alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



EXHIBIT 15

Acknowledgement of Ernst & Young LLP

The Board of Directors
Biopure Corporation

We are aware of the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements:



| |   |                             
| | - | ----------------------------
| |  | Form S-8 (No. 333-48924);   
|
| |  | Form S-8 (No. 333-96085) and
|
| |  | Form S-3 (No. 333-66464)    

of our report dated March 13, 2002 relating to the unaudited condensed
consolidated interim financial statements of Biopure Corporation that are
included in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2002.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) of the Securities Act of 1933, our reports are not part
of the registration statement prepared or certified by accountants within the
meaning of Section 7 or 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.



| | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
| | ---------------------

Boston, Massachusetts
March 13, 2002
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11180-11181]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-5102]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Revocations

    The Federal Maritime Commission hereby gives notice that the 
following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been revoked 
pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. Chapter 
409) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing 
of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR Part 515, effective on 
the corresponding date shown below:
    License Number: 876F.
    Name: S.H. Pomerance Co., Inc.

[[Page 11181]]

    Address: Cargo Bldg. 80, JFK Int'l Airport, Room 242/244, Jamaica, 
NY 11430.
    Date Revoked: February 16, 2010.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.

    License Number: 003486F.
    Name: Mozart Forwarding, Inc.
    Address: 535 Seaview Avenue, Bridgeport, CT 06607.
    Date Revoked: February 13, 2010.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.

    License Number: 012142NF.
    Name: Seaborne International, Inc. dba Seaborne Express Line.
    Address: 8901 South La Cienega Blvd., Suite 101, Inglewood, CA 
90301.
    Date Revoked: February 6, 2010.
    Reason: Failed to maintain valid bonds.

    License Number: 015847N.
    Name: Straightline Logistics, Inc.
    Address: One Cross Island Plaza, Suite 203-G, Rosedale, NY 11422.
    Date Revoked: February 13, 2010.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.

    License Number: 015917N.
    Name: Golden Jet-L.A., Inc. dba Golden Jet Freight Forwarders dba 
Golden Jet USA, Inc.
    Address: 12333 S. Van Ness Avenue, Suite 201, Hawthorne, CA 90250.>
    Date Revoked: February 18, 2010.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.

    License Number: 16886N.
    Name: Maritrans Shipping, Ltd.
    Address: 170 East Sunrise Highway, Valley Stream, NY 11581.
    Date Revoked: February 15, 2010.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.

    License Number: 017017NF.
    Name: American Global Logistics, Inc. dba American Global Shipping.
    Address: 388 2nd Avenue, Suite 160, New York, NY 10010.
    Date Revoked: January 28, 2010.
    Reason: Failed to maintain valid bonds.

    License Number: 018033N.
    Name: Adrienne Shipping Line, Inc.
    Address: 525 South Douglas Street, Suite 100, El Segundo, CA 90245.
    Date Revoked: February 14, 2010.
    Reason: Surrendered license voluntarily.

    License Number: 018281N.
    Name: Sun Ocean Logistics Corp.
    Address: 5250 West Century Blvd., Suite 530, Los Angeles, CA 90045.
    Date Revoked: February 11, 2010.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.

    License Number: 020479F.
    Name: Karon Jones dba Keene Machinery and Export.
    Address: 2810 Goodnight Trail, Corinth, TX 76210.
    Date Revoked: February 11, 2010.
    Reason: Failed to maintain a valid bond.

