alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015406EN.01004401.xml

| 7.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 406/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/44

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 27 October 2015 — Labiri v Committee of the Regions

(Case F-81/14) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - 2013 promotion procedure - Decision not to promote the applicant - Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations - Consideration of comparative merits))

(2015/C 406/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Vassilliki Labiri (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially, J.-N. Louis, D. de Abreu Caldas and R. Metz, lawyers, then J.-N. Louis, R. Metz, N. de Montigny, D. Verbeke and T. Van Lysebeth, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Committee of the Regions (represented by: J.C. Cañoto Argüelles and S. Bachotet, Agents, and, initially, B. Cambier and G. Ladrière, lawyers, then B. Cambier and T. Cambier, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to the next higher grade (AD 13) in the Committee of the Regions (CoR) 2013 promotion procedure.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Declares that Ms Labiri is to bear her own costs and orders her to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Committee of the Regions. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that Ms Labiri is to bear her own costs and orders her to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Committee of the Regions.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 388, 3.11.2014, p. 32.

---
(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 all transactions serviced onthe *Enterprise!*Loan Management System (the “Platform”), as of December31, 2015 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 Companyhas 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, testingof selected servicingactivities related to the Platform, and determining whetherthe 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 aforementionedapplicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015 for the Platformis fairly stated,in all material respects.

 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

February 25, 2016

 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 1100 Walnut Street, Suite 1300, Kansas City, MO 64106 

*T: (816) 472 7921, F: (816) 218 1890 www.pwc.com/us*
#### § 82.1327 D&C Red No. 27.

The color additive D&C Red No. 27 shall conform in identity and specifications to the requirements of § 74.1327 (a)(1) and (b) of this chapter.

[47 FR 42568, Sept. 28, 1982]
#### Fike License

*Robert B. Stauft,*for appellant.

*Joseph W. Ray, Jr.,*for Commonwealth.

January 31, 1951.

Carr, P. J.,

Eugene E. Fike has appealed to us from an order of the Secretary of Revenue suspending his motor vehicle operator’s license for driving at a rate of speed in excess of the legal limit. He does not deny the violation, but contends that under the circumstances the suspension is not merited.

*Findings of Fact*

1. On June 8, 1950, between 4 and 5 p.m. (Eastern Daylight Saving Time), while traveling east upon *574U. S. route no. ,22 in East Hanover Township, Dauphin County, Pa., petitioner, a resident of Uniontown in this county, on his way to Princeton, N. J., to attend a reunion of his class at the university, drove his 1950 Buick sedan for more than one fourth of a mile at a speed in excess of 50 miles an hour, the legal limit for that highway. He was stopped by a member of the State police, who allowed him to proceed, but on the same day made an information against him before Raymond Shenk, Esq., a justice of the peace for East Hanover Township, upon notification of which he paid a fine of $10 and costs rather than return for a hearing. Subsequently the Secretary of Revenue, after a departmental hearing, suspended his license for a period of 90 days.

2. The highway upon which the violation occurred was 40 feet wide and consisted of four lanes of concrete divided by an island in the center into two lanes for eastbound and two for westbound traffic. “Thru Traffic Stop” signs had been erected on all intersecting highways.

3. The weather at the time was clear and dry, and there was little other traffic on the highway.

4. Petitioner did not drive carelessly or recklessly or so as to endanger the life, limb, or property of any person, but had his car at all times under control. There were no aggravating circumstances.

5. Petitioner is 44 years of age and a capable driver of 28 years’ experience. He is engaged in the general insurance business at Uniontown and Confluence, in the conduct of which he drives approximately 25,000 miles a year. He is also county coordinator and chief of survey of the Pennsylvania State Disaster System, and vice chairman of the disaster committee of the county chapter of the American Red Cross, and in those activities in behalf of the public requires the use *575of a motor vehicle. His operator’s license has never before been suspended or restricted.

6. Under the evidence the suspension of petitioner’s operator’s license is not merited.

7. Petitioner is not subject to suspension of his operator’s license.

*Conclusions of Law*

1. The order of the Secretary of Revenue suspending petitioner’s operator’s license should be reversed and the license reinstated.

2. Petitioner should pay the costs.

*Order*

And now, January 31, 1951, after hearing and consideration, the order of the Secretary of Revenue suspending petitioner’s motor vehicle operator’s license is hereby reversed, and it is directed that his license be reinstated, petitioner to pay the costs.
EX-31 Rule13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, Anthony Sfarra,certify that:

 

1. I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed inrespect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the Wells FargoCommercial Mortgage Trust 2015-C30 (the "Exchange Act periodicreports");

 

2. Based on myknowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3. Based on myknowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required tobe provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is includedin the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4. Based on myknowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report underItem 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Actperiodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under theservicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reportson assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securitiesand their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance withservicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in thisreport in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to

this report, exceptas otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliancedescribed in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving thecertifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me bythe following unaffiliated parties:

 

CWCapital AssetManagement LLC, as Special Servicer, Wilmington Trust, National Association, asTrustee, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Trust Advisor, CoreLogic CommercialReal Estate Services, Inc., as Servicing Function Participant, and National TaxSearch, LLC, as Servicing Function Participant.

 

 

 

Dated: March 19, 2018

 

 

/s/ Anthony Sfarra

 

 

President

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
PUBLIC LAW 115–304—DEC. 11, 2018 132 STAT. 4401 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 5317: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 115–703 (Comm. on Natural Resources). 

SENATE REPORTS: No. 115–363 (Comm. on Indian Affairs). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018): 

Sept. 12, considered and passed House. 

Nov. 27, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–304 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To repeal section 2141 of the Revised Statutes to remove the prohibition on certain 

alcohol manufacturing on Indian lands. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN ALCOHOL MANUFACTURING ON INDIAN LANDS. 

Section 2141 of the Revised Statutes (25 U.S.C. 251) is repealed. 

SEC. 2. NO EFFECT ON TAXATION OR STATE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE 

ALCOHOL WITHIN STATE BORDERS. 

(a) NO EFFECT ON TAXATION.—Nothing in section 1 or the 

repeal made by section 1 shall affect State or Federal taxation. 

(b) STATE AUTHORITY UNAFFECTED.—Nothing in section 1 or 

the repeal made by section 1 shall diminish, enlarge, or otherwise 

affect a State’s authority to regulate the importation and sale 

of alcoholic beverages within its own borders, including State 

authority over the manufacture, distribution, transportation, or sale 

of intoxicating liquors. 

Approved December 11, 2018. 

25 USC 251 note. 

Dec. 11, 2018 

[H.R. 5317] 


dkrause on DSKBC28HB2PROD with PUBLAWS
Editorial Note on Part 60
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 60 appear at 68 FR 24879, May 9, 2003, and at 88 FR 45065, July 14, 2023.

§ 60.10 FDA assistance on eligibility. ( a ) Upon written request from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, FDA will assist the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in determining whether a patent related to a product is eligible for patent term restoration as follows: ( 1 ) Verifying whether the product was subject to a regulatory review period before its commercial marketing or use;
( 2 ) For human drug products, food additives, color additives, and medical devices, determining whether the permission for commercial marketing or use of the product after the regulatory review period is the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product either: ( i ) Under the provision of law under which the regulatory review period occurred; or
( ii ) Under the process claimed in the patent when the patent claims a method of manufacturing the product that primarily uses recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) technology in the manufacture of the product;
( 3 ) For animal drug products, determining whether the permission for commercial marketing or use of the product after the regulatory review period: ( i ) Is the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product; or
( ii ) Is the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product for administration to a food-producing animal, whichever is applicable, under the provision of law under which the regulatory review period occurred;
( 4 ) Informing the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office whether the patent term restoration application was submitted within 60 days after the product was approved for marketing or use, or, if the product is an animal drug approved for use in a food-producing animal, verifying whether the application was filed within 60 days of the first approval for marketing or use in a food-producing animal; and
( 5 ) Providing the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office with any other information relevant to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's determination of whether a patent related to a product is eligible for patent term restoration.
( b ) FDA will notify the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office of its findings in writing, send a copy of this notification to the applicant, and file a copy of the notification in the docket established for the application in FDA's Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
[57 FR 56261, Nov. 27, 1992]
#### § 82.1317 D&C Red No. 17.

The color additive D&C Red No. 17 shall conform in identity and specifications to the requirements of § 74.1317 (a)(1) and (b) of this chapter. D&C Red No. 17 is restricted to use in externally applied drugs and cosmetics.
§ 600.90 Waivers. ( a ) An applicant may ask the Food and Drug Administration to waive under this section any requirement that applies to the applicant under §§ 600.80 and 600.81. A waiver request under this section is required to be submitted with supporting documentation. The waiver request is required to contain one of the following: ( 1 ) An explanation why the applicant's compliance with the requirement is unnecessary or cannot be achieved,
( 2 ) A description of an alternative submission that satisfies the purpose of the requirement, or
( 3 ) Other information justifying a waiver.
( b ) FDA may grant a waiver if it finds one of the following: ( 1 ) The applicant's compliance with the requirement is unnecessary or cannot be achieved,
( 2 ) The applicant's alternative submission satisfies the requirement, or
( 3 ) The applicant's submission otherwise justifies a waiver.
[59 FR 54042, Oct. 27, 1994, as amended at 79 FR 33092, June 10, 2014]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7082

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff – Appellee, 

v. 

NORMAN ALAN KERR, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00290-NCT-1; 1:11-cv00382-NCT-JEP) 

Submitted: October 16, 2012 Decided: October 23, 2012

Before AGEE, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Norman Alan Kerr, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Albert Jamison Lang, 

Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Norman Alan Kerr seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion

without prejudice to his right to refile the motion on the 

proper forms following the conclusion of his direct appeal.* The 

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2012). 

The magistrate judge recommended that the motion be dismissed

and advised Kerr that the failure to file timely and specific

objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review 

of a district court order based upon the recommendation. 

The timely filing of specific objections to a 

magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve 

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when 

the parties have been warned of the consequences of 

noncompliance. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 

416 F.3d 310, 315-16 (4th Cir. 2005); Wright v. Collins, 

766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). Kerr has waived appellate 

 * The district court clerk treated Kerr’s notice of appeal 

as seeking to appeal the district court’s March 23, 2012 order 

adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss Kerr’s 

§ 2255 motion. To the extent Kerr seeks in the present appeal 

to challenge the district court’s rulings at resentencing in May 

2012, his arguments are more properly raised in the pending 

direct appeal of the district court’s amended judgment. That 

appeal has been assigned case No. 12-4775. 
3

review of the district court’s order by failing to file 

objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after 

receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of 

appealability, deny Kerr’s motion to appoint counsel, and 

dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
§ 573.170 Ammonium formate. The food additive, ammonium formate, may be safely used in the manufacture of complete swine feeds in accordance with the following prescribed conditions: ( a ) The additive is manufactured by the reaction of 99.5 percent ammonia gas and 99 percent formic acid in a continuous loop reactor to produce a solution made up of 37 percent ammonium salt of formic acid and 62 percent formic acid.
( b ) The additive is used or intended for use as a feed acidifying agent, to lower the pH, in complete swine feeds at levels not to exceed 1.2 percent of the complete feed.
( c ) To ensure safe use of the additive, formic acid and formate salts from all added sources cannot exceed 1.2 percent of complete feed when multiple sources of formic acid and its salts are used in combination.
( d ) To assure safe use of the additive, in addition to the other information required by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act), the label and labeling shall contain: ( 1 ) The name of the additive.
( 2 ) Adequate directions for use including a statement that ammonium formate must be uniformly applied and thoroughly mixed into complete swine feeds and that the complete swine feeds so treated shall be labeled as containing ammonium formate.
( 3 ) Cautions for use including this statement: Caution: Follow label directions. Formic acid and formate salts from all added sources cannot exceed 1.2 percent of complete feed when multiple sources of formic acid and its salts are used in combination.
( e ) To ensure safe use of the additive, in addition to the other information required by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and paragraph (d) of this section, the label and labeling shall contain: ( 1 ) Appropriate warnings and safety precautions concerning ammonium formate (37 percent ammonium salt of formic acid and 62 percent formic acid).
( 2 ) Statements identifying ammonium formate in formic acid (37 percent ammonium salt of formic acid and 62 percent formic acid) as a corrosive and possible severe irritant.
( 3 ) Information about emergency aid in case of accidental exposure as follows: ( i ) Statements reflecting requirements of applicable sections of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) human safety guidance regulations.
( ii ) Contact address and telephone number for reporting adverse reactions or to request a copy of the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS).
[75 FR 41725, July 19, 2010, as amended at 78 FR 42692, July 17, 2013; 82 FR 52209, Nov. 13, 2017]
§ 524.1450 Moxidectin. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each milliliter of solution contains: ( 1 ) 5 milligrams (mg) moxidectin (0.5 percent solution).
( 2 ) 25 mg moxidectin (2.5 percent solution).
( b ) *Sponsors.* See sponsor numbers in § 510.600 of this chapter: ( 1 ) No. 058198 for use of product described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section as in paragraph (d)(1) of this section; and
( 2 ) No. 058198 for use of product described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section as in paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
( c ) *Related tolerances.* See § 556.426 of this chapter.
( d ) *Conditions of use* — ( 1 ) *Cattle* — ( i ) *Amount.* Administer topically 0.5 mg per kilogram (kg) of body weight.
( ii ) *Indications for use.* Beef and dairy cattle: For treatment and control of internal and external parasites: gastrointestinal roundworms (*Ostertagia ostertagi* (adult and L4, including inhibited larvae), *Haemonchus placei* (adult and L4), *Trichostrongylus axei* (adult and L4), *T. colubriformis* (adult and L4), *Cooperia oncophora* (adult and L4), *C. pectinata* (adult), *C. punctata* (adult and L4), *C. spatulata* (adult), *C. surnabada* (adult and L4), *Bunostomum phlebotomum* (adult), *Oesophagostomum radiatum* (adult and L4), *Nematodirus helvetianus* (adult and L4)); lungworms (*Dictyocaulus viviparus* (adult and L4)); cattle grubs (*Hypoderma bovis, H. lineatum*); mites (*Chorioptes bovis, Psoroptes ovis* (*P. communis* var. *bovis*)); lice (*Linognathus vituli, Haematopinus eurysternus,* *Solenopotes capillatus, Bovicola* (*Damalinia*) *bovis*); and horn flies (*Haematobia irritans*). To control infections and to protect from reinfection with *H. placei* for 14 days after treatment, *O. radiatum* and *O. ostertagi* for 28 days after treatment, and *D. viviparus* for 42 days after treatment.
( iii ) *Limitations.* A withdrawal period has not been established for this product on preruminating calves. Do not use on calves to be processed for veal. See § 500.25 of this chapter.
( 2 ) *Dogs* — ( i ) *Amount.* Administer topically a minimum of 1.1 mg per pound (lb) (2.5 mg/kg) of body weight, once monthly using the appropriate preloaded applicator tube.
( ii ) *Indications for use.* For the prevention of heartworm disease caused by *Dirofilaria immitis,* as well as the treatment and control of intestinal hookworm (*Ancylostoma caninum* (adult, immature adult, and L4 larvae) and *Uncinaria stenocephala* (adult, immature adult, and L4 larvae)), roundworm (*Toxocara canis* (adult and L4 larvae) and *Toxascaris leonina* (adult)), and whipworm (*Trichuris vulpis* (adult)) infections in dogs and puppies that are at least 7 weeks of age and that weigh at least 3 lbs.
( iii ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[63 FR 14036, Mar. 24, 1998, as amended at 65 FR 36617, June 9, 2000; 66 FR 46370, Sept. 5, 2001. Redesignated at 76 FR 48715, Aug. 9, 2011, as amended at 80 FR 53460, Sept. 4, 2015; 82 FR 21691, May 10, 2017; 86 FR 14821, Mar. 19, 2021]