alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.23

[RBC ROYAL BANK LOGO]

JOHN MCCANNEL                           ROYAL BANK OF CANADA
Senior Account Manager                  Greater Victoria Business Banking Centre
Tel: (250) 356-4517                     2nd Floor, 707 Fort Street
Email john.mccannel@rbc.com             Victoria, British Columbia V8W 3G3
                                        Transit 08030
                                        Fax: (250) 356-4583

December 13, 2004

PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL

Aspreva Pharmaceuticals Corporation
1201-4464 Markham Street
Victoria, B.C. V8Z 7X8

ATTENTION: MR. RICHARD GLICKMAN, CHAIRMAN & CEO

Dear Sirs:

RE: ASPREVA PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION ("THE BORROWER")
    CREDIT FACILITIES WITH ROYAL BANK OF CANADA (THE "BANK")

Further to our recent discussions on the subject, we confirm the following
amendments to your Credit Facility outlined in our letter to you of April 23,
2004 as amended November 1, 2004 (the "Agreement").

GENERAL COVENANTS:

DELETE:      (c)  to give the Bank 30 days prior written notice of any intended
                  change in the ownership of its shares and not to consent to or
                  facilitate a change in the ownership of its shares without the
                  prior written consent of the Bank.

Except as specifically amended above, all terms and conditions outlined in the
Credit Agreement dated April 23, 2004, as amended November 1, 2004, continue to
apply.

Please provide your acceptance of this Amending Letter by signing and returning
the attached copy to the Bank by January 13, 2005.

Yours truly,

/s/ JOHN MCCANNEL

<PAGE>

ASPREVA PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION      Page 2                 December 13, 2004

We acknowledge and accept the terms and conditions of this Amending Letter, this
13 day of December, 2004.

ASPREVA PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION

By: /s/ RICHARD GLICKMAN
    ----------------------------------------------
Name:
Title:

By: /s/ BRUCE COUSINS
    ----------------------------------------------
Name:
Title:

I/We have authority to bind the corporation.
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

I, Trevor Venter,  the Chief  Executive  Officer of Astrata Group  Incorporated,
(the "Company"),  certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)   the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended
      August 31, 2004 (the  "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements  of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
      78m or 78o(d)); and

(2)   the information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all material
      respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results  of  operations  of the
      Company.

Dated:  October 20, 2004

                                              /s/ Trevor Venter
                                                 -------------------------------
                                              Name: Trevor Venter
                                              Title: Chief Executive Officer

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906,  has been  provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.
# C_2012399EN.01001903.xml

| 22.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2012 — Commission v Strack

(Case T-268/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Leave - Sick leave - Annulment at first instance of the Commission’s decision refusing to carry over days of annual leave not taken by the person concerned - Article 4 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations - Article 1e(2) of the Staff Regulations - Directive 2003/88/EC - Appeal well founded - Whether the state of the proceedings permits final judgment to be given - Dismissal of the action)

2012/C 399/34

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and J. Currall, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 15 March 2011 in Case F-120/07 Strack v Commission ECR-SC 0000 seeking to have that judgment set aside in part.

Strack

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 15 March 2011 in Case F 120/07 Strack v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 15 March 2011 in Case F 120/07 Strack v Commission;

| 2. | Dismisses the action brought by Mr Guido Strack before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-120/07; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action brought by Mr Guido Strack before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-120/07;

| 3. | Orders Mr Strack and the European Commission to bear their own costs, both of the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal and at the present instance. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Mr Strack and the European Commission to bear their own costs, both of the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal and at the present instance.

---

(1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.

1

---
# C_2013164EN.01001502.xml

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Gossio v Council

(Case T-130/11) (1)

1

(Common foreign and security policy - Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment)

2013/C 164/27

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Marcel Gossio (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented: initially by G. Collard then S. Zokou, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and G. Étienne, agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bordes and M. Konstantinidis, agents) and the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire (represented by: J.-P. Mignard, J.-P. Benoit and G. Merland, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 36), and, second, of Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Marcel Gossio to bear his own costs and those incurred by the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Marcel Gossio to bear his own costs and those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire and the European Commission to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.

1

---
# C_2013225EN.01002601.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/26

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Galin Kostov v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-62/12) (1)

1

(Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 9(1) - Concept of ‘taxable person’ - Natural person - Taxable supply of a service - Occasional supply - Unconnected with a registered professional activity subject to VAT - Self-employed bailiff)

2013/C 225/41

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Galin Kostov

Applicant:

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad — Varna — Interpretation of Article 9(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Concept of taxable person — Liability to VAT of a natural person carrying out, on an occasional basis, supplies of taxable services not connected with his profession as a bailiff

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax is to be interpreted as meaning that a natural person who is already a taxable person for value added tax purposes in respect of his activities as a self-employed bailiff must be regarded as a ‘taxable person’ in respect of any other economic activity carried out occasionally, provided that that activity constitutes an activity within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Directive 2006/112.

