alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 11.2

                                   SCIOS INC.
                                AND SUBSIDIARIES
                        Computation of Net Loss Per Share

                       (Calculated in accordance with the
                            guidelines of item 601 of
                          Regulation S-K. The effect of
                            stock options on loss per
                             share is anti-dilutive)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                    Six months ended
                                                                        June 30,
                                                              1997                    1996
                                                         ----------------       -----------------
                                                                       (Unaudited)

<S>                                                      <C>                    <C>
PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED:
Average common and common equivalent
    shares outstanding                                        35,829,065              35,862,428
                                                         ----------------       -----------------


Net loss                                                    ($24,808,000)           ($15,033,000)
                                                         ----------------       -----------------


Net loss per share                                                ($0.69)                 ($0.42)
                                                         ----------------       -----------------





</TABLE>
693 A.2d 199

#### OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. Lacy R. WHEELER, III, Respondent.

No. 322 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

May 6, 1997.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 6th day of May, 1997, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board dated March 17,1997, it is hereby

ORDERED that Lacy R. Wheeler, III, be and he is suspended from the Bar of this Commonwealth for a period of one year and one day and he shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. It is further ORDERED that respondent shall pay costs to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E.
CORRECTED COPY

The FAA is reissuing the letter dated July 2 nd . A correction was made to add the “What You

Should Do” section. Below is the letter that includes the change. We made the correction in

our records as of July 6, 2015.

July 2 , 2015

Mr. Michael Pietrantoni

577 South Meadows Drive

Chandler, AZ 85224

Dear Mr. Pietrantoni :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). I t explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We entered your March 31 , exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA

- 20 15

- 0862 ),

but we are unable to process your reques t any further. The information you sent does no t

comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any

further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek r elief, the extent of the

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would no t adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exem ption.

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst , Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
# C_2005217EN.01000901.xml

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/9

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 21 July 2005

in Case C-349/03: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 77/799/EEC - Mutual assistance by the competent authorities - Fields of VAT and excise duties - Partial transposition - Territory of Gibraltar)

(2005/C 217/16)

Language of the case: English

In Case C-349/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: R. Lyal), supported by: Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Díaz Abad) v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agents: K. Manji and R. Caudwell, assisted by D. Wyatt QC) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 7 August 2003 — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, A. Rosas, R. Silva de Lapuerta and A. Borg Barthet, Presidents of Chambers, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, G. Arestis, M. Ilešič, J. Malenovský and J. Klučka, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 July 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to implement in the territory of Gibraltar, in the fields of value added tax and excise duties, Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct and indirect taxation, as amended by Council Directive 79/1070/EEC of 6 December 1979 and by Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to implement in the territory of Gibraltar, in the fields of value added tax and excise duties, Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct and indirect taxation, as amended by Council Directive 79/1070/EEC of 6 December 1979 and by Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;

| 2. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 239 of 04.10.2003.

1

---
§ 137.336 What is the difference between fixed-price and cost-reimbursement agreements? ( a ) Cost-reimbursement agreements generally have one or more of the following characteristics: ( 1 ) Risk is shared between IHS and the Self-Governance Tribe;
( 2 ) Self-Governance Tribes are not required to perform beyond the amount of funds provided under the agreement;
( 3 ) Self-Governance Tribes establish budgets based upon the actual costs of the project and are not allowed to include profit;
( 4 ) Budgets are stated using broad categories, such as planning, design, construction project administration, and contingency;
( 5 ) The agreement funding amount is stated as a “not to exceed” amount;
( 6 ) Self-Governance Tribes provide notice to the IHS if they expect to exceed the amount of the agreement and require more funds;
( 7 ) Excess funds remaining at the end of the project are considered savings; and
( 8 ) Actual costs are subject to applicable OMB circulars and cost principles.
( b ) Fixed Price agreements generally have one or more of the following characteristics: ( 1 ) Self-Governance Tribes assume the risk for performance;
( 2 ) Self-Governance Tribes are entitled to make a reasonable profit;
( 3 ) Budgets may be stated as lump sums, unit cost pricing, or a combination thereof;
( 4 ) For unit cost pricing, savings may occur if actual quantity is less than estimated; and,
( 5 ) Excess funds remaining at the end of a lump sum fixed price project are considered profit, unless, at the option of the Self-Governance Tribe, such amounts are reclassified in whole or in part as savings.
###### Editorial Note on Part 409

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 409 appear at 62 FR 46037, Aug. 29, 1997.

