alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

   
We consent to reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" in Amendment No.
3 to the Registration Statement (Form S-3/A) and related Prospectus of 
InControl, Inc. for the registration of 400,000 shares of its common stock and 
to the incorporation by reference therein of our report dated January 29, 1998,
with respect to the consolidated financial statements of InControl, Inc. 
included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) for the year ended December 31, 
1997, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
    

  
                                                           /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

   
Seattle, Washington
August 12, 1998
Editorial Note on Part 886
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 886 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 886.5810 Ophthalmic prism reader. ( a ) *Identification.* An ophthalmic prism reader is a device intended for use by a patient who is in a supine position to change the angle of print to aid reading.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in § 886.9. The device is also exempt from the current good manufacturing practice requirements of the quality system regulation in part 820 of this chapter, with the exception of § 820.180, with respect to general requirements concerning records, and § 820.198, with respect to complaint files.
[52 FR 33355, Sept. 2, 1987, as amended at 53 FR 35607, Sept. 14, 1988; 66 FR 38814, July 25, 2001]
Exhibit 35.20



|     |  |  |  |  |                       |                
|---- |  |  |  |  | --------------------- | ---------------
|LOGO |  |  |  |  |                       | CMBS Department
|     |  |  |  |  | MAC N9401-011        
|     |  |  |  |  | 1055 10th Avenue SE  
|     |  |  |  |  | Minneapolis, MN 55414

Citibank, N.A.

388 Greenwich
Street

14th Floor

New York, New York 10013



|RE: | Annual Statement of Compliance for MSCCG Trust 2015-ALDR Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-ALDR
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Per the Trust and Servicing Agreement dated as of May 5, 2015 (the Agreement), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., as Custodian (Wells Fargo), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the Reporting Period):

(a) A review of Wells Fargos activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such
officers supervision; and

(b) To the best of such officers knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of
its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

March 17, 2016



|              
|--------------
|LOGO          
|              
|GAIL VANNEST  
|Vice President



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
# C_2014361EN.01001602.xml

| 13.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 361/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 361/16

---

Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Makhlouf v Council

(Case T-592/14)

2014/C 361/22

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ehab Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet d'Elzius, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the applicant’s action admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the applicant’s action admissible and well-founded;

| — | in consequence, order the European Union to pay compensation of EUR 10  000 for all the damage suffered by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

in consequence, order the European Union to pay compensation of EUR 10  000 for all the damage suffered by the applicant;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are unlawful, in so far as they (i) infringe the obligation to state reasons laid down by Articles 296 TFEU and 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and (ii) infringe the applicant’s right to property laid down by Article 1 of the Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the ECHR’) and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and infringe the right to respect for his good name and reputation, provided for in Articles 8 and 10 of the ECHR. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are unlawful, in so far as they (i) infringe the obligation to state reasons laid down by Articles 296 TFEU and 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and (ii) infringe the applicant’s right to property laid down by Article 1 of the Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the ECHR’) and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and infringe the right to respect for his good name and reputation, provided for in Articles 8 and 10 of the ECHR.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant has suffered damage as a direct causal link to the measures taken by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant has suffered damage as a direct causal link to the measures taken by the Council of the European Union.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that a European Union regime of strict liability exists. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that a European Union regime of strict liability exists.

---
--------- ~S ---------

May 14, 2015 

The Honorable Anthony R. Foxx 

Secretary of Transportation 

US Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

The Honorable John F. Kerry 

Secretary of State 

US Department of State 

2201 C Street NW 

Washington, DC 20520 

The Honorable Penny Pritzker 

Secretary of Commerce 

US Department of Commerce 

1401 Constitution Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20230 

Dear Secretaries Kerry, Foxx and Pritzker: 

I am writing to express my concern with growing evidence documenting unfair practices of the 

governments of Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). 

Over the past decade, Qatar Airways, Etihad Airways and Emirates Airline have undermined 

U.S. airlines by receiving at least $42 billion in government subsidies and other unfair benefits in 

violation of U.S. Open Skies policy. This is helping Gulf carriers to drive down ticket prices and 

contributes to excess capacity, both of which will decrease revenue and load factors for U.S. 

airlines. 

These actions, if left unchecked, will result in service cuts, job losses and slower economic 

development in our region. As a hub and international gateway for American Airlines, Charlotte 

Douglas International Airport (CL T) contributes nearly $10 billion to our local economy each 

year. American employs nearly 10,000 people at CL T with over 725 daily flights and carries 

more than 43.5 million passengers annually. CL T is vital to our members, business owners and 

our community as a whole. 