---

(1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.

1

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

VICTOR WILSON,

Petitioner,

v.

KENNETH MCKEE,

Respondent. 

 /

Case Number: 2:15-CV-11383

HONORABLE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S 

REQUEST TO CONTINUE STAY (ECF NO. 42)

Petitioner Victor Wilson filed a pro se habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. §

2254, challenging his convictions for assault with intent to murder, Mich. Comp. Laws

§ 750.83; carrying a concealed weapon, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.227(2); felon in

possession of a firearm, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.224f; discharging a weapon from a

vehicle, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.234a; and possession of a firearm during the

commission of a felony, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.227b. He subsequently filed a motion

to hold his petition in abeyance to allow him to raise unexhausted claims in state court. 

(ECF No. 33.) The Court granted the motion and imposed conditions under which

Petitioner was required to proceed, including that he had to move to lift the stay in this

Court within sixty days after conclusion of the state court proceedings. (ECF No. 39.)

Now before the Court is Petitioner’s letter requesting that the stay be continued. (ECF

No. 42.) 

Case 2:15-cv-11383-VAR-PTM ECF No. 43, PageID.3800 Filed 01/27/22 Page 1 of 2
Petitioner asks the Court to continue the stay to allow him to file a successive

motion for relief from judgment in the trial court because, during the course of his statecourt collateral proceeding, he discovered new evidence of a recanting witness. He

appears to have discovered this new evidence too late to properly present it in the

previous state-court collateral review proceeding. 

Michigan Court Rule 6.502(G)(1) generally permits a defendant to file only one

motion for relief from judgment, which Petitioner already has done. But a successive

motion for relief from judgment is permitted under certain, limited circumstances

including where the motion raises a claim of new evidence. See Mich. Ct. R.

6.502(G)(2). Therefore, an avenue for exhaustion remains available to Petitioner in state

court and the Court will continue to hold the petition in abeyance while Petitioner

exhausts his newly-discovered claim. To ensure that Petitioner does not delay in

exhausting state court remedies, the Court requires Petitioner to move to lift the stay

within sixty days of exhausting his state court remedies for the new claim. See Palmer v.

Carlton, 276 F.3d 777, 781 (6th Cir. 2002). 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s request to continue stay (ECF No.

42). 

 s/ Victoria A. Roberts 

VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATED: 1/27/2022

2

Case 2:15-cv-11383-VAR-PTM ECF No. 43, PageID.3801 Filed 01/27/22 Page 2 of 2
#### § 178.440 Drainage of open boats.

The deck within the hull of an open boat must drain to the bilge. Overboard drainage of the deck is not permitted.
#### § 201.3 Authentication of rules, orders, determinations and decisions of the Administration.

All rules, orders, determinations or decisions issued in any proceeding covered by the regulations in this part shall, unless otherwise specifically provided by the Administration, be signed and authenticated by seal by the Secretary of the Administration in the name of the Administration.
Editorial Note on Part 154
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 154 appear part 154 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50466, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 154.701 Cargo pressure and temperature control: General. Except as allowed under § 154.703, cargo tanks must: ( a ) Have their safety relief valves set at a pressure equal to or greater than the vapor pressure of the cargo at 45 °C (113 °F) but not greater than the MARVS under § 154.405; or
( b ) Be refrigerated by a system meeting § 154.702, and each refrigerated incompatible cargo refrigerated by a separate system.
# C_2013260EN.01004102.xml

| 7.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/41

---

Order of the General Court of 8 July 2013 — Nutrichem Diät + Pharma v OHIM — Gervais Danone (Active)

(Case T-414/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 260/73

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Nutrichem Diät + Pharma GmbH (Roth, Germany) (represented by: D. Jochim and R. Egerer, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by K. Klüpfel and subsequently by D. Walicka, Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Compagnie Gervais Danone (Levallois Perret, France) (represented by: M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2011 (Case R 683/2010-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Nutrichem Diät + Pharma GmbH and Compagnie Gervais Danone.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no further need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The applicant and the intervener are ordered to bear their own costs and each pay half the costs of the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant and the intervener are ordered to bear their own costs and each pay half the costs of the defendant.

---

(1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.

1

---
§ 176.670 Tailshaft examinations. ( a ) The marine inspector may require any part or all of the propeller shafting to be drawn for examination of the shafting and stern bearing of a vessel whenever the condition of the shafting and bearings are in question.
( b ) The marine inspector may conduct a visual examination and may require nondestructive testing of the propeller shafting whenever the condition of shafting is in question.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 953, Jan. 10, 1996. Redesignated by USCG-2000-6858, 67 FR 21084, Apr. 29, 2002]
The Honorable Luther Jones Chairman Committee on Elections House ofRepresentatives P. 0. Box 2910 Austin, Texas 78767 Dear Mr. Jones: Opinion No. H- 726 Re: Terms of office ofHarris County constables elected immediately following a redistricting ofprecincts.