Sandra L. Kusumoto,
Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing.
[FR Doc. 2010-5102 Filed 3-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
§ 522.304 Carprofen. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each milliliter of solution contains 50 milligrams (mg) carprofen.
( b ) *Sponsors.* See Nos. 016729, 017033, 054771, 055529, and 069043 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) [Reserved]
( d ) *Conditions of use in dogs* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* 2 mg/lb (4.4 mg/kg) body weight once daily or 1 mg/lb (2.2 mg/kg) twice daily, by subcutaneous injection. For the control of postoperative pain, administer approximately 2 hours before the procedure.
( 2 ) *Conditions of use.* For the relief of pain and inflammation associated with osteoarthritis and for the control of postoperative pain associated with soft tissue and orthopedic surgeries.
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[68 FR 26205, May 15, 2003, as amended at 68 FR 34796, June 11, 2003; 68 FR 49351, Aug. 18, 2003. Redesignated at 73 FR 29685, May 22, 2008, as amended at 79 FR 74020, Dec. 15, 2014; 82 FR 43484, Sept. 18, 2017; 88 FR 16547, Mar. 20, 2023; 89 FR 14410, Feb. 27, 2024]
Editorial Note on Part 886
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 886 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 886.5840 Magnifying spectacles. ( a ) *Identification.* Magnifying spectacles are devices that consist of spectacle frames with convex lenses intended to be worn by a patient who has impaired vision to enlarge images.
( 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 § 866.9.
[52 FR 33355, Sept. 2, 1987, as amended at 53 FR 35607, Sept. 14, 1988; 59 FR 63014, Dec. 7, 1994; 66 FR 38814, July 25, 2001]
May 15, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

MARCUS MARQUIS PRUITT, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00079-CV V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

____________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the order signed 

by the court below on December 15, 2011. Having considered the motion and found it 

meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

MARCUS MARQUIS PRUITT.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
(logo)Grant Thornton

 

**GRANTTHORNTON LLP**

1100Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 1400

Atlanta,GA 30309

 

**D** +1 404 330 2000

**F** +1 404 475 0107

 

 

**REPORTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

Boardof Directors of BellOak, LLC:

 

Wehave examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Management’sReport on Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing Criteria(“Management’s Report”), that BellOak, LLC (the “Company” or “BellOak”)complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Items 1122(d)(3)(i)(A–B) and1122(d)(4)(vii) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation ABfor the Operating Advisor Platform (the “Platform”) as of and for the periodOctober 7 to December 31, 2022. The Platform consists of the asset-backedtransactions and securities defined by management in Appendix B of Management’sReport. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with theapplicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’sassertion about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteriafor the Platform based on our examination.

 

Ourexamination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the PublicCompany Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and in accordance withattestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified PublicAccountants, and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidenceabout the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for thePlatform and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in thecircumstances. Our examination included testing selected asset-backedtransactions and securities constituting the Platform and evaluating whetherthe Company performed servicing activities related to those transactions andsecurities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the periodcovered by this report. Accordingly, our testing may not have includedservicing activities related to each asset-backed transaction or securityconstituting the Platform. Further, our examination was not designed to detectmaterial noncompliance that may have occurred prior to the period covered bythis report and that may have affected the Company’s servicing activitiesduring the period covered by this report. We believe that our examinationprovides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide alegal determination on the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria.

 

Weare required to be independent and to meet our other ethical responsibilitiesin accordance with relevant ethical requirements relating to the engagement.

 

Inour opinion, management’s assertion that BellOak, LLC complied with theaforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the period October 7to December 31, 2022 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all materialrespects.

 

 

/s/Grant Thornton LLP

Atlanta,Georgia

March1, 2023

 

 

**GT.COM**

 

GrantThornton LLP is the U.S. member firm of Grant Thornton International Ltd(GTIL). GTIL and each of its member firms

areseparate legal entities and are not a worldwide partnership.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.2

                  [MICROTEL INTERNATIONAL INC. LETTERHEAD]



October 2, 2000


T-Com, LLC
38 3rd Street, #303
Los Altos, CA 94022

Attn: Everett Bahre


     RE:  ASSET PURCHASE OF T-COM, LLC BY CXR TELECOM
          CORPORATION (THE "TRANSACTION")


Dear Sirs:


     This letter is to confirm our agreement concerning the effective date
for the above-referenced Transaction.

     Whereas, an agreement in principle and a valuation for the Transaction
were executed by CXR Telcom Corporation ("CXR"), MicroTel International, Inc.
("MicroTel") and T-Com, LLC ("T-Com") on July 17, 2000 and July 26, 2000,
respectively, and all agreed upon actions required of T-Com to posture itself
in a business mode acceptable to CXR and MicroTel were made effective August
1, 2000; and

     Whereas, MicroTel, CXR and T-Com have each indicated that they are
agreeable to making the effective date for the Transaction August 1, 2000 as
that date had been originally anticipated as the closing date for the
Transaction; and

     Whereas, MicroTel and CXR have conferred with their accountants and
auditors, who, in light of the foregoing, have advised that they have no
objection to making the effective date for the Transaction August 1, 2000.

