alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11185-11186]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-5076]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration


Center for Substance Abuse Prevention; Notice of Cancellation of 
Meeting

    Pursuant to Public Law 92-462, notice is hereby given of a 
cancellation of the March 8, 2010 meeting of the Substance Abuse and 
Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Drug Testing Advisory 
Board (DTAB).
    Public notice was given in the Federal Register on February 19, 
2010 (Volume

[[Page 11186]]

75, Number 33, and Page 7483) that the DTAB would be meeting on March 
8, 2010, in the Sugarloaf and Seneca Conference Rooms, 1 Choke Cherry 
Road, Rockville, Maryland. The meeting was canceled due to unforeseen 
circumstances. An alternate date, time and location for the meeting 
will be announced in the Federal Register when arrangements have been 
made.
    Members of the public wishing further information concerning this 
cancellation notice or any future meetings of the DTAB should contact 
the Designated Federal Official, Donna M. Bush, PhD, 1 Choke Cherry 
Road, Room 2-1033, Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone: 240-276-2600, FAX: 
240-276-2610.

Toian Vaughn,
Committee Management Officer, Substance Abuse and Mental Health 
Services Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-5076 Filed 3-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
Editorial Note on Part 866
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 866 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 866.3330 Influenza virus serological reagents. ( a ) *Identification.* Influenza virus serological reagents are devices that consist of antigens and antisera used in serological tests to identify antibodies to influenza in serum. The identification aids in the diagnosis of influenza (flu) and provides epidemiological information on influenza. Influenza is an acute respiratory tract disease, which is often epidemic.
( 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.
[47 FR 50823, Nov. 9, 1982, as amended at 54 FR 25047, June 12, 1989; 66 FR 38792, July 25, 2001]
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-3149

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Jason William Ballou lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa

____________ Submitted: April 16, 2024 Filed: April 19, 2024 [Unpublished]

____________ Before BENTON, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Jason Ballou appeals after he pled guilty to a firearm offense and the district court 1 imposed a sentence within the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual

1 The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, then Chief Judge, now United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.range. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

and seeks leave to withdraw. After careful independent review under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no basis for a nonfrivolous challenge to Ballou’s conviction, and we also conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Ballou. See United States v. Feemster , 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review); see also United States v. Callaway , 762 F.3d 754, 760-61 (8th Cir. 2014) (“A sentence which falls within the guideline range is presumed to be reasonable[.]”) Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw and affirm.

______________________________

-2-
39383.

#### EDWARDS v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY *et al.*

Carlisle, Presiding Judge.

“Findings of fact of a single director of the department of industrial relations, where approved on review by the full department, stand in this court on the same footing as the verdict of a jury; and where supported by some competent evidence, they will not be disturbed. *Maryland Casualty Co. v. England,*160 Ga. 810 (129 SE 75); *London Guarantee &c. Co. v. Shockley,*31 Ga. App. 762 (122 SE 99); *Jackson v. Lumberman’s Mutual Casualty Co.,*33 Ga. App. 35 (125 SE 515); *Burdett v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.*40 Ga. App. 92 (149 SE 55).” *U. S. Fidelity*&c. *Co. v. Maddox,**69252 Ga. App. 416, 418 (1) (183 SE 570). While the evidence in this case was in conflict in that the claimant contended and testified that he was not able to work at the time of the hearing held on February 1, 1961, yet two expert medical witnesses testified that they pronounced him able to return to work on or about September 17, 1960, and under the foregoing rule we cannot say that the award allowing compensation from July 19, 1960, through September 17, 1960, was unauthorized.

Decided April 3, 1962.

*John D. Edge,*for plaintiff in error.

*Matthews, Maddox, Walton Sc, Smith, Oscar M. Smith,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Eberhardt and Bussell, JJ., concur.*
609 P.2d 592

#### The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Joe Mercedes VASQUEZ, Appellant.

No. 2 CA-CR 1907.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2.

Feb. 22, 1980.

Rehearing Denied March 26, 1980.

Review Denied April 15, 1980.

*323Robert K. Corbin, Atty. Gen. by William J. Schafer, III and Lynn Hamilton, Asst. Attys. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.

Richard S. Oseran, Pima County Public Defender by Barry J. Baker Sipe, Asst. Co. Public Defender, Tucson, for appellant.

OPINION

HOWARD, Judge.

Appellant was found guilty by a jury of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor while his driver’s license was suspended, revoked or refused. He contends the trial court committed fundamental error by failing, sua sponte, to instruct the jury that it had a duty to acquit the appellant if it found that the state had failed to carry its burden of proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We do not agree. The trial court gave the following instructions:

> “Now, a defendant in a criminal case is presumed by law to be innocent. The law does not require a defendant to prove his innocence or to produce any evidence.