On behalf ofthe House Committee on Elections you have requested our opinion concerning the terms of office of constables inHarris County. YOU inform us that Harris County elected constables for each justice precinct in 1972. OnJune 28, 1973, the Harris County Commissioner’s Court adopted a redistricting plan and, pursuant to article 2351 l/2, V. T. C.S., appointed a number of incumbents tothe new offices created thereby. Subsequently, all but one Harris County constable ran for election in 1974. See article 2355, V. T. C.S. Your question is whether the election of constables in 1974 was for atwo or four year term. Article 5, section 18 ofthe Texas Constitution provides that the term of office for constables is four years. However, article 16, section 65 ofthe Texas Constitution establishes the timing for election ofvarious officers, including constables, providing that: Notwithstanding other provisisions ofthis Constitution, the following officers elected at the General Election inNovember, 1954, shall serve only for terms oftwo (2) years:

. . . (b) Assessors and Collectors of Taxes;

. . . (g) Constables. **At** subsequent elections, such officers shall be elected for the full terms provided inthis Constitution. Article 16, section 65 additionally provides thatjudges of County Courts at Law elected inthe 1954 elections shall serve the full term of office provided inthe Constitution. Pursuant to this provision this office has ruled thatjudges of County Courts at Law are tobe elected in 1954, 1958, 1962, 1966, 1970, etc., andthat

p. 3104The Honorable Luther Jones - page two (H-726)

an election for anewly created office in 1968 would be for aterm of only two years since an election was required tobe held in 1970. Opinion M-566 (1970). Attorney General
InAttorney General Opinion WW-1292 (1962) this office ruled that an election in 1962 of atax assessor-collector would be for aterm of only two years since article 16, in 1956, 1960, 1964, etc.section 65 required elections for assessor-collectors Attorney General Opinion C-235(1964) reached a similar result with respect tojustices ofthe peace. See also Rawlins v. Drake, 291 S.W. 2d 349(Tex. Civ. App. --Dallas 1956, nowrit). Inaccordance with these prior opinions ofthis office, it is our view that article 16, section 65 clearly requires elections for four year terms of office for constables in 1956, 1960, 1964, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, etc. Thus the 1974 election of constables, pursuant to article 2355, V. T. C.S., was for aterm of only two years, and another election for the offices of constable must be held in 1976. SUMMARY An election for the offices of constable must be held in 1976 pursuant to article 16, section 65 ofthe Texas Constitution. _Verytruly yours,

// Attorney General ofTexas APPROVED: Cl

Opinion Committe~e jad:

p. 3105
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

RISHI RAMDIAL,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-1673

[September 15, 2022]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit; Palm Beach County, Scott Suskauer

Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 502018CF005901 and 502018CF007692.

Rishi Ramdial, Madison, pro se.

No appearance filed for appellee.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed.

MAY, CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 8
Federal Reserve Bank of: St. Louis

## Filings received during the week ending February 4, 2006

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
§ 196.36-1 When required. ( a ) All manned vessels shall have permanently exhibited for the guidance of the officer in charge of the vessel, general arrangement plans showing for each deck the various fire retardant bulkheads together with particulars of the fire-detecting, manual alarm and fire extinguishing systems, fire doors, means of ingress to the different compartments, the ventilating systems including the positions of the dampers, the location of the remote means of stopping the fans, and the identification of the fans serving each section.
CITY OF TUPELO 

JACK REED, JR., MAYOR 

November 21, 2011 

:TOR1ATI0 N 

• OPERATIONS 

'2 A U- 3H 

Mr. Dennis DeVany 

Chief, EAS & Domestic Analysis Division 

Office of Aviation 

Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: Tupelo Regional Airport (TUP) 

Docket DOT-OST-2009-0305 

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

We have reviewed EAS proposals submitted under Docket DOT-OST-2009-0305 from 

SeaPort Airlines Inc. and Multi-Aero Inc., dba Air Choice One for Tupelo, Mississippi 

and determined that they do not meet the statutory requirements of a twin-engine 

aircraft. Furthennore, the level of service will be a great disadvantage to any airline and 

our airport without support from Delta Airlines through codeshare and joint ticket pricing, 

allowing passengers to easily flow through the national airports system. 

We appreciate the interest of these airlines, but do not endorse or support these 

proposals for subsidized essential air service to the community of Tupelo, Mississippi. 

We request that the hold-in order that prohibited Mesaba & Pinnacle Airlines dba Delta 

Connection from terminating scheduled airline service to Tupelo, Mississippi remain in 

effect until further notice, or until such time as a suitable replacement which satisfies the 

community's needs can be found. 

We would like to thank you for your cooperation and assistance in this matter. 

Respectfully, 

/dack Reed, Jr. 

</ Mayor 

JRJ/sew 

71 !-ASI IKO^ SIKII r • FO.Sr OMIt i; BOX 14X5 

ri)Pi:i.<). Mi.ssissii'Pi 38x02 IIH ? 

ri;i,l:l'HONI M2 S4I (i.S()'> • l-AX (i62 840 2074