

Submit an FFR by clicking Submit

Note the status will say Received once you have submitted your FFR

The status will change to In Review when SAMHSA begins reviewing your FFR

Once your FFR has been Rejected or Accepted, You can submit a new FFR to correct any errors by hitting 

the Create New button

To view a history of the submission of the FFR click on the History button
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

RAMON AGUSTIN SALASCONTRERAS, a.k.a. Agustin Salas

Contreras,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-10034

D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00252-JAT

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 19, 2010** 

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Ramon Agustin Salas-Contreras appeals from the 18-month sentence

imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

FILED

OCT 28 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-10034

The record reflects the district court did not procedurally err, and the

sentence imposed is substantively reasonable under the totality of the

circumstances. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en

banc). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking supervised release

based on a single Grade C violation. Under the plain language of the statute and

the relevant sentencing guidelines, the court had authority to revoke on that basis. 

See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (allowing district court to revoke a term of supervised

release and require the defendant to serve in prison all or part of the term of

supervised release authorized by statute if it finds that the defendant violated a

condition of supervised release); U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(a)(2)(A) (Policy Statement)

(stating that the court may revoke supervised release upon finding a Grade C

violation). Furthermore, under the circumstances, the district court did not abuse

its discretion in imposing a sentence above the Sentencing Commission’s

recommended sentencing range of 7 to 13 months. See United States v. Simtob,

485 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007) (where defendant violates supervised release

by committing a similar offense to that for which he was placed on supervised

release, “greater sanctions may be required to deter future criminal activity”). 

AFFIRMED.
#### § 1318.508 Supplemental guidance.

The NEPA compliance staff, in consultation with interested TVA entities and with concurrence of TVA legal counsel, may issue supplemental or explanatory guidance to these procedures.
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 of CellStar Corporation (the Registrant) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2005,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, in the capacity as indicated below and 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 his knowledge:



| | 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 Registrant.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Michael J. FarrellMichael J. Farrell, Executive Vice Presidentof FinanceDate: February 13, 2006
# C_2013225EN.01004202.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/42

---

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 May 2013 — Dow AgroSciences Ltd, Dow AgroSciences LLC, Dow AgroSciences SAS, Dow AgroSciences Export SAS, Dow Agrosciences BV, Dow AgroSciences Hungary kft, Dow AgroSciences Italia srl, Dow AgroSciences Polska sp. z o.o., Dow AgroSciences Iberica SA, Dow AgroSciences s.r.o., Dow AgroSciences Danmark A/S, Dow AgroSciences GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-584/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Plant protection products - Active substance trifluralin - Non-inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC - Decision 1999/468/EC - Article 5)

2013/C 225/72

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Dow AgroSciences Ltd, Dow AgroSciences LLC, Dow AgroSciences SAS, Dow AgroSciences Export SAS, Dow Agrosciences BV, Dow AgroSciences Hungary kft, Dow AgroSciences Italia srl, Dow AgroSciences Polska sp. z o.o., Dow AgroSciences Iberica SA, Dow AgroSciences s.r.o., Dow AgroSciences Danmark A/S, Dow AgroSciences GmbH (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, avocats)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. von Rintelen and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents, and by J. Stuyck, advocaat)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 9 September 2011 in Case T-475/07 Dow AgroSciences and Others v Commission dismissing an action for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/629/EC of 20 September 2007 concerning the non-inclusion of trifluralin in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant-protection products containing that substance (notified under document number C(2007) 4282) (OJ 2007 L 255, p. 42)

Dow AgroSciences and Others

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Dow AgroSciences Ltd, Dow AgroSciences LLC, Dow AgroSciences SAS, Dow AgroSciences Export SAS, Dow Agrosciences BV, Dow AgroSciences Hungary kft, Dow AgroSciences Italia Srl, Dow AgroSciences Polska sp. z o.o., Dow AgroSciences Iberica SA, Dow AgroSciences s.r.o., Dow AgroSciences Danmark A/S and Dow AgroSciences GmbH shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dow AgroSciences Ltd, Dow AgroSciences LLC, Dow AgroSciences SAS, Dow AgroSciences Export SAS, Dow Agrosciences BV, Dow AgroSciences Hungary kft, Dow AgroSciences Italia Srl, Dow AgroSciences Polska sp. z o.o., Dow AgroSciences Iberica SA, Dow AgroSciences s.r.o., Dow AgroSciences Danmark A/S and Dow AgroSciences GmbH shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.

1

---
### §77aaa. Short title

This subchapter may be cited as the "Trust Indenture Act of 1939."

(May 27, 1933, ch. 38, title III, §301, as added Aug. 3, 1939, ch. 411, 53 Stat. 1149.)

