alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 3.552 Harmless error.

No error in either the admission or the exclusion of evidence, and no error or defect in any ruling or order or in any act done or omitted by the ALJ or by any of the parties is ground for vacating, modifying or otherwise disturbing an otherwise appropriate ruling or order or act, unless refusal to take such action appears to the ALJ or the Board inconsistent with substantial justice. The ALJ and the Board at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding that does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.
# C_2006060EN.01005401.xml

| 11.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/54

---

Action brought on 19 December 2005 — Tsarnavas v Commission

(Case F-125/05)

(2006/C 60/100)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Vassilios Tsarnavas (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the appointing authority's decision of 1 April 2005 rejecting the applicant's request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations (Request No D/007/05); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the appointing authority's decision of 1 April 2005 rejecting the applicant's request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations (Request No D/007/05);

| — | in so far as necessary, annul the Commission's decision of 7 October 2005 rejecting the applicant's complaint (No R/488/05); |
| --- | --- |

—

in so far as necessary, annul the Commission's decision of 7 October 2005 rejecting the applicant's complaint (No R/488/05);

| — | order the defendant to pay compensation of EUR 72 000 for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant in consequence of the irregularities or repeated service-related faults committed by the Commission in the context of the 1998 and 1999 promotion exercises; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay compensation of EUR 72 000 for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant in consequence of the irregularities or repeated service-related faults committed by the Commission in the context of the 1998 and 1999 promotion exercises;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the Commission's decisions rejecting the request and the complaint which he had submitted in order to obtain compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused to him by the Commission's conduct in the context of the 1998 and 1999 promotion exercises. In order to contest the measures taken by the Commission in respect of him, the applicant had initiated four pre-contentious procedures and four contentious procedures, which culminated in either the withdrawal or the annulment of those measures.

The pecuniary damage follows from the fact that, in order to ensure that his interests were fully defended in the context of the pre-contentious procedures, the applicant was required to consult a legal adviser. The non-pecuniary damage follows from the situation of uncertainty in which the applicant found himself for a number of years and also from his loss of confidence in the institution.

---
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 By Notice dated April 17, 2009, and published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     on April 29, 2009, (74 FR 19598), AMRI Rensselaer, Inc., 33 Riverside Avenue, Rensselaer, New York 12144, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedules I and II:
                    ( print page 46235) Drug
ScheduleMarihuana (7360)
ITetrahydrocannabinols (7370)
IAmphetamine (1100)
IILisdexamfetamine (1205)
IIMethylphenidate (1724)
IIPentobarbital (2270)
IIHydrocodone (9193)
IIMeperidine (9230)
IIDextropropoxyphene, bulk (non-dosage form) (9273)
IIOxymorphone (9652)
IIFentanyl (9801)
II
 The company plans to manufacture bulk controlled substances for use in product development and for distribution to its customers. In reference to drug code 7360 (Marihuana), the company plans to bulk manufacture cannabidiol as a synthetic intermediate. This controlled substance will be further synthesized to bulk manufacture a synthetic THC (7370). No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration. No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of AMRI Rensselaer, Inc. to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated AMRI Renssealaer Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with State and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed. Dated: August 21, 2009. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. E9-21527 Filed 9-4-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
No. 00-5879.

#### Gonzalez *v.*United States (two judgments).

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### § 137.165 Are Self-Governance Tribes required to undertake annual audits?

Yes, under the provisions of section 506(c) of the Act [25 U.S.C. 458aaa-5(c)], Self-Governance Tribes must undertake annual audits pursuant to the Single Audit Act, 31 U.S.C. 7501 *et seq.*
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3068 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 Union Calendar No. 288
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3068

                          [Report No. 104-584]

To accept the request of the Prairie Island Indian Community to revoke 
 their charter of incorporation issued under the Indian Reorganization 
                                  Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 12, 1996

Mr. Gutknecht introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

                              May 20, 1996

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To accept the request of the Prairie Island Indian Community to revoke 
 their charter of incorporation issued under the Indian Reorganization 
                                  Act.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REVOCATION OF CHARTER OF INCORPORATION OF THE PRAIRIE ISLAND 
              INDIAN COMMUNITY UNDER THE INDIAN REORGANIZATION ACT.