#### § 409.89 Exemption of kidney donors from deductible and coinsurance requirements.

The deductible and coinsurance requirements set forth in this subpart do not apply to any services furnished to an individual in connection with the donation of a kidney for transplant surgery.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 19

- 14322 Non

- Argument C alendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 3:18

- cr - 00223

- HES

- MCR

- 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus BRIAN DAVIS , Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

________________________ (May 19 , 2020 ) B efore WILSON , LUCK and MARCUS , Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM : The Government ’ s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Appellant ’ s plea agreement is GRANTED. As the record reflects, Davis knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence. During the plea

Case: 19-14322 Date Filed: 05/19/2020 Page: 1 of 22 colloquy, the magistrate judge specif ically questioned Davis about the sentence appeal waiver, summarizing the language of the waiver and explaining its terms. Further, the magistrate judge asked Davis whether he had voluntarily agreed to the waiver and had any questions about the plea agreem ent, in addition to confirming with Davis that he understood the terms of the agreement and had read and discussed them with his counsel. Thus, the record establishes that Davis knowingly and voluntarily agreed to the sentence appeal waiver. See United St ates v. Bushert , 997 F.2d 1343, 1350

- 51 (11th Cir. 1993) ( holding that a sentence appeal waiver will be enforced if it was made knowingly and voluntarily)

. In addition, none of t he exceptions to Davis’s appeal waiver apply . First, the 72

- month total sente nce the district court imposed d id not exceed the statutory maximum term of imprisonment or the guideline range and Davis does not claim that the sentence violates the Eighth Amendment. Indeed, a within

- guideline sentence does not generally violate the Ei ghth Amendment and the district court imposed a sentence below the guideline range. United States v. Moriarty , 429 F.3d 1012, 1024 (11th Cir. 2005). Moreover, the government has not appealed his
sentence , so Davis was not released from the appeal waiver. Thus, none of the exceptions to Davis’s appeal waiver apply, and we grant the government’s motion to dismiss Davis’s appeal pursuant to the sentence appeal waiver. DISMISSED

. Case: 19-14322 Date Filed: 05/19/2020 Page: 2 of 2
#### § 137.70 Are the reporting requirements different for a statutorily mandated grant program added to a funding agreement?

Yes, the reporting requirements for a statutorily mandated grant program added to a funding agreement are subject to the terms and conditions of the grant award.
Exhibit 4.1


 


Advisors Asset Management, Inc.

18925 Base Camp Road

Monument, Colorado 80132


March 12, 2021


 


Advisors Disciplined Trust 2059


c/o The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee


240 Greenwich Street, 22W Floor


New York, NY 10286


 


Re: Advisors Disciplined Trust 2059 (the “Fund”)


Ladies and Gentlemen:


We have examined
the Registration Statement File No. 333-251347 for the above captioned Fund. We hereby consent to the use in the Registration Statement
of the references to Advisors Asset Management, Inc. as evaluator.


You are hereby authorized
to file a copy of this letter with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 	 
	 	Advisors Asset Management, Inc.
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By	/s/ ALEX R. MEITZNER
	 	 	Alex R. Meitzner
	 	 	Senior Vice President
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Designating Three Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Officials in Response to Pyongyang’s November ICBM Launches

# 									Designating Three Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Officials in Response to Pyongyang’s November ICBM Launches							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

December 1, 2022

The United States is taking additional actions today as part of our ongoing effort to impede the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s (DPRK) ability to advance its unlawful ballistic missile and weapons of mass destruction programs.  These actions follow the DPRK’s unprecedented launch of over 60 ballistic missiles this year, including the test of several intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM).  These destabilizing actions pose grave security risks to the region and entire world.

Today, the Department of the Treasury is designating Jon Il Ho, the chair of the Worker’s Party of Korea (WPK) Committee of the Academy for Defense Research and a member of the WPK Central Committee.  The WPK was blocked in 2016 pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13722.  Treasury is also designating Yu Jin, a member of the WPK Central Committee; and Kim Su Gil, the Chief Secretary of the Kangwo’n WPK Provincial Committee and a member of the WPK Central Committee.  These actions are pursuant to E.O. 13687 for being officials of the WPK.

