alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 578.306 Financial, material, or technological support.

The term *financial, material, or technological support,* as used in this part, means any property, tangible or intangible, including currency, financial instruments, securities, or any other transmission of value; weapons or related materiel; chemical or biological agents; explosives; false documentation or identification; communications equipment; computers; electronic or other devices or equipment; technologies; lodging; safe houses; facilities; vehicles or other means of transportation; or goods. *Technologies* as used in this section means specific information necessary for the development, production, or use of a product, including related technical data such as blueprints, plans, diagrams, models, formulae, tables, engineering designs and specifications, manuals, or other recorded instructions.
Exhibit 99.7



CERTIFICATION



PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002



The undersigned, as the Chief Financial Officer
of Cardiol Therapeutics Inc. certifies that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, the annual report on Form 40-F for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2021, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the annual report on Form 40-F
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of Cardiol Therapeutics Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made pursuant to § 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose. The undersigned expressly disclaims
any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.



|Date: March 23, 2022          | 
|----------------------------- | 
|                              | 
|/s/
Chris Waddick             | 
|Chris Waddick                 | 
|Chief Financial Officer       | 
|(principal financial officer) |
#### Antonio NUNES, Appellant, v. SCHOOL BOARD OF PALM BEACH COUNTY and Nationwide Insurance Company, Appellees.

No. SS-247.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 30, 1981.

Rehearing Denied May 26, 1981.

Timothy H. Kenney of Winkel, Sims, Kenney & Crosswell, Palm Beach, for appellant.

Frank G. Cibula, Jr., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See *Belam Florida Corporation v. Dardy,*397 So.2d 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., and SHAW, JJ., and VICTOR M. CAWTHON, Associate Judge, concur.
H. R. 2695

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

An Act

To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the construction

of certain hydroelectric projects in the State of Pennsylvania.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE.

(a) EXTENSION.—Notwithstanding the time limitations of section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806), upon the request

of the licensee for the project concerned, and after reasonable notice,

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shall, in accordance

with the good faith, due diligence, and public interest requirements

of such section 13 and the Commission’s procedures under such

section, extend the time required for commencement of construction

of each the following projects until September 26, 1999:

(1) FERC Project No. 4474.

(2) FERC Project No. 7041.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect for the

project upon the expiration of the extension (issued by the Commission under section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806))

of the period required for commencement of construction of the

project concerned.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### § 598.318 United States person; U.S. person.

The term *United States person* or *U.S. person* means any United States citizen or national, permanent resident alien, an entity organized under the laws of the United States (including its foreign branches), or any person within the United States.
#### The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Robert N. BROWN, Appellee.

No. 80-792.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 17, 1981.

*1196Janet Reno, State’s Atty. and Diane Kuker and Milton Robbins, Asst. State’s Attys., and Bruce H. Lehr, Legal Intern, for appellant.

Vogler & Postman and Alan L. Postman, Miami, for appellee.

Before HUBBART, C. J., and SCHWARTZ and BASKIN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

By this appeal, we are asked to review a trial court order dismissing an information in a criminal case based on a discovery violation committed by the state. § 924.-07(1), Fla.Stat. (1979). Although we share the trial court’s frustration in attempting to get this case to trial in the face of innumerable delays seemingly occasioned by the state, we are nonetheless compelled to reverse because, in our view, the circumstances of this case did not call for the drastic remedy of dismissal. *See*Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.220(j). We discern on this record no willful, but only a negligent discovery violation by the state and no actual prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of the violation. Although there were many trial delays in this case, all agree that these delays did not violate the defendant’s speedy trial rights. Based on the established law of this state, we must reverse the order under review and remand for further proceedings. *State v. King,*372 So.2d 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), *cert. denied,*385 So.2d 758 (Fla.1980).

