alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.23


                              THREE SISTERS RANCH

                                   ENTERPRISES


                 LEASE ADDENDUM & PARTIAL TERMINATION AGREEMENT

TENANT                           Conceptus, Inc.

TENANT'S ADDRESS:                981 Industrial Road
                                 San Carlos, CA 94070

LANDLORD:                        Three Sisters Ranch Enterprises

LANDLORD'S ADDRESS:              P.O. Box 1444
                                 San Carlos, CA 94070

Project:                         San Carlos Business Park

Description                      That six (6) building project totaling
                                 approximately 123,280 square feetcommonly
                                 known as San Carlos Business Park, San
                                 Carlos, California

LEASE TERMINATION:               Tenant, by this Addendum, terminates its right
                                 of use or occupancy as to 981 B and 981 D
                                 Industrial Road, San Carlos (approximately
                                 11,941 square feet +/-) as part of the demised
                                 Premises as of December 1,1997; Tenant shall
                                 pay the sum of $89,557.50 as a termination fee
                                 (an agreed upon sum based upon a calculation of
                                 six months' rent composed of six times the sum
                                 of $12,538.05 of monthly base rent and
                                 $2,388.20 of monthly CAM costs); Tenant shall
                                 leave the Premises in broom swept clean
                                 condition free of debris and shall return all
                                 keys to Landlord; all terms and conditions of
                                 the other existing leases between Landlord and
                                 Tenant shall remain the same except failure to
                                 make payment hereunder at time of execution
                                 shall constitute a default under all existing
                                 leases with Landlord and shall be treated as
                                 failure to pay Rent.

THREE SISTERS RANCH ENTERPRISES
"Landord"

/s/ Martin E. Ruberry
-------------------------------------
Martin E. Ruberry
General Manager


CONCEPTUS, INC.

By:   /s/ Kathryn Tunstall
   ----------------------------------
Kathryn Tunstall, President and CEO
Exhibit 34.7



|     |  |                                                                                                                              
|---- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  | Plante & Moran, PLLC
10 South Riverside Plaza 9th floor Chicago, IL 60606
Tel: 312.207.1040 Fax:
312.207.1066 Plantemoran.com

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors

National Tax Search, LLC

We have examined National Tax Search, LLCs (the Company) compliance with the Securities and Exchange Commissions Regulation AB
Servicing Criteria, set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Security and Exchange Commissions Regulation AB for the National Tax Search TaxQ system (the Platform) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016. The Company has
determined that only certain servicing criteria, 1122(d)(l)(ii), 1122(d)1(iv), 1122(d)2(ii), 1122(d)2(v), 1122(d)2(vi), 1122(d)(4)(xi), and 1122(d)(4)(xii), are applicable to the activities performed by it with respect to the Platform covered by
this report. The Company has determined that the remaining servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the SEC Regulation AB are not applicable to the activities performed by it with respect to the Platform covered by this report.

Management is responsible for the Companys compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements
assertion about the Companys compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination. Our examination was conducted in accordance with 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 a selection of a
sample of transactions and compliance activities related to the Platform during the examination period and determining whether the Company processed those transactions and performed those activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Our
testing of selected transactions and compliance activities was limited to calculations, reports, and activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures did not include determining whether errors may have
occurred prior to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. 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 the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2016 for the Platform is fairly stated in all material respects.