1 urge the U.S. government to open consultations with Qatar and UAE in orderlOaddress the 

flow of subsidized capacity into the U.S. market. In addition, the U.S. government should freeze 

the introduction of new passenger service by the gulf carriers during these consultations. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. 

~I Bob Morgan 

President and CEO 

Charlotte Chamber of Commerce 

cc: Senator Richard Burr 

Senator Thom Tillis 

S1U-150520-017 : ox 32785 1 Charlotte, NC 28232 1 Phone: 704.378.1300 1 Fax: 704.374.1903 I charlottechamber.com 
charlot_t§L CHAMBE t 

330 S. Tryon Street 

P.O. Box 32785 

Charlotte, NC 28232-2785 

www.charlottechamber.com 

s 10-150520-017 

CHARLCiTTE 

NC262 

14 ~1.,~Y '~LS 

PM 5 L 

The Honorable Anthony R. Foxx 

Secretary of Transportation 

US Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

II 

Qt{;-~-¢f'%.1;>«' 

uz~ ,_ ~ - ·- ~ -~ ----- nn41 v nows:_s 

0 2 1M $ 00.48° 

0004286783 MAY1 4 20 15 

MAILED FROM ZIPCODE 28202
#### SETTLE *et al. v.*HOWELL *et al.,*commissioners.

No. 8585.

May 12, 1932.

*793
      *W. E. Watkins,*for plaintiffs.

*Joel B. Mallet,*for defendants.

Hill, J.

The learned trial judge refused the mandamus absolute on the ground that the issuing of the warrants against the "bridge fund” created a debt. There is no limitation on the amount of taxes which may be assessed and collected within the year for the purpose of building and repairing bridges within the counties of this State, excepting the cost of erecting the bridges. Civil Code (1910), § 513, par. 2; *Tucker*v. *Justices,*34 *Ga.*370 (3). And see *Commissioners*v. *Porter Mfg. Co.,*103 *Ga.*613 (30 S. E. 547). In *Gaines*v. *Dyer, 128 Ga.*585 (58 S. E. 175), it was held that a contract between the county authorities and another person for the construction of a public bridge for which there is a present necessitjr, entered into after the levy of a special tax sufficient to pay for the bridge, and during the same year, does not create a debt, although it is contemplated that the contract price shall be paid in whole or in part during a succeeding year. Under the principle ruled in the foregoing authorities, the tax levy in the instant case could have been so amended as to authorize the levy and collection of a tax sufficient to pay the warrants issued by the commissioners and held by 'the plaintiffs, within the year in which the warrants were issued; and it was the duty of the commissioners to do so, with or without application having been made therefor; and to do so would not create a debt within the meaning of the constitutional inhibition against counties creating debts. It was error, therefore, to deny, a mandamus absolute.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Hines, J., absent for providential cause.*
Editorial Note on Part 888
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 888 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 888.3150 Elbow joint metal/polymer constrained cemented prosthesis. ( a ) *Identification.* An elbow joint metal/polymer constrained cemented prosthesis is a device intended to be implanted to replace an elbow joint. It is made of alloys, such as cobalt-chromium-molybdenum, or of these alloys and of an ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene bushing. The device prevents dislocation in more than one anatomic plane and consists of two components that are linked together. This generic type of device is limited to those prostheses intended for use with bone cement (§ 888.3027).
( b ) *Classification.* Class II. The special controls for this device are: ( 1 ) FDA's: ( i ) “Use of International Standard ISO 10993 ‘Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices—Part I: Evaluation and Testing,’ ”
( ii ) “510(k) Sterility Review Guidance of 2/12/90 (K90-1),”
( iii ) “Guidance Document for Testing Orthopedic Implants with Modified Metallic Surfaces Apposing Bone or Bone Cement,”
( iv ) “Guidance Document for the Preparation of Premarket Notification (510(k)) Application for Orthopedic Devices,”
( v ) “Guidance Document for Testing Non-articulating, ‘Mechanically Locked’ Modular Implant Components,”
( 2 ) International Organization for Standardization's (ISO): ( i ) ISO 5832-3:1996 “Implants for Surgery—Metallic Materials—Part 3: Wrought Titanium 6-Aluminum 4-Vandium Alloy,”
( ii ) ISO 5832-4:1996 “Implants for Surgery—Metallic Materials—Part 4: Cobalt-Chromium-Molybdenum Casting Alloy,”
( iii ) ISO 5832-12:1996 “Implants for Surgery—Metallic Materials—Part 12: Wrought Cobalt-Chromium-Molybdenum Alloy,”
( iv ) ISO 5833:1992 “Implants for Surgery—Acrylic Resin Cements,”
( v ) ISO 5834-2:1998 “Implants for Surgery—Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene—Part 2: Moulded Forms,”
( vi ) ISO 6018:1987 “Orthopaedic Implants—General Requirements for Marking, Packaging, and Labeling,”
( vii ) ISO 9001:1994 “Quality Systems—Model for Quality Assurance in Design/Development, Production, Installation, and Servicing,” and
( viii ) ISO 14630:1997 “Non-active Surgical Implants—General Requirements,”
( 3 ) American Society for Testing and Materials': ( i ) F 75-92 “Specification for Cast Cobalt-28 Chromium-6 Molybdenum Alloy for Surgical Implant Material,”
( ii ) F 648-98 “Specification for Ultra-High-Molecular-Weight Polyethylene Powder and Fabricated Form for Surgical Implants,”
( iii ) F 799-96 “Specification for Cobalt-28 Chromium-6 Molybdenum Alloy Forgings for Surgical Implants,”
( iv ) F 981-93 “Practice for Assessment of Compatibility of Biomaterials (Nonporous) for Surgical Implant with Respect to Effect of Material on Muscle and Bone,”
( v ) F 1044-95 “Test Method for Shear Testing of Porous Metal Coatings,”
( vi ) F 1108-97 “Specification for Titanium-6 Aluminum-4 Vanadium Alloy Castings for Surgical Implants,”
( vii ) F 1147-95 “Test Method for Tension Testing of Porous Metal Coatings, ” and
( viii ) F 1537-94 “Specification for Wrought Cobalt-28 Chromium-6 Molybdenum Alloy for Surgical Implants.”
[65 FR 17147, Mar. 31, 2000]
APPENDIX A 