     MicroTel, CXR and T-Com, for good and valuable consideration, receipt of
which is hereby acknowledged, agree, notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained in the Asset Purchase Agreement relating to the Transaction, or any
of the Exhibits thereto, that as between the parties for all purposes the
Transaction shall be deemed to be effective as of August 1, 2000.



===============================================================================

        9485 E. Haven Ave Suite 100, Rancho Cucamonga CA. USA 91730
                Voice (909) 297-2699  FAX (909) 297-2644

<PAGE>


Please indicate your agreement with the foregoing by signing and returning
the enclosed copy of this letter.


                                          MICROTEL INTERNATIONAL, INC.

                                          By:   /s/  CARMINE T. OLIVA
                                              ----------------------------
                                                Carmine T. Oliva


                                          CXR TELCOM CORPORATION

                                          By:   /s/  CARMINE T. OLIVA
                                              ----------------------------
                                                Carmine T. Oliva





Agreed to:

T-Com, LLC

By:    /s/  EVERETT BAHRE
    --------------------------
       Everett Bahre
**Exhibit 35.8**

OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE 

I, Karen Montbach, aManaging Director of Citibank, N.A. (the “Company”), hereby certify, with respect to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of August 1, 2015 (the “Agreement”), by and among Citigroup Commercial Mortgage SecuritiesInc., as depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as master servicer and custodian, LNR Partners, LLC, as special servicer, Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as operating advisor, Citibank, N.A., as certificate administrator (the“Certificate Administrator”), and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as trustee, the following: 

1.     Areview of the Company’s activities as Certificate Administrator during the reporting period ending December 31, 2016 and its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision. 

2.    To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, as of and for the reporting period ending December 31, 2016,the Company has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period. 

This statement is given bythe undersigned as an authorized officer of the Company and not in the undersigned’s individual capacity. 

Date:    February 27,2017
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

Regulatory Flexib ility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
#### Mary Christoni *v.*Joseph R. Christoni (two cases)

Alcorn, House, Thim, Ryan and Covello, Js.

Argued February 7

decided February 9, 1968

*George J. Coyle,*for the appellant (defendant).

*Richard L. Jacobs,*with whom, on the brief, was *Leander C. Gray,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

Per Curiam.

These were companion cases. In one, the plaintiff sought a divorce, alleging both adultery and intolerable cruelty. In the other, the plaintiff sought, pursuant to § 46-10 of the General Statutes, indemnification from her husband for money paid out by her for the support of her children and herself. Both cases were referred to a referee, who, after a hearing, filed his report in which he concluded that the plaintiff was entitled *629to a divorce on the ground of adultery and that she should recover from the defendant by way of indemnification under the statute the sum of $6002.52. In each case, the court accepted the report of the referee and rendered judgment in accordance with his recommendation. The defendant has appealed in each case.

In neither appeal is any attack made on the finding. In the divorce action, the only assigned error is that the referee reached no conclusion and made no recommendation as to the allegations of intolerable cruelty. In the action for indemnification, the only error assigned is that the court rendered judgment for the plaintiff without concluding that the plaintiff was entitled to a divorce on the ground of intolerable cruelty.

There is no merit to the appeal in either case. Where more than one ground for a divorce is claimed and one alleged ground is proved, it is immaterial whether or not an additional statutory ground or grounds may also exist.

In circumstances where it has been proved that the husband has committed adultery and the wife is fully justified in living apart from him and divorcing him for that reason, is it immaterial in her action for indemnification under § 46-10 of the General Statutes whether or not the husband can also be found to have committed acts of intolerable cruelty.

The defendant has cited no authority to support his contentions, nor have we found any.