LOGO

Chicago, IL

January 27,
2017



LOGO
Editorial Note on Part 172
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 172 appear at 61 FR 14482, Apr. 2, 1996; 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001; 68 FR 15355, Mar. 31, 2003; 70 FR 40880, July 15, 2005; 70 FR 67651, Nov. 8, 2005; 70 FR 72074, Dec. 1, 2005; and 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 172.854 Polyglycerol esters of fatty acids. Polyglycerol esters of fatty acids, up to and including the decaglycerol esters, may be safely used in food in accordance with the following prescribed conditions: ( a ) They are prepared from corn oil, cottonseed oil, lard, palm oil from fruit, peanut oil, safflower oil, sesame oil, soybean oil, and tallow and the fatty acids derived from these substances (hydrogenated and nonhydrogenated) meeting the requirements of § 172.860(b) and/or oleic acid derived from tall oil fatty acids meeting the requirements of § 172.862.
( b ) They are used as emulsifiers in food, in amounts not greater than that required to produce the intended physical or technical effect.
( c ) Polyglycerol esters of a mixture of stearic, oleic, and coconut fatty acids are used as a cloud inhibitor in vegetable and salad oils when use is not precluded by standards of identity. The fatty acids used in the production of the polyglycerol esters meet the requirements of § 172.860(b), and the polyglycerol esters are used at a level not in excess of the amount required to perform its cloud-inhibiting effect. Oleic acid derived from tall oil fatty acids conforming with § 172.862 may be used as a substitute for or together with the oleic acid permitted by this paragraph.
( d ) Polyglycerol esters of butter oil fatty acids are used as emulsifiers in combination with other approved emulsifiers in dry, whipped topping base. The fatty acids used in the production of the polyglycerol esters meet the requirements of § 172.860(b), and the polyglycerol esters are used at a level not in excess of the amount required to perform their emulsifying effect.
ACCEPTED

03-14-00726-CV

5782112

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

6/23/2015 10:38:40 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

ALLISON & WARD 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

7718 Wood Hollow Drive, Suite 220 

Austin, Texas 78731 

AdamS. Ward (512) 474-8153 Fax (512) 474-9703 

VIA ELECTRONIC FILING 

Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk 

Court of Appeals 

Third District of Texas 

P.O. Box 12547 

Austin, Texas 78711-2547 

Fed. Tax 10#47-3928623 

June 22, 2015 

Re: Court of Appeals Number: 03-14-00726-CV 

Trial Court Number: 13-2658 

Keely A. Allison 

Style: Texas San Marcos Treatment Center, L.P. d/b/a San Marcos Treatment 

Center v. Veronica Payton 

Dear Mr. Kyle: 

Please be advised that Plaintiffs counsel in the above-entitled and numbered action has 

changed, effective immediately to: 

Allison & Ward Attorneys at Law 

7718 Wood Hollow Drive, Suite 220 

Austin, Texas 78731 

Phone: (512) 474-8153 

Fax: (512) 474-9703 

Email: allison-ward@sbcglobal.net 

Sincerely, 

 RECEIVED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 6/23/2015 10:38:40 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk 

Court of Appeals 

Third District of Texas 

June 22, 2015 

Page 2 

xc: Mr. Ryan L. Clement 

Serpe, Jones, Andrews, Callender & Bell, PLLC 

America Tower 

2929 Allen Parkway, Suite 1600 

Houston, Texas 77019 

(VIA FAX #713-452-4499)
# C_2014448EN.01003601.xml

| 15.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 448/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 448/36

---

Action brought on 27 October 2014 — Monster Energy v OHIM — Home Focus (MoMo Monsters)

(Case T-736/14)

(2014/C 448/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Home Focus Development Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: The word mark ‘MoMo Monsters’ — Community trade mark application No 1 0 5 13  372

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 August 2014 in Case R 1167/2013-2

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
# C_2017014EN.01000401.xml

| 16.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — DHL Express (Austria) GmbH v Post-Control-Kommission, Bundesminister für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie

(Case C-2/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 97/67/EC - Article 9 - Postal services in the European Union - Obligation to make a financial contribution to the operational costs of the postal sector’s regulatory authority - Scope))

(2017/C 014/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DHL Express (Austria) GmbH

Defendant: Post-Control-Kommission, Bundesminister für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(2), second subparagraph, fourth indent, of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, as amended by Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes on all postal service providers, including those which do not provide postal services falling within the scope of the universal service, the obligation to contribute to the financing of the national regulatory authorities responsible for that sector.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2327 PAUL M. BLOWE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KIMBERLY R. PATTERSON, Defendant - Appellee.

No. 96-2328 PAUL M. BLOWE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JEFFREY L. STREDLER, Defendant - Appellee.

No. 96-2329 PAUL M. BLOWE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus23 VIRGINIA STATE BAR, Second District Committee, Section II, Defendant - Appellee.