> The burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt rests upon the State and that burden never shifts throughout the trial.”

The duty to acquit if the state fails to sustain its burden of proof is implicit in the instructions given.

Appellant contends fundamental error was also committed when the court failed, sua sponte, to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of driving on a revoked license pursuant to Rule 23.3, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S., which provides:

> “Forms of verdicts shall be submitted to the jury for all offenses necessarily included in the offense charged, an attempt to commit the offense charged or an offense necessarily included therein, if such attempt is an offense. The defendant may not be found guilty of any offense for which no form of verdict has been submitted to the jury.”

The comment to Rule 23.3 states: “The rule places the responsibility for deciding what verdicts the jury may return on the court, restricting the jury to returning verdicts for which forms have been submitted to it.”

We believe Rule 23.3 must be read in conjunction with Rule 21.3(c) which provides that no party may assign as error on appeal the failure to submit a form of verdict unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict. Rule 23.3 presumes a valid request has been made and requires the court to submit separate forms of verdict.

Failure to request an instruction on a lesser included offense constitutes a waiver. *State v. Mercer,*13 Ariz.App. 1, 473 P.2d 803 (1970). So does the failure to request a form of verdict for a lesser included offense.

Affirmed.

HATHAWAY, C. J., and RICHMOND, J., concur.
| (logo) WELLS  FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|---------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

** **

Reference is herebymade to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of August 1,2015, by and among WELLS FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., asDepositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, RIALTOCAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, as Special Servicer, TRIMONT REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, INC,as Trust Advisor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as CertificateAdministrator, as Tax Administrator and as Custodian and WILMINGTON TRUST,NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial MortgagePass-Through Certificates Series 2015-SG1(the "Agreement").Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meaningsassigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section11.12 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President ofCommercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of theactivities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2017through December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance perthe Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2. To the best ofmy knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, has fulfilled all ofits obligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February2018.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive VicePresident 

Wells Fargo Bank

 

  

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo) Together  we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Biopure Corporation (the Company) for
the fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Zafiris G. Zafirelis, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |     |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: March 25, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ Zafiris G. Zafirelis             
|                     |  |     |  | Zafiris G. Zafirelis                 
|                     |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
§ 884.6170 Assisted reproduction water and water purification systems. ( a ) *Identification.* Assisted reproduction water purification systems are devices specifically intended to generate high quality, sterile, pyrogen-free water for reconstitution of media used for aspiration, incubation, transfer or storage of gametes or embryos for in vitro fertilization (IVF) or other assisted reproduction procedures. These devices may also be intended as the final rinse for labware or other assisted reproduction devices that will contact the gametes or embryos. These devices also include bottled water ready for reconstitution available from a vendor that is specifically intended for reconstitution of media used for aspiration, incubation, transfer, or storage of gametes or embryos for IVF or other assisted reproduction procedures.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls) (mouse embryo assay information, endotoxin testing, sterilization validation, water quality testing, design specifications, labeling requirements, biocompatibility testing, and clinical testing).
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage  Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

Reference is hereby made to thatcertain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 1, 2015, by and amongWELLS FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGOBANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, RIALTO CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC,as Special Servicer, PENTALPHA SURVEILLANCE LLC, as Trust Advisor, WELLS FARGOBANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, as Tax Administratorand as Custodian and WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, withrespect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2015-NXS2 (the"Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise definedshall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.12 ofthis Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activitiesof the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2016 through December31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreementduring such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2. To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, has fulfilled all of itsobligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2017.

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 61 (Monday, March 31, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 18015]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07174]

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Friday, April 11, 2014.

PLACE: 1155 21st St. NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance, Enforcement Matters, and 
Examinations. In the event that the times, dates, or locations of this 
or any future meetings change, an announcement of the change, along 
with the new time and place of the meeting will be posted on the 
Commission's Web site at http://www.cftc.gov.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Christopher J. Kirkpatrick, 202-
418-5516.

Natise Allen,
Executive Assistant.
[FR Doc. 2014-07174 Filed 3-27-14; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
# C_2014409EN.01005901.xml

| 17.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 409/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 409/59

---

Action brought on 29 September 2014 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Associated Newspapers (METRO)

(Case T-697/14)

2014/C 409/80

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Associated Newspapers Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

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 Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 July 2014 in Case R 606/2013-5, in so far as it annulled the Opposition Division’s decision of 4 March 2013 concerning the opposition against Community trade mark application No 7 79  116‘METRO’ and referred the case back to the Opposition Division for examination and a decision on the case; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 July 2014 in Case R 606/2013-5, in so far as it annulled the Opposition Division’s decision of 4 March 2013 concerning the opposition against Community trade mark application No 7 79  116‘METRO’ and referred the case back to the Opposition Division for examination and a decision on the case;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark including the word element METRO for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 7 79  116

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national word mark ‘METRO’

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was rejected

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the Opposition Division’s decision was annulled and the case was referred back to the Opposition Division

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94

Pleas in law:

---
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 153 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 153

                          [Report No. 103-164]

               To comply with the issuance of a subpoena.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             October 21 (legislative day, October 13), 1993

Mr. Bryan, from the Select Committee on Ethics, reported the following 
         original resolution; which was placed on the Calendar

                            November 2, 1993

                        Considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
               To comply with the issuance of a subpoena.

