alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

1

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

View Business Reports: Non-Reporting OTC Endpoints

To view a non-reporting OTC Endpoint report, complete the following steps:

1. From the Reports tab, click Deposit Processing Reports. The View Reports page 

appears. 

2. Under Business Reports, click Non-Reporting OTC Endpoints. The Non-Reporting OTC 

Endpoints parameters page appears.

3. Enter your search criteria.

• Enter the From: and To: Deposit Date range

• Click Yes or No for Report With Children

• The date range for Deposit Date cannot exceed 15 months.

• Click Yes for Report With Children to generate a report that contains data for the 

selected OTC Endpoint as well as all of the lower level OTC Endpoints. 

• Click No for Report With Children to generate a report that contains data only for 

the selected OTC Endpoint.

4. Click an OTC Endpoint to initiate the report. The Non-Reporting OTC Endpoints preview 

page appears as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Non-Reporting OTC Endpoