alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 864
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 864 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 864.5700 Automated platelet aggregation system. ( a ) *Identification.* An automated platelet aggregation system is a device used to determine changes in platelet shape and platelet aggregation following the addition of an aggregating reagent to a platelet-rich plasma.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
[45 FR 60602, Sept. 12, 1980]
# C_2014315EN.01006501.xml

| 15.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/65

---

Action brought on 28 May 2014 — Best-Lock (Europe) v OHIM — Lego Juris (Shape of a toy figure)

(Case T-395/14)

2014/C 315/109

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Best-Lock (Europe) Ltd (Colne, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Becker, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lego Juris A/S (Billund, Denmark)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 March 2014 in Case R 1695/2013-4 and declare Community trade mark No 50  518 invalid in respect of Class 28; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 March 2014 in Case R 1695/2013-4 and declare Community trade mark No 50  518 invalid in respect of Class 28;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the three-dimensional mark in the shape of a toy figure for goods in Classes 9, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark No 50  518

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Lego Juris A/S

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: absolute grounds for invalidity and bad faith

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application for a declaration of invalidity was rejected

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52 in conjunction with Article 7(1)(e)(i) and (ii) and 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
Editorial Note on Part 73
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 73 appear at 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001.

§ 73.2120 Disodium EDTA-copper. ( a ) *Identity.* The color additive disodium EDTA-copper is disodium [[*N,N′-* 1,2- ethanediylbis[*N* - (carboxymethyl) glycinato]] (4-)-*N,N′,O,O′,O* N,*O* N′] cuprate (2-).
( b ) *Specifications.* Disodium EDTA-copper shall conform to the following specifications and shall be free from impurities other than those named to the extent that such impurities may be avoided by good manufacturing practice: Total copper, not less than 13.5 percent. Total (ethylene-dinitrilo) tetracetic acid, not less than 62.5 percent. Free copper, not more than 100 parts per million. Free disodium salt of (ethylene-dinitrilo) tetraacetic acid, not more than 1.0 percent. Moisture, not more than 15 percent. Water insoluble matter, not more than 0.2 percent. Lead (as Pb), not more than 20 parts per million. Arsenic (as As), not more than 3 parts per million.
( c ) *Uses and restrictions.* Disodium EDTA-copper may be safely used in amounts consistent with good manufacturing practices in the coloring of shampoos which are cosmetics.
( d ) *Labeling requirements.* The labeling of the color additive shall conform to the requirements of § 70.25 of this chapter.
( e ) *Exemption from certification.* Certification of this color additive is not necessary for the protection of the public health and therefore batches thereof are exempt from the requirements of section 721(c) of the act.
Exhibit
32

CERTIFICATION

The
undersigned certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that:

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                             
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The
accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2009
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|    |                                                                                                                                                                                             
|(2) | The
information contained in the accompanying Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.                           

|      |                    |  |  |                         | 
|----- | ------------------ |  |  | ----------------------- | 
|Date: | September 14, 2009 |  |  | /s/ Rodney A. Young     | 
|      |                    |  |  | President and           | 
|      |                    |  |  | Chief
Executive Officer | 
|      |                    |  |  |                         | 
|      |                    |  |  |                         | 
|Date: | September 14, 2009 |  |  | /s/ William J. Kullback | 
|      |                    |  |  | Chief Financial Officer | 

23

---
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50505

GG RANCH, LIMITED; HORTON RANCHES, INCORPORATED; LLOYD 

TSCHIRHART; DANCY TSCHIRHART; EAKIN RANCHES, LIMITED; 

RUSTY ULBRICH, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

EDWARDS AQUIFER AUTHORITY; ROLANDO RUIZ, in his official 

capacity as general manager; CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, Acting by and 

through the San Antonio Water System (SAWS), 

 Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:14-CV-848

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellants, owners of certain real property located above the Edwards 

Aquifer in Medina and Uvalde Counties, Texas, sued the state regulatory 

agency in charge of the Aquifer, the Edwards Aquifer Authority, alleging 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 5, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50505 Document: 00513494308 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2016
No. 15-50505

2

violations under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States 

Constitution and Article 1, § 17 of the Texas Constitution. Appellants’ suit 

followed the Authority’s denial of their untimely applications for withdrawal 

permits for their properties. The district court, pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), dismissed all claims with prejudice.

We have considered this appeal on the basis of the briefs, the pertinent 

portions of the record, and the applicable law. Having done so, the judgment is 

affirmed, essentially for the reasons stated in the Order of the district court. 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-50505 Document: 00513494308 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2016
NUMBER 13-11-00312-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

ISSAC GARCIA, APPELLANT,

v.