Whereas the Select Committee on Ethics is currently conducting a preliminary 
        inquiry pursuant to Senate Resolution 338;
Whereas on October 20, 1993, the Select Committee on Ethics authorized the 
        issuance of a subpoena duces tecum to Senator Bob Packwood directing him 
        to produce forthwith certain documents to the Committee;
Whereas on October 21, 1993, Senator Bob Packwood was duly served by the Select 
        Committee on Ethics with a subpoena duces tecum directing him to produce 
        forthwith certain documents to the Committee;
Whereas Senator Bob Packwood has refused to comply as directed by the subpoena;
Whereas under sections 703(b) and 705 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 
        title 2, United States Code, sections 288b(b) and 288d (1988), the 
        Senate Legal Counsel shall bring a civil action under title 28, United 
        States Code, section 1365 (1988) to enforce a subpoena of a Senate 
        committee when directed to do so by the adoption of a resolution by the 
        Senate; and
Whereas the Senate will have a continuing interest in the documents required to 
        be produced by the subpoena until its final disposition of allegations 
        of misconduct by Senator Bob Packwood before the Select Committee on 
        Ethics: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel shall bring a civil action 
in the name of the Select Committee on Ethics to enforce the 
Committee's subpoena to Senator Bob Packwood, and the Senate Legal 
Counsel shall conduct all related civil contempt proceedings.
    Sec. 2. Until the final disposition by the Senate of the 
allegations of and information respecting misconduct by Senator Bob 
Packwood before the Select Committee on Ethics, the Committee is 
authorized to continue this action to enforce the Committee's subpoena 
to Senator Bob Packwood, and to report to the Senate any further 
resolution for the civil or criminal enforcement of the Committee's 
subpoena to him.
```
§ 1.543-2 Limitation on gross income and personal holding company income in transactions involving stocks, securities, and commodities. ( a ) Under section 543(b)(1) the gains which are to be included in gross income, and in personal holding company income with respect to transactions described in section 543(a)(2) and paragraph (b)(5) of § 1.543-1, shall be the net gains from the sale or exchange of stock or securities. If there is an excess of losses over gains from such transactions, such excess (or net loss) shall not be used to reduce gross income or personal holding company income for purposes of the personal holding company tax. Similarly, under section 543(b)(2) the gains which are to be included in gross income, and in personal holding company income with respect to transactions described in section 543(a)(3) and paragraph (b)(6) of § 1.543-1, shall be the net gains from commodity transactions which reflect personal holding company income. Any excess of losses over gains from such transactions (resulting in a net loss) shall not be used to reduce gross income or personal holding company income. The capital loss carryover under section 1212 shall not be taken into account.
( b ) The application of section 543(b) may be illustrated by the following examples:
Example 1. The P Corporation, not a regular dealer in stocks and securities, received rentals of $250,000 for its property from a 25-percent shareholder, and also had gains of $50,000 during the taxable year from the sale of stocks and securities. It also had losses on the sale of stocks and securities in the amount of $30,000. Accordingly, P Corporation had gross income during the taxable year of $270,000 ($250,000 plus $20,000 net gain from the sales of stocks and securities). It had personal holding company income of $20,000. (The rentals of $250,000 would not be personal holding company income under section 543(a)(6) since the personal holding company income of the corporation, $20,000 (after excluding any such income described in section 543(a)(6)), is not more than 10 percent of its gross income.)
Example 2. The R Corporation, not a regular dealer in stocks or securities, realized total gains during the taxable year of $900,000 from commodity futures transactions and $200,000 from the sales of stocks and securities. It also sustained total losses of $1,000,000 on such commodity futures transactions, resulting in a net gain for the taxable year or $100,000. None of the commodity futures transactions are hedging or other types of futures transactions excluded from the application of section 543(a)(3). No part of the loss on commodity futures transactions is to be taken into account in determining personal holding company income and gross income for personal holding company tax purposes for the taxable year. The full amount of the $200,000 in gains from the sales of stocks and securities is to be included in personal holding company income and in gross income for personal holding company tax purposes for the taxable year.