    The request of the Prairie Island Indian Community to surrender the 
charter of incorporation issued to that Community on July 23, 1937, 
pursuant to section 17 of the Act of June 18, 1934, commonly known as 
the ``Indian Reorganization Act'' (25 U.S.C. 477) is hereby accepted 
and that charter of incorporation is hereby revoked.
                                     

                                                 Union Calendar No. 288

104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3068

                          [Report No. 104-584]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To accept the request of the Prairie Island Indian Community to revoke 
 their charter of incorporation issued under the Indian Reorganization 
                                  Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              May 20, 1996

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed
```
#### § 594.408 Payments from blocked accounts to satisfy obligations prohibited.

Pursuant to §§ 594.201 and 594.204, no debits may be made to a blocked account to pay obligations to U.S. persons or other persons, except as authorized pursuant to this part.
#### Peter REZEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Daniel SENKOWSKI, Superintendent, Clinton Correctional Facility, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 99-2591.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Feb. 20, 2001.

Susan D. Fitzpatrick, Ossining, NY, for appellant.

Martin A. Hotvet, Ass’t Sol. Gen., Abany, NY, for appellee.

Present Van GRAAFEILAND, KEARSE, and LEVAL, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

This cause came on to be heard on the record from the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, and was argued by counsel.

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Munson’s Order dated October 5, 1999.

We have considered all of petitioner’s contentions on this appeal and have found them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
# C_2005229EN.01000201.xml

| 17.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 229/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/2

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 7 July 2005

in Case C-153/03: (Reference for a preliminary ruling, Cour de cassation) Caisse nationale des prestations familiales v Ursula Schwarz, née Weide (1)

1

(Family benefits - Child-raising allowance - Suspension of entitlement to the benefits in the State of employment - Entitlement to similar benefits in the State of residence)

(2005/C 229/03)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-153/03, reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC by the Cour de cassation (Luxembourg), made by decision of 6 March 2003, received at the Court on 3 April 2003, in the proceedings Caisse nationale des prestations familiales and Ursula Schwarz, née Weide, the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), M. Ilešič and E. Levits, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 7 July 2005, in which it ruled:

Article 10(1)(b)(i) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, must be interpreted as meaning that the exercise by the spouse of the person entitled to a family benefit in pursuance of Article 73 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, of a professional or trade activity in the Member State of residence of the children suspends entitlement to allowances in pursuance of Article 73 of Regulation No 1408/71 up to the amount of the child-raising allowances provided for by the legislation of the Member State of residence, irrespective of who is designated as being directly entitled to the family allowances by the legislation of that State.

---

(1)  OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003

1

---
HomeTogo

# Togo

59 items

        -    Press Statement  		Togo’s National Day	  Antony J. BlinkenApril 26, 2021 
        -    Bilateral Relations Fact Sheet  		U.S. Relations With Togo	  April 21, 2021 
        -    Report  		2020 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Togo	  March 30, 2021 
        -    Report  		2020 END Wildlife Trafficking Report	  October 26, 2020 
        -    Report  		2020 Investment Climate Statements: Togo	  October 15, 2020 
        -    Report  		2020 Trafficking in Persons Report: Togo	  June 25, 2020 
        -    Report  		2019 Report on International Religious Freedom: Togo	  June 10, 2020 
        -    Report  		2019 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Togo	  March 11, 2020 
        -    Report  		2019 END Wildlife Trafficking Report	  November 7, 2019 
        -    		Togo	  August 2, 2019 

previous page123456next page

Back to Top
Editorial Note on Part 410
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 410 appear at 62 FR 46037, Aug. 29, 1997.

§ 410.19 Ultrasound screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms: Condition for and limitation on coverage. ( a ) *Definitions:* As used in this section, the following definitions apply: *Eligible beneficiary* means an individual who— ( 1 ) Has not been previously furnished an ultrasound screening for an abdominal aortic aneurysm under Medicare program; and
( 2 ) Is included in at least one of the following risk categories: ( i ) Has a family history of an abdominal aortic aneurysm.
( ii ) Is a man age 65 to 75 who has smoked at least 100 cigarettes in his lifetime.
( iii ) Is an individual who manifests other risk factors in a beneficiary category recommended for screening by the United States Preventive Services Task Force regarding abdominal aortic aneurysms, as specified by the Secretary through a national coverage determination process.
*Ultrasound screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms* means the following services furnished to an asymptomatic individual for the early detection of an abdominal aortic aneurysm: ( 1 ) A procedure using soundwaves (or other procedures using alternative technologies of commensurate accuracy and cost, as specified by the Secretary through a national coverage determination process) provided for the early detection of abdominal aortic aneurysms.
( 2 ) Includes a physician's interpretation of the results of the procedure.
( b ) *Conditions for coverage of an ultrasound screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms.* Medicare Part B pays for one ultrasound screening for an abdominal aortic aneurysm provided to eligible beneficiaries, as described in this section, after a referral from a physician or a qualified nonphysician practitioner as defined in § 410.16(a), when the test is performed by a provider or supplier that is authorized to provide covered ultrasound diagnostic services.
( c ) *Limitation on coverage of ultrasound screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms.* Payment may not be made for an ultrasound screening for an abdominal aortic aneurysm that is performed for an individual that does not meet the definition of “eligible beneficiary” specified in this section.
[71 FR 69783, Dec. 1, 2006, as amended at 78 FR 74810, Dec. 10, 2013]
# C_2006040EN.01000601.xml

| 17.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 40/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 40/6

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

16 February 2006