Reversed and remanded.
HomeBureau of Economic and Business Affairs...Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs  Releases

# Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs Releases

1977 items

        -    		Democratic Republic of the Congo Sanctions	   
        -    		De-risking	   
        -    		Global Sanctions and Threat Finance	   
        -    		Central African Republic Sanctions	   
        -    		Key Topics	   
        -    		Licensing	   
        -    		Investment Climate Statements	   
        -    		2016 Final Communique Plenary Session Dubai	  November 17, 2016 
        -    Air Transport Agreement  		Nineteenth Meeting of the U.S.-EU Joint Committee Record of Meeting November 16, 2016	  November 16, 2016 
        -    Fact Sheet  		Fact Sheet: U.S. Department of State Section 515.582 List	  April 22, 2016 

previous page1…194195196197198next page

Back to Top
§ 539.307 Importation into the United States. The term *importation into the United States* means: ( a ) With respect to goods or technology, the bringing of any goods or technology into the United States, except that in the case of goods or technology being transported by vessel, *importation into the United States* means the bringing of any goods or technology into the United States with the intent to unlade. See also § 539.404.
( b ) With respect to services, the receipt in the United States of services or of the benefit of services wherever such services may be performed. The benefit of services is received in the United States if the services are: ( 1 ) Performed on behalf of or for the benefit of a person located in the United States;
( 2 ) Received by a person located in the United States;
( 3 ) Received by a person located outside the United States on behalf of or for the benefit of an entity organized in the United States; or
( 4 ) Received by an individual temporarily located outside the United States for the purpose of obtaining such services for use in the United States.
( c ) The following example illustrates the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section:
Example: An employee of an entity organized in the United States may not, without specific authorization from the Office of Foreign Assets Control, receive from a designated foreign person consulting services for use in the United States.
Exhibit 21

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

                          SUBSIDIARIES OF HUBCO, INC.:

Hudson United Bank, organized under the banking laws of the State of New Jersey.
Lafayette American Bank and Trust, organized under the banking laws of the State
  of Connecticut.
Bank of the Hudson, organized under the banking laws of the State of New York.
MSB Travel, Inc., organized under the New York Business Laws.

                       SUBSIDIARIES OF HUDSON UNITED BANK:

Hendrick Hudson Corp. of New Jersey, organized under the New Jersey Business
  Corporation Act.
Lafayette Development Corp., organized under the New Jersey Business
  Corporation Act.
HUB Financial Services, Inc., organized under the New Jersey Business
  Corporation Act.
HUB Mortgage Investments, Inc., organized under the New Jersey Business
  Corporation Act.
NJ Investments of Delaware, Inc., organized under Delaware Business Laws.

               SUBSIDIARIES OF LAFAYETTE AMERICAN BANK AND TRUST:

AMBA Realty Corporation, organized under the Connecticut Business Laws.
LAI Company, organized under the Connecticut Business Laws.
LAB Investment Corp. of Delaware, Inc., organized under Delaware Business Laws.

                     SUBSIDIARIES OF THE BANK OF THE HUDSON:

POSABK, Inc., organized under the New York Business Laws.
Plural Realty, Inc., organized under the New York Business Laws.
PSB Building Corp., organized under the New York Business Laws.
Hudson Trader Brokerage Services Inc., organized under the New York Business
  Laws.
BOTH Investments of Delaware, Inc., organized under Delaware Business Laws.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                              DeVlieg-Bullard, Inc.
                        Computation of Earnings per Share
                (unaudited - in thousands, except per share data)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                     Three Months Ended   Nine Months Ended
                                           April 31,           April 30,
                                        1997      1996      1997      1996
                                        ----      ----      ----      ----
<S>                                   <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>     
Net income (loss)                     $ 1,170   $   689   $ 2,653   $(1,507)
                                      =======   =======   =======   =======