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

#### Short Title of 1990 Amendment

Pub. L. 101–550, title IV, §401, Nov. 15, 1990, 104 Stat. 2721, provided that: "This title [amending sections 77ccc to 77eee, 77iii to 77rrr, and 77vvv of this title] may be cited as the 'Trust Indenture Reform Act of 1990'."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATIN EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K
DATED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       2,487,343
<SECURITIES>                                 6,386,202
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    147,270
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               155,966
<PP&E>                                       2,041,524
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,321,446
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,058,051
<BONDS>                                        616,726
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       113,316
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,533,353
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,646,669
<SALES>                                      1,054,120
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,054,120
<CGS>                                          324,590
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  324,590
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,755,317
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             110,601
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (9,496,594)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (9,496,594)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (9,496,594)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.83)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.83)


</TABLE>
#     Racial and Ethnic Groups

### Categories Related to Racial and Ethnic Groups

                      - Black or African American
                      - Asians and Asian Americans
                      - Males
                      - Adolescents as Population Group
                      - Females
                      - American Indian and Alaska Native
                      - Mature Adults as Population Group
                      - Some Other Race
                      - Hispanic or Latino
                      - White
                      - Multiracial
                      - Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders
                      - Young Adults as Population Group
                      - Older Adults as Population Group
                      - People with Mental Health Problems as Population Group

Latest In Racial and Ethnic Groups

Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN): Findings From Drug-Related Emergency Department Visits, 2022

Annual Report : Drug Abuse Warning Network - June 20, 2023

2019 NSDUH Detailed Tables

Data Table : National Survey on Drug Use and Health - September 11, 2020

2018 NSDUH Detailed Tables

Data Table : National Survey on Drug Use and Health - August 20, 2019

Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN): Findings From Drug-Related Emergency Department Visits, 2021

Annual Report : Drug Abuse Warning Network - December 14, 2022

Preliminary Findings from Drug-Related Emergency Department Visits, 2021  

Annual Report : Drug Abuse Warning Network - May 31, 2022

View All
### §4020. Rules and regulations

The Secretary, with the concurrence of the Attorney General, shall promulgate such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter.

(Pub. L. 97–290, title III, §310, Oct. 8, 1982, 96 Stat. 1245.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 97–290, Oct. 8, 1982, 96 Stat. 1233, which enacted this chapter and section 6a of this title and section 635a–4 of Title 12, Banks and Banking, amended section 45 of this title and sections 372 and 1843 of Title 12, and enacted provisions set out as notes under sections 1, 4001, and 4011 of this title and sections 1841 and 1843 of Title 12. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 8, 1982, see section 312 of Pub. L. 97–290, set out as a note under section 4011 of this title.
# C_2011030EN.01004501.xml

| 29.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/45

---

Action brought on 22 November 2010 — Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias v OHIM — Garmo (HELLIM)

(Case T-534/10)

()

2011/C 30/81

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias (Lefkosia, Cyprus) (represented by: C. Milbradt and H. Van Volxem, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Garmo AG (Stuttgart, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 September 2010 in Case R 794/2010-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 September 2010 in Case R 794/2010-4;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Garmo AG

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘HELLIM’ for goods in Class 29

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the collective word mark ‘HALLOUMI’ for goods in Class 29

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), as the marks and goods at issue are similar and there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks, and infringement of Article 63(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the applicant should have been able to rely on having the opportunity to respond to the observations of the respondent in the appeal proceedings before OHIM

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

1

---
### §70f. Injunction proceedings

Whenever the Commission has reason to believe—

(a) that any person is doing, or is about to do, an act which by section 70a, 70c, 70d, 70g, or 70h(b) of this title is declared to be unlawful; and

(b) that it would be to the public interest to enjoin the doing of such act until complaint is issued by the Commission under the Federal Trade Commission Act [15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.] and such complaint is dismissed by the Commission or set aside by the court on review or until an order to cease and desist made thereon by the Commission has become final within the meaning of the Federal Trade Commission Act,

the Commission may bring suit in the district court of the United States or in the United States court of any Territory, for the district or Territory in which such person resides or transacts business, to enjoin the doing of such act and upon proper showing a temporary injunction or restraining order shall be granted without bond.

(Pub. L. 85–897, §8, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1721.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Federal Trade Commission Act, referred to in text, is act Sept. 26, 1914, ch. 311, 38 Stat. 717, which is classified generally to subchapter I (§41 et seq.) of this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 58 of this title and Tables.
UNITED STATES


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Washington, D.C. 20549





FORM 8-K





CURRENT REPORT


Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934





Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported)November 16, 2010





Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc.


(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)





Delaware

000-23143

13-3379479(State or other jurisdiction

of incorporation)

(Commission

File Number)

(IRS Employer

Identification No.)777 Old Saw Mill River Road, Tarrytown, New York

10591(Address of principal executive offices)

(Zip Code)Registrant's telephone number, including area code (914) 789-2800





Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions (seeGeneral Instruction A.2. below):








oWritten communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)





oSoliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)




oPre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))




oPre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))











Item 8.01.  Other Events.





Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: PGNX) today announced the initiation of a Phase 2 clinical trial of subcutaneous methylnaltrexone in Japan by its collaborator, Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (OSE-TYO: 4528). The drug, designated as ONO-3849 in Japan, is being evaluated for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation in patients with advanced illness such as cancer. Subcutaneous methylnaltrexone is marketed in the U.S. and ex-U.S. markets under the brand name RELISTOR®.





A copy of Progenics’ press release is included in this Report as Exhibit 99.1 and the information contained therein is incorporated into this Item 8.01 by this reference.





Item 9.01.  Financial Statements and Exhibits.





(d) Exhibits





Exhibit No.     Description





99.1
Press Release dated November 16, 2010.




















SIGNATURES








Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.








PROGENICS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.


By:/s/ ROBERT A. MCKINNEY


Robert A. McKinney


Chief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President,


Finance & Operations and Treasurer











Date:  November 16, 2010