AIR QUALITY MONITORING INFORMATION 

 (provided in electronic form only) 

Bureau of Air Quality 

Department of Environmental Protection 
This page blank for copying purposes.
2006_Shelby_Ramp_Fraction

roadTypeID rampFraction

2 0.082392 4 0.117421

Page 1
39230.

#### J. L. TODD AUCTION COMPANY v. BRYANT.

Carlisle, Presiding Judge.

The purported bill of exceptions in this case recites the history of the case, including a statement that the trial judge overruled plaintiff’s motion for a judgment in accordance with its motion for a directed verdict, *207specifies the portions of the record “material to a clear understanding of the errors herein complained of,” and prays that the bill of exceptions be certified as true and correct and transmitted to the Court of'Appeals. However, this document nowhere contains any assignment of error on any judgment of the court, and it is, therefore, under repeated rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court, insufficient to present any question for decision by this court. Accordingly, the writ of error must be dismissed. *Code Ann.*§ 6-901. *Loftin v. State,*16 Ga. App. 195 (84 SE 833); *Griffin v. Garrard,*42 Ga. App. 337 (156 SE 270); *Combs v. State,*72 Ga. App. 793 (35 SE2d 315); *Brannen v. Buie,*208 Ga. 193 (65 SE2d 808).

Decided January 16, 1962.

*Leon Boling,*for plaintiff in error.

*Merritt Ac Pruitt, Glyndon C. Pruitt,*contra.

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*Eberhardt and Custer, JJ., concur.*
Nemo

Piedmont

Meade

Pennington

Lawrence

Pennington

Meade

Lawrence

T03NR05E

T03NR06E

T02NR06E T02NR05E

T03NR07E

T02NR07E

T04NR05E T04NR06E

T03NR04E

T02NR04E

T04NR04E

1

7

6

2

8

8

4

8

3

1

2

9

4

5 4

5

5

3

5

7

7

1

8

2

3

9

8

9

6

5

4

9

7

6

8

6

6

7

7

11

12

11

11

11

18

31

19

30

9

31

36

34 32

24

33

25

12

16

26

12

10

36

13

34

14

23

33

32

21

35

17

28

27

12

14

23

32

24

13

10

22

27

29 25

31

16

22

15

19

20

29

20

17

10

26

10

21

30

15

35

29

31

18

30 28

19

18

20

17

32 33

34

35 36 31 32

4

33

9

1

13 18 17

14 15

1

13 16

16

17

21

18

28

14

15

33

18 17 16

12

36

25

24

13

12

36

16

.