MARISSA CABRERA, APPELLEE. 

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

The appellant's brief in the above cause was originally due on January 9, 2013. 

Appellant has previously requested and received three extensions of time to file the brief. 

On August 30, 2013, this Court ordered the appellate brief to be filed on or before 
2

September 6, 2013. The order notified counsel that the Court would look with disfavor 

upon any further extensions. 

On October 1, 2013, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the brief had not 

been timely filed and that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution 

under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1), unless within ten days from the date 

of receipt of the letter, appellant reasonably explained the failure and the appellee was 

not significantly injured by the appellant's failure to timely file a brief. To date, no 

response has been received from appellant and the brief has not been filed. 

Appellant has failed to file his brief. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR 

WANT OF PROSECUTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b)(c).

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

14th day of November, 2013.
Editorial Note on Part 184
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 184 appear at 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001; 68 FR 15355, Mar. 31, 2003; 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004; 70 FR 40880, July 15, 2005; 70 FR 67651, Nov. 8, 2005; and 81 FR 49897, July 29, 2016.

§ 184.1878 Thiamine mononitrate. ( a ) Thiamine mononitrate (C12H17N5O4S, CAS Reg. No. 532-43-4) is the mononitrate salt of thiamine. It occurs as white crystals or a white crystalline powder and is prepared from thiamine hydrochloride by dissolving the hydrochloride salt in alkaline solution followed by precipitation of the nitrate half-salt with a stoichiometric amount of nitric acid.
( b ) The ingredient meets the specifications of the Food Chemicals Codex, 3d Ed. (1981), p. 325, which is incorporated by reference. Copies are available from the National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20418, or available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .*
( c ) In accordance with § 184.1(b)(1), the ingredient is used in food with no limitation other than current good manufacturing practice. The affirmation of this ingredient as generally recognized as safe (GRAS) as a direct human food ingredient is based upon the following current good manufacturing practice conditions of use: ( 1 ) The ingredient is used as a nutrient supplement as defined in § 170.3(o)(20) of this chapter.
( 2 ) The ingredient is used in food at levels not to exceed current good manufacturing practice. Thiamine mononitrate may be used in infant formula in accordance with section 412(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) or with regulations promulgated under section 412(a)(2) of the Act.
( d ) Prior sanctions for this ingredient different from the uses established in this section do not exist or have been waived.
[48 FR 55124, Dec. 9, 1983]
Exhibit 35.3












ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE

COMM 2015-CCRE25

The undersigned, David Co, a Director of Deutsche Bank Trust
Company Americas, as the Certificate Administrator (a “Certifying Servicer”) under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement,
dated as of August 1, 2015 (the “Agreement”), by and among, Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation, as Depositor,
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, CWCapital Asset Management LLC, as Special
Servicer, Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Certificate Administrator, Paying
Agent and Custodian, and Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Operating Advisor, here by certifies in accordance with Section 10.11 of the Agreement:



| | A) | A review of such Certifying Servicer’s activities from August 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 (the “reporting period”)
and of such Certifying Servicer’s performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer’s supervision and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | B) | That, as to the best of such officer’s knowledge, based on such review, such Certifying Servicer has fulfilled all its
obligations under the Agreement, in all material respects throughout the reporting period.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS

as Certificate Administrator





BY: David Co

Title: Director

Date: March 1, 2017
Exhibit





Exhibit 10.1



[U.S. Bank Letterhead]


December 17, 2016


Piper Jaffray & Co.
800 Nicollet Mall, J09S04
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Attention:  Debbra L. Schoneman, Chief Financial Officer and Timothy L. Carter, Treasurer


Re:    Amended and Restated Loan Agreement dated as of December 28, 2012, executed by U.S. Bank National Association (“Lender”) and Piper Jaffray & Co. (“Borrower”), as amended by the First Amendment to Amended and Restated Loan Agreement dated as of December 28, 2013, the Second Amendment to Amended and Restated Loan Agreement dated as of December 19, 2014, the Third Amendment to Amended and Restated Loan Agreement dated as of December 18, 2015 and the Fourth Amendment to Amended and Restated Loan Agreement dated as of December 17, 2016 (as amended, the “Agreement”; all capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined in this Amendment shall have the respective meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement as amended by this letter agreement).


Dear Debbra and Tim:


This letter agreement is the Pricing Letter, as defined in the Agreement (and amends, restates and replaces the Pricing Letter dated December 18, 2016).  The following terms are defined and incorporated into the Agreement by reference:


Applicable Margin shall mean 1.0%.