Average number of common
   shares outstanding                  12,260    12,250    12,253    12,250
Dilutive effect of outstanding
   options (a)                            456       225       345        (b)
Dilutive effect of outstanding
   stock purchase warrants (a):
   Class A (issued May 1994)              996       996       996        (b)
   New Class A (issued October
       1995)                              498       498       498        (b)
   Class B (c)                            288       249       287        (b)
   Class C (d)                            748       747       747        (b)
                                      -------   -------   -------   -------
Total shares used in calculation of
   earnings per share                  15,246    14,965    15,126    12,250
                                      =======   =======   =======   =======

Income (loss) per share               $  0.08   $  0.05   $  0.18   $ (0.12)
                                      =======   =======   =======   =======
</TABLE>


(a)      As determined by application of the treasury stock method
(b)      Not included in calculation as effect would be antidilutive.
(c)      The Class B stock purchase warrants are issuable in May 1997 using a
         formula based on the average closing stock price for the 90 days prior
         to issuance. The average stock price for that period was used here. The
         Class B warrants became issuable on March 18, 1996, and have been
         included since that date.
(d)      In connection with the refinancing of the senior debt facility in
         October 1995, 750,000 Class C stock purchase warrants ( "Class C
         Warrants") were issued. The Company has the opportunity to earn back
         these shares based on earnings as defined in the agreement. For all
         periods presented, the Company did not meet the defined earnings level,
         therefore all Class C Warrants are considered outstanding since
         issuance.
NOTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ TARA DENNINGTON, Petitioner

- Appellant

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Respondent

- Appellee

______________________
2024

- 1214

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:18

- vv

- 01303

- ZNS

, Judge Zachary N. Somers.

______________________ O R D E R The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that: (1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 42 (b). Case: 24-1214 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 03/25/2024D ENNINGTON V

. HHS 2

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

March 25, 2024 Date

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: March 25, 2024 Case: 24-1214 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 03/25/2024
#### § 547.802 Delegation of certain authorities by the Secretary of the Treasury.

Any action that the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to take pursuant to Executive Order 13413 of October 27, 2006 (E.O. 13413), Executive Order 13671 of July 8, 2014, and any further Executive orders relating to the national emergency declared in E.O. 13413, may be taken by the Director of OFAC or by any other person to whom the Secretary of the Treasury has delegated authority so to act.

[83 FR 57318, Nov. 15, 2018]
```

[House Report 110-888]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

110th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     110-888

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

 
   WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(A) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO 
  CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM THE COMMITTEE ON 
                                 RULES

                                _______
                                

 September 25, 2008.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

    Ms. Castor, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                      [To accompany H. Res. 1503]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 1503, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

    The resolution waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII (requiring a 
two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is 
reported from the Rules Committee) against certain resolutions 
reported from the Rules Committee. The rule applies the waiver 
to any resolution reported on the legislative day of September 
26, 2008, providing for consideration or disposition of a 
measure making supplemental appropriations for job creation and 
preservation, infrastructure investment, and economic and 
energy assistance for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
2009, and for other purposes.

                                  

```
#### § 590.300 Applicability of definitions.

The definitions in this subpart apply throughout the entire part.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-10318

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBERT CHRISTOPHER RACKSTRAW,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:94-CV-564-Y/4:92-CR-10-8

- - - - - - - - - -

April 16, 1996

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert Christopher Rackstraw has appealed the denial of his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Rackstraw contends that he was the

victim of selective prosecution and entrapment by Government

officials. Rackstraw waived these nonjurisdictional issues by

pleading guilty. United States v. Sarmiento, 786 F.2d 665, 668

(5th Cir. 1986). Rackstraw contends that the sentencing scheme

for crack-cocaine violations violates his right to due process. 

Rackstraw argues: (1) the sentencing scheme is racially disparate
in effect; (2) differences in punishment for crack-cocaine and

powdered-cocaine offenses are irrational; and (3) the terms

"crack-cocaine" and "cocaine-base" are unconstitutionally vague. 

Rackstraw also contends for the first time in his reply brief

that his sentence is unconstitutionally harsh. These issues have

been decided previously to the contrary. United States v.