No. 96-2330 PAUL M. BLOWE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusCOMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Department of Transportation Roads Right of Way VDOT Engineering by James C. Cleveland, Defendant - Appellee.Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-96-633-2, CA-96-634-2, CA-96-635-2, CA-96-636-2) Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: January 28, 1997 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul M. Blowe, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).4 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's orders dismissing his four 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaints. Appell ant's cases were referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district courtorder based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation. The timely filing of 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 that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the district court. 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.

AFFIRMED
Editorial Note on Part 866
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 866 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 866.1620 Antimicrobial susceptibility test disc. ( a ) *Identification.* An antimicrobial susceptibility test disc is a device that consists of antimicrobic-impregnated paper discs used to measure by a disc-agar diffusion technique or a disc-broth elution technique the in vitro susceptibility of most clinically important bacterial pathogens to antimicrobial agents. In the disc-agar diffusion technique, bacterial susceptibility is ascertained by directly measuring the magnitude of a zone of bacterial inhibition around the disc on an agar surface. The disc-broth elution technique is associated with an automated rapid susceptibility test system and employs a fluid medium in which susceptibility is ascertained by photometrically measuring changes in bacterial growth resulting when antimicrobial material is eluted from the disc into the fluid medium. Test results are used to determine the antimicrobial agent of choice in the treatment of bacterial diseases.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
#### § 822.18 How will I be notified of your decision?

We will send you a letter notifying you of our decision and identifying any action you must take.
Editorial Note on Part 870
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 870 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 870.1 Scope. ( a ) This part sets forth the classification of cardiovascular devices intended for human use that are in commercial distribution.
( b ) The identification of a device in a regulation in this part is not a precise description of every device that is, or will be, subject to the regulation. A manufacturer who submits a premarket notification submission for a device under part 807 may not show merely that the device is accurately described by the section title and identification provisions of a regulation in this part, but shall state why the device is substantially equivalent to other devices, as required by § 807.87.
( c ) To avoid duplicative listings, a cardiovascular device that has two or more types of uses (e.g., used both as a diagnostic device and as a therapeutic device) is listed only in one subpart.
( d ) References in this part to regulatory sections of the Code of Federal Regulations are to chapter I of title 21, unless otherwise noted.
( e ) Guidance documents referenced in this part are available on the Internet at *http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm ..*
[52 FR 17735, May 11, 1987, as amended at 68 FR 61344, Oct. 28, 2003; 78 FR 18233, Mar. 26, 2013]
# C_2016364EN.01002902.xml

| 3.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 364/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/29

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2016 — Earlie v Parliament

(Case F-130/14) (1)

((Civil service - Official - Former official - Sums deducted from his retirement pension - Maintenance payable to the ex-wife of the former official - Attachment order adopted by a national court - Attachment order discharged - New order requiring the former official to instruct the Parliament to pay the maintenance to his ex-wife - Instructions to that effect by the former official - Subsequent instructions from the former official to cease the payments to his ex-wife - Parliament’s refusal to execute the instructions - Family law - Exclusive jurisdiction of the national court - Duty of sincere cooperation))

(2016/C 364/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Thomas Earlie (Seville, Spain) (represented by: D. Bergin, solicitor)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Dean and M. Ecker, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Mary Earlie Gibbons (Dublin, Ireland) (H. Millar, solicitor)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision to deduct from the applicant’s pension the amount of maintenance the applicant is obliged to pay to his former wife, that being a decision which, according to the applicant, infringes a judgment of a national court in divorce proceedings and an application for damages in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Declares that Mr Earlie shall bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that Mr Earlie shall bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament;

| 3. | Declares that Ms Earlie Gibbons shall bear her own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares that Ms Earlie Gibbons shall bear her own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015, p. 52.