(2006/C 40/04)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1858 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 140,11 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4663 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,68425 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3940 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5588 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 75,66 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1070 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5745 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,360 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 250,93 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6961 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,7633 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,5200 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,47 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 37,370 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,5783 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6090 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3742 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,2025 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7666 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9422 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 155,62 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,2287 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,5451 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2900 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 10 936,04 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,412 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,187 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 33,5150 |
| THB | Thai baht | 46,738 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1858

JPY

Japanese yen

140,11

DKK

Danish krone

7,4663

GBP

Pound sterling

0,68425

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3940

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5588

ISK

Iceland króna

75,66

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1070

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5745

CZK

Czech koruna

28,360

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

250,93

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6961

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,7633

RON

Romanian leu

3,5200

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,47

SKK

Slovak koruna

37,370

TRY

Turkish lira

1,5783

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6090

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3742

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,2025

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7666

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9422

KRW

South Korean won

1 155,62

ZAR

South African rand

7,2287

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,5451

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2900

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

10 936,04

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,412

PHP

Philippine peso

61,187

RUB

Russian rouble

33,5150

THB

Thai baht

46,738

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
#### Fannie Moses et al., Respondents, v. Patrick H. Hargrove, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

October, 1898.)

Municipal^ Court of the city of New York — An order granting a new-trial, for surprise and newly-discovered evidence, is not appealableto the Appellate Term.

The provisions of chapter 748 of the Laws of 1896, amending the-Consolidation Act, give the Appellate Term no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from an order of the Municipal. Court of the city of New York granting the plaintiff a new trial, for surprise and ñewlydiscovered evidence, after the dismissal of the complaint, as such am order does not open a default, nor does it grant the motion, for a new-trial for any of “ the causes specified in section 999 of the Code of Civil' Procedure.”

Ajppeal from an order made by the justice of '¡the Municipal" Court, borough of Manhattan, seventh district, granting a motion for a new trial, on the ground of surprise and newly-discovered’ evidence after judgment dismissing the complaint, with costs.

Samuel F. Hyman, for appellant.

Max Moses, for respondents.

*743
      *Per Curiam.*

We are of opinion that an appeal does not he to this court, from the order in question, inasmuch as no statutory authority for such an appeal can be discovered; and it is only by virtue of some statutory provision that this court can entertain any appeal from judgments or orders rendered in the Municipal Courts. It is claimed that such jurisdiction is conferred upon us under the provisions of chapter 748 of the Laws of 1896. That statute, however, seems to authorize an appeal only from two classes of orders, viz.: First, from orders opening default and setting aside, vacating or modifying judgments .entered upon such defaults; Second, from orders granting motions for a new trial made for the causes specified in section 999 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The order in question does not come under either class. There was no default, and it has been held that a motion for a new trial, under section 999 of the Code, cannot be entertained on the ground of surprise (Argall v. Jacobs, 56 How. Pr. 167; affirmed, *21*Hun, 114), nor can such a motion be made under that section on the ground of newly-discovered evidence.

In this view of the law, we, therefore, feel constrained to dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed, with costs.

Present: Beekman, P. J.; Gildersleeve and Giegerich, JJ.

Appeal dismissed, with costs.
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Richard Lee, sole director and officer of Viropro, Inc. (the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.  This Annual Report on 10KSB/A of the Company for the period ended November 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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 7, 2005



/s/ Richard Lee

_______________________



Richard Lee

Richard Lee, Sole Director and Officer

(acts as chief executive officer and principal accounting officer)



















































1
(logo)Rialto

CAPITAL

 

 

**2018 Annual Statement of Servicer Compliance (Item1123)**

 

 

Poolingand Servicing Agreement (the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement") datedas of June 1, 2017 by and among CCRE Commercial Mortgage Securities, L.P. as Depositor,Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Master Servicer, Rialto CapitalAdvisors, LLC as Special Servicer, Park Bridge Lender Services LLC as OperatingAdvisor and Asset Representations Reviewer, Wilmington Trust, NationalAssociation as Trustee and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association asCertificate Administrator, Paying Agent, and Custodian relating to the CFCRE2017-C8 Mortgage Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series2017-C8 **(CFCRE 2017-C8)**

 

Theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, asspecial servicer (the "Special Servicer") herein certifies to thefollowing:

 

1.       All servicing activities and performance of suchservicing activities under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement are performed onbehalf of the Special Servicer.

 

2.       A review of the servicing activities and performance bythe Special Servicer for the period of January 1, 2018 through December 31,2018 (the "Reporting Period"), under the Pooling and Servicing Agreementhas been conducted under my supervision.

 

3.       To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, theSpecial Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the terms of thePooling and Servicing Agreement, in all material respects throughout theReporting Period and if there has been a failure to fulfill any suchobligations in any material respect, each failure and the nature and statusthereof has been specifically identified herein.

 

 

Certifiedby: /s/ Adam Singer

AdamSinger, Managing Director 

 

Date:March 1, 2019