There is no error in either case.
§ 1.280C-3 Disallowance of certain deductions for qualified clinical testing expenses when section 28 credit is allowable. ( a ) *In general.* If a taxpayer is entitled to a credit under section 28 for qualified clinical testing expenses (as defined in section 28(b)), it must reduce the amount of any deduction for qualified clinical testing expenses paid or incurred in the year the credit is earned by the amount allowable as credit for such expenses (determined without regard to section 28(d)(2)).
( b ) *Capitalization of qualified clinical testing expenses.* In a case in which qualified clinical testing expenses are capitalized, the amount chargeable to the capital account for a taxable year must be reduced by the excess of the amount of the credit allowable for the taxable year under section 28 (determined without regard to section 28(d)(2)) over the amount allowable as a deduction for qualified clinical testing expenses (determined without regard to paragraph (a) of this section) for the taxable year. See section 174 and the regulations thereunder.
( c ) *Controlled group of corporations; organizations under common control.* In the case of a taxpayer described in paragraph (d)(5) of § 1.28-1 of this chapter (relating to controlled groups of corporations and organizations under common control), paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section shall be applied in accordance with the rules prescribed for aggregation of expenditures under that paragraph.
( d ) *Example.* The following example illustrates the application of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section:
Example. A incurs $1,000 in clinical testing expenses for which a $500 credit is allowable under section 28. A also elects under section 174 of the Code to amortize these expenses over a 5-year period beginning in the year the credit is claimed. Under paragraph (a), the current year amortization deduction of $200 ($1,000 ÷ 5) is disallowed. Moreover, the amount which would otherwise be capitalized, $800, is reduced by the excess of the amount of the section 28 credit claimed for the taxable year over the amount of the allowable section 174 amortization deduction for the taxable year, or $300 ($500-$200). Thus, the amount chargeable to the capital account for the taxable year is $500 ($800-$300). A is entitled to amortize $500 over the remaining amortization period resulting in a deduction of $125 for each of the remaining four years.
[T.D. 8232, 53 FR 38715, Oct. 3, 1988]
June 16, 2015



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JOE BROCK RAMEY , Appellant

NO. 14

- 14

- 00147

- CV V.

FEDERAL HOME LOAN MO RTGAGE CORPORATION , App ellee

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, signed February 4, 2014, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no erro r in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED

. We order appellant, Joe Brock Ramey to pay all costs incurred in this appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
§ 810.12 Written request for review of cease distribution and notification order. ( a ) In lieu of requesting a regulatory hearing under § 810.11, the person named in a cease distribution and notification order may submit a written request to FDA asking that the order be modified or vacated. Such person shall address the written request to the agency employee identified in the order and shall submit the request within the timeframe specified in the order, unless FDA and the person named in the order agree to a later date.
( b ) A written request for review of a cease distribution and notification order shall identify each ground upon which the requestor relies in asking that the order be modified or vacated, as well as addressing an appropriate cease distribution and notification strategy, and shall address whether the order should be amended to require a recall of the device that was the subject of the order and the actions required by such a recall order, including an appropriate recall strategy.
( c ) The agency official who issued the cease distribution and notification order shall provide the requestor written notification of the agency's decision to affirm, modify, or vacate the order or amend the order to require a recall of the device within 15 working days of receipt of the written request. The agency official shall include in this written notification: ( 1 ) A statement of the grounds for the decision to affirm, modify, vacate, or amend the order; and
( 2 ) The requirements of any modified or amended order.
Editorial Note on Part 862
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 862 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 862.1620 Progesterone test system. ( a ) *Identification.* A progesterone test system is a device intended to measure progesterone (a female hormone) in serum and plasma. Measurements obtained by this device are used in the diagnosis and treatment of disorders of the ovaries or placenta.
( 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 § 862.9.
[52 FR 16122, May 1, 1987, as amended at 65 FR 2308, Jan. 14, 2000]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     WINSTON RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

             FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULES
       FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                     000815274
<NAME> WINSTON RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSDIARIES
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                   JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                     MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1.000
<CASH>                                           2,526,000
<SECURITIES>                                     432,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,712,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                     200,000
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 11,679,000
<PP&E>                                           1,360,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                   711,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   12,953,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,064,000
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                         32,000
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,603,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     12,953,000
<SALES>                                          14,806,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 14,806,000
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    11,816,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,321,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  667,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                     307,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              360,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                     360,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    .11
        

</TABLE>