Fisher, 22 F.3d 574, 579 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 529

(1994). Finally, Rackstraw contends that the district court

should not have considered relevant conduct in determining his

sentence and that the district court failed to make findings with

respect to similarity, regularity, and temporal proximity of his

prior acts. The district court’s technical application of the

sentencing guidelines does not give rise to a constitutional

issue and is not cognizable in a § 2255 proceeding. United

States v. Vaughn, 955 F.2d 367, 368 (5th Cir. 1992).

This appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous. 

Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R.

42.2. We caution Rackstraw that any additional frivolous appeals

filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of

sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Rackstraw is further cautioned to

review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise

arguments that are frivolous because they have been previously

decided by this court. 

 APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING GIVEN.
#### § 560.426 Charitable contributions.

Unless specifically authorized by the Office of Foreign Assets Control pursuant to this part, no charitable contribution of funds, goods, services, or technology, including contributions to relieve human suffering, such as food, clothing or medicine, may be made by, to, or for the benefit of, or received from, the Government of Iran, an Iranian financial institution, or any other person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 560.211. For the purposes of this part, a contribution is made by, to, or for the benefit of, or received from, the Government of Iran, an Iranian financial institution, or any other person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 560.211 if made by, to, or in the name of, or received from or in the name of, such a person; if made by, to, or in the name of, or received from or in the name of, an entity or individual acting for or on behalf of, or owned or controlled by, such a person; or if made in an attempt to violate, to evade, or to avoid the bar on the provision of contributions by, to, or for the benefit of such a person, or the receipt of contributions from any such person.
#### § 570.703 Penalty imposition.

If, after considering any written response to the Pre-Penalty Notice and any relevant facts, OFAC determines that there was a violation by the alleged violator named in the Pre-Penalty Notice and that a civil monetary penalty is appropriate, OFAC may issue a Penalty Notice to the violator containing a determination of the violation and the imposition of the monetary penalty. For additional details concerning issuance of a Penalty Notice, see appendix A to part 501 of this chapter. The issuance of the Penalty Notice shall constitute final agency action. The violator has the right to seek judicial review of that final agency action in federal district court.
Exhibit 34.18

 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Management of C-III Asset Management LLC:

We have examined management of C-III Asset Management LLC’s (the “Company”) assertion that the Company complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for all transactions for which the Company acted as servicer involving first lien commercial mortgage loans (the “Platform”), excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(ii), 1122(d)(3)(i) – 1122(d)(3)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(ii), 1122(d)(4)(v), 1122(d)(4)(ix) and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Assessment of Compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB Servicing Criteria dated February 10, 2020 as of and for the year ended December 31, 2019. The Company’s management is responsible for its assertion. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the specified requirements based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the examination to obtain reasonable assurance about whether management’s assertion about compliance with the specified requirements is fairly stated, in all material respects. An examination involves performing procedures to obtain evidence about whether management’s assertion is fairly stated, in all material respects. The nature, timing, and extent of the procedures selected depend on our judgment, including an assessment of the risks of material misstatement of management’s assertion, whether due to fraud or error. We believe that the evidence we obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the specified requirements.

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Assessment of Compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB Servicing Criteria dated February 10, 2020 as of and for the year ended December 31, 2019 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

Asheville, North Carolina February 10, 2020
§ 598.506 Entries in certain accounts for normal service charges authorized. ( a ) U.S. financial institutions are authorized to debit any blocked account with such U.S. financial institution in payment or reimbursement for normal service charges owed to such U.S. financial institution by the owner of such blocked account.
( b ) As used in this section, the term *normal service charges* includes but is not limited to charges in payment or reimbursement for interest due; cable, telegraph, or telephone charges; postage costs; custody fees; small adjustment charges to correct bookkeeping errors; minimum balance charges; notary and protest fees; and charges for reference books, photocopies, credit reports, transcripts of statements, registered mail, insurance, stationery and supplies, and other similar items.