All three targets have direct connections to the DPRK’s unlawful ballistic missile program.  The European Union (EU) designated all three earlier this year, noting that Jon and Yu both have played a role in the DPRK’s WMD programs and have participated in multiple ballistic missile launches, while Kim has been responsible for the implementation of WPK decisions related to the development of the DPRK’s unlawful nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

Today’s actions have been taken in close coordination with the Republic of Korea and Japan and further align our policies with our EU partners on the global DPRK threat.  These steps also underscore our sustained resolve to promote accountability in response to Pyongyang’s pace, scale, and scope of ballistic missile launches.

For more information on today’s action, please see the Department of the Treasury’s press release.

Tags

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsNorth KoreaOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of StateSecurityWeapons of Mass Destruction

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
§ 401.615 Payment of compromise amount. ( a ) *Time and manner of compromise.* Payment by the debtor of the amount that CMS has agreed to accept as a compromise in full settlement of a claim must be made within the time and in the manner prescribed by CMS. Accordingly, CMS will not settle a claim until the full payment of the compromise amount has been made.
( b ) *Effect of failure to pay compromise amount.* Failure of the debtor to make payment, as provided by the compromise agreement, reinstates the full amount of the claim, less any amounts paid prior to the default.
( c ) *Prohibition against grace periods.* CMS will not agree to inclusion of a provision in an installment agreement that would permit grace periods for payments that are late under the terms of the agreement.
# C_2005330EN.01001902.xml

| 24.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/19

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 October 2005 — De Bustamante Tello v Council of the European Union

(Case T-368/03) (1)

1

(Officials - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Work done for another State - Meaning of ‘habitually reside’ - Principle of equal treatment)

(2005/C 330/47)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant(s): Rafael De Bustamante Tello (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, D. Domínguez Pérez and A. Sayagués Torres, lawyers)

Applicant(s):

Defendant(s): Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Sims and D. Canga Fano, Agents)

Defendant(s):

Application for

Annulment of the Council's decision of 28 July 2003, refusing to grant the applicant entitlement to the expatriation allowance provided for in Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the allowances associated therewith.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 7, 10.1.2004

1

---
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Biovest International, Inc. (the
Company) for the year ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-K), I, James A. McNulty, CPA, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The form 10-K fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended: and

(2) The information contained in the Form
10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: December 28, 2007



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ James A. McNulty   
|James A. McNulty, CPA  
|Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Biovest International, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of
the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
# C_2005217EN.01004502.xml

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/45

---

Action brought on 8 June 2005 by CAMAR Srl against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-223/05)

(2005/C 217/99)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 June 2005 by CAMAR Srl, established in Florence, represented by Wilma Viscardini, Simonetta Donà and Mariano Paolin, lawyers, for an order against the Commission to pay damages in accordance with the criteria proposed by the applicant or other criteria which the Court considers more appropriate in the light of the judgment in Case T-260/97.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | order the European Commission to compensate the applicant for the damage suffered as a result of the unlawful failure by the Commission to take the measures necessary within the meaning of Article 30 of Council Regulation No 404/93, as held by the Court in its judgment of 8 June 2000 in Case T-79/96, in accordance with the criteria proposed by the applicant or other criteria which the Court considers more appropriate in the light of the judgment in Case T-260/97; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to compensate the applicant for the damage suffered as a result of the unlawful failure by the Commission to take the measures necessary within the meaning of Article 30 of Council Regulation No 404/93, as held by the Court in its judgment of 8 June 2000 in Case T-79/96, in accordance with the criteria proposed by the applicant or other criteria which the Court considers more appropriate in the light of the judgment in Case T-260/97;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks an order against the Commission to pay compensation for the damage suffered by it, already pleaded in Case T-79/96 CAMAR v Commission. (1)

CAMAR

Commission

1

It must be noted that in that case it was held by the Court that even though the defendant had acted unlawfully and therefore the action was admissible in so far as the declaration for failure to act was concerned, the action for compensation was inadmissible owing to the impossibility, at that time, of quantifying the extent of the future damage.

The pleas and main arguments are, for the most part, the same as those relied on in the case cited above and in Case T-457/04 CAMAR v Commission. (2)

CAMAR

Commission

2

---

(1)  Joined Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98 [2000] ECR II-2173.

1

(2)  OJ C 31 of 5.2.2005, p. 28.

2

---