13

0 0.5 1 2 3

Miles

Steamboat Proposed Action

Steamboat Boundary

Private Land

Prescribed Fire
Editorial Note on Part 890
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 890 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 890.3475 Limb orthosis. ( a ) *Identification.* A limb orthosis (brace) is a device intended for medical purposes that is worn on the upper or lower extremities to support, to correct, or to prevent deformities or to align body structures for functional improvement. Examples of limb orthoses include the following: A whole limb and joint brace, a hand splint, an elastic stocking, a knee cage, and a corrective shoe.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in § 890.9. The device is also exempt from the current good manufacturing practice requirements of the quality system regulation in part 820 of this chapter, with the exception of § 820.180, regarding general requirements concerning records and § 820.198, regarding complaint files.
[48 FR 53047, Nov. 23, 1983, as amended at 66 FR 38816, July 25, 2001]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                           13720
<SECURITIES>                                     46605
<RECEIVABLES>                                    14910
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 83994
<PP&E>                                           39318
<DEPRECIATION>                                   30317
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  114683
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            37493
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         62177
<OTHER-SE>                                       12374
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    114683
<SALES>                                          20072
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 20072
<CGS>                                             6127
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    25641
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (11106)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       234
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (11340)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (11340)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.12)


</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 886
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 886 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 886.4855 Ophthalmic instrument table. ( a ) *Identification.* An ophthalmic instrument table is an AC-powered or manual device on which ophthalmic instruments are intended to be placed.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The AC-powered device and the manual device are exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in § 886.9. The manual device is also exempt from the current good manufacturing practice requirements of the quality system regulation in part 820 of this chapter, with the exception of § 820.180, with respect to general requirements concerning records, and § 820.198, with respect to complaint files.
[55 FR 48443, Nov. 20, 1990, as amended at 59 FR 63014, Dec. 7, 1994; 66 FR 38814, July 25, 2001]
Exhibit 4.4

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                       TO
                          ALTAIR NANOTECHNOLOGIES, INC.
                          2002 WAGE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN


         This Amendment No. 1 to Altair  Nanotechnologies,  Inc. 2002 Wage Stock
Purchase Plan (this "Amendment") is dated as of the 24th day of March, 2003.

         WHEREAS,   on  March  24,  2003,  the  Board  of  Directors  of  Altair
Nanotechnologies,  Inc. (the  "Corporation"),  adopted resolutions  amending the
Corporation's  2002 Wage Stock Purchase Plan (the "Plan") to increase the number
of shares of common stock of the  Corporation  authorized for issuance under the
Plan;

         NOW THEREFORE, the terms of the Plan are hereby amended as follows:

         1. Amendment.  Section 3 of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting such
section  in its  entirety  and by  substituting  in lieu of  said  section,  the
following new Section 3:

                  3. Shares Reserved for the Plan. There are 1,000,000 shares of
                  authorized but unissued  Common Stock reserved for purposes of
                  the Plan, subject to adjustment pursuant to Section 16. If the
                  total  number  of shares  subscribed  for and  proposed  to be
                  purchased on any Purchase Date (as defined in Section 5) would
                  cause the aggregate  number of shares issued under the plan to
                  exceed  the  maximum  number of  shares  reserved  under  this
                  Section 2, the Committee  shall make a pro rata  allocation of
                  shares available under the Plan. The Committee shall make such
                  allocation of shares among Participants (as defined in Section
                  5) in as nearly a uniform  manner  as  practicable  and as the
                  Committee shall determine to be equitable.

         2. Miscellaneous.

                  2.1.  Defined Terms.  All capitalized and undefined terms used
herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Plan.

                  2.2.  Governing Law. This  Amendment  shall be governed by and
construed in accordance  with the laws of the State of Nevada without  reference
to the choice of law principles thereof.

                  2.3.  Confirmation of the Plan.  Except as expressly  modified
hereby,  the Plan shall  remain in full force and effect and is hereby  ratified
and confirmed in all respects.

         The undersigned,  who is the duly elected Secretary of the Corporation,
hereby  certifies  that the  Amendment was approved by the Board of Directors of
the Corporation on March 24, 2003.




                         /s/ Edward H. Dickinson
                         -----------------------------------
                             Edward H. Dickinson, Secretary