---
Editorial Note on Part 866
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 866 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 866.3405 Poliovirus serological reagents. ( a ) *Identification.* Poliovirus serological reagents are devices that consist of antigens and antisera used in serological tests to identify antibodies to poliovirus in serum. Additionally, some of these reagents consist of poliovirus antisera conjugated with a fluorescent dye (immunofluorescent reagents) used to identify polioviruses from clinical specimens or from tissue culture isolates derived from clinical specimens. The identification aids in the diagnosis of poliomyelitis (polio) and provides epidemiological information on this disease. Poliomyelitis is an acute infectious disease which in its serious form affects the central nervous system resulting in atrophy (wasting away) of groups of muscles, ending in contraction and permanent deformity.
( 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 § 866.9.
[47 FR 50823, Nov. 9, 1982, as amended at 65 FR 2312, Jan. 14, 2000]
tp

.Bon. T. M. Trimble,paga #2

-lY time "Xt is our aonstrutition thnt the oontraotscran affect those ahlldrenin the distrlotat the the contra&s are aonsummtsd,* Replying,

to tha above, we reapeotfullycell,yourattention to O~IXI~JXW numberedO-4855 and 0-4855~1.
**Article 2696**  reads aa r0li0ws; "Any ohlld lavifullg enrollebin any diatriat ar independentdlstrlot, nay by ordar of the county auperlntendent,~ ba ~rsnaierredto the enrollmant or any other dietrlotdp indepandant diatriatin the aanm county upon a written eppliaationof the parent m guardiancc person having lawful aontrol ot'auoh child, filed with. the oountg aupar%ntendant pravidea that any district or independental atrlot bafng diasatiaiied tith ang tranater.mado b the **aountg** superintsndentmrey

appeal irerm

suag eotion to 6ho aountg boa& o? **truatees~af** aala oounty who ahall have tbs right to anal WI oanaal tha transfer allowed bs the aaunty saparlntwiuaat.

Wpoa the **aerbizioaOion** of the transfer OS 

### any ahild, tiom one dAetriat%a annothar dlatriat, ale aallay superint4ILuent or the **oauaty** la whx3 the **ehlld** resides at **th4** tlmo of t&e tranafar, tha StateD4pritnwmtof Eduoatlcm 8hall authoeiasthe state !hwustarer

to p4y ma? aima* **x** appmtlolaasat, **in** iaa4pona4a~ **dist** the pksr ~8qita **ata 4f**  **tl*o** huadrad (400) or nmre fwholemtia**pspulatien,** to tha tUniiriat

to whiah suah ahlld lo tnnsfarza&j aad in 8ll other dietriats, be aouaty superlattmdoats, to b"r i id b k&n to the rsapeatiire dZstriatsto rhiah **ma** ahil rem ax-a

trenafarm4~ 

### prmia4u, a0 trmsrer 

### ahall bs aado attar August let, Aat8 X905, 263; **Aats** 1935, I&h Lag&, pI I+@,~Ca,- 201, sad,',

p-*.
~hildmn tranafarW,out of a dlstriat cicm to A ust 1 are no longer on the sehola5tioanrollmaatof their homa ii ifIb trlate, but ara on the aarol.ke8it of the reoelvlng dldtrhli, and are not inaludea in a transfare6?ntraat made Chekwaftar; and your questionis 80 83aawerea~i VerF auly youra ATT- crsIQsB&

OF TgKAR AwRom OCTI 4, 1943 **By /a/**  **C. F.**  **Gibson** #rover 9al.lars **Aesiataat FYI!**  ASICTANT **A ’** **YPORNEY Gm,**  **AFTROm CPI19Ia3**  **COMBITTEE, By**
Editorial Note on Part 886
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 886 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 886.1250 Euthyscope. ( a ) *Identification.* A euthyscope is a device that is a modified AC-powered or battery-powered ophthalmoscope (a perforated mirror device intended to inspect the interior of the eye) that projects a bright light encompassing an arc of about 30 degrees onto the fundus of the eye. The center of the light bundle is blocked by a black disk covering the fovea (the central depression of the macular retinae where only cones are present and blood vessels are lacking). The device is intended for use in the treatment of amblyopia (dimness of vision without apparent disease of the eye).
( b ) *Classification.* ( 1 ) Class I (general controls) for the battery-powered device. The battery-powered device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 886.9.
( 2 ) Class II (special controls) for the AC-powered device. The AC-powered device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 886.9.
[55 FR 48441, Nov. 20, 1990, as amended at 59 FR 63012, Dec. 7, 1994; 66 FR 38810, July 25, 2001; 84 FR 71817, Dec. 30, 2019]