Commitment Fee.  From and including the date of this Agreement to but excluding the Termination Date, Borrower shall pay a nonrefundable commitment fee on the unused portion of the Facility Amount (determined by subtracting the outstanding principal amount of all Advances from the Facility Amount) at an annual rate of 0.20%.  The commitment fee shall be (a) calculated on a daily basis, (b) payable quarterly in arrears on the first day of each calendar quarter prior to the Termination Date and on the Termination Date, and (c) calculated on an actual day, 360‐day year basis.


Work Fee.  Borrower shall pay Lender, in conjunction with the Fourth Amendment to Loan Agreement dated as of December 17, 2016, a work fee in the amount of $250,000.


Please indicate your acceptance of this Pricing Letter by signing in the space indicated below and returning a copy of this letter to the undersigned.


Very Truly Yours,


U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 


By: /s/ Christopher M. Doering
Name:  Christopher M. Doering    
Title:  Senior Vice President




[BORROWER’S SIGNATURES ON PAGE 2]

























Piper Jaffray & Co.
December 17, 2016
Page 2




Accepted and agreed to by Borrower as of December 17, 2016:


PIPER JAFFRAY & CO.


By: /s/ Debbra L. Schoneman
Name:  Debbra L. Schoneman
Title:  Chief Financial Officer




By: /s/ Timothy L. Carter
Name:  Timothy L. Carter
Title:  Treasurer
EXHIBIT 99.1

        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 Concepts Direct, Inc. (the "Company")
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Phillip A. Wiland, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify 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 my 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 Company.


Date:  August 12, 2002               By: /s/Phillip A. Wiland
                                         Phillip A. Wiland
                                         Chief Executive Officer

                                                  EXHIBIT 99.2

         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 Concepts Direct, Inc. (the "Company")
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Cody S. McGarraugh, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify 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 my 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 Company.


Date:  August 12, 2002               By: /s/Cody S. McGarraugh
                                         Cody S. McGarraugh
                                         Chief Financial Officer
# C_2014223EN.01006001.xml

| 14.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/60

---

Action brought on 5 May 2014 — Christian Dior Couture v OHIM (Representation of a repetitive pattern with a raised effect)

(Case T-313/14)

2014/C 223/62

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Christian Dior Couture SA (Paris, France) (represented by M. Sabatier, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 4 March 2014 in Case R 459/2013-4, in so far as it dismissed the appeal brought against the Examiner’s decision, which refuses the protection of the Community trade mark system in respect of the international registration covering the European Union of the figurative mark No 1 1 00  187 to designate some of the products in Classes 9, 14, 18 and 25; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 4 March 2014 in Case R 459/2013-4, in so far as it dismissed the appeal brought against the Examiner’s decision, which refuses the protection of the Community trade mark system in respect of the international registration covering the European Union of the figurative mark No 1 1 00  187 to designate some of the products in Classes 9, 14, 18 and 25;

| — | allow the registration of the figurative mark No 1 1 00  187 to designate all the products in Classes 9, 14, 18 and 25, and in the alternative to designate the products whose use has been expressly proven; |
| --- | --- |

—

allow the registration of the figurative mark No 1 1 00  187 to designate all the products in Classes 9, 14, 18 and 25, and in the alternative to designate the products whose use has been expressly proven;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before OHIM and in the present action, pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before OHIM and in the present action, pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: International registration designating the European Union of the figurative mark representing a repetitive pattern with a raised effect in respect of the products in Classes 9, 14, 18 and 25

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Partial refusal of the application

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-11-00418-CR

TERRANCE JERMAINE MOORE,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 272nd District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11-01511-CRF-272

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Terrance Moore was found guilty of state-jail felony theft and sentenced to 

eighteen months in state jail. Moore appealed.

Moore’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and an 

Anders brief, asserting that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that, in 

his opinion, the appeal is frivolous.1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 

18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Moore filed a pro se response to the Anders brief, but we find that 

 

1 Counsel identified two potential issues but concludes that Moore could not show harm. We agree.
Moore v. State Page 2

it does not raise any potentially arguable issues.

In an Anders case, we must, “after a full examination of all the proceedings, [] 

decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; 

accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is 

“wholly frivolous” or “without merit” when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy 

v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 

(1988).

We have conducted an independent review of the record, and because we find 

this appeal to be wholly frivolous, we affirm the judgment. Counsel must send Moore a 

copy of our decision by certified mail, return receipt requested, at Moore’s last known 

address. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. Counsel must also notify Moore of his right to file a pro se

petition for discretionary review. Id.; see also Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673-74 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, effective upon 

counsel’s compliance with this notification requirement as evidenced by “a letter [to 

this Court] certifying his compliance.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed March 28, 2012

Do not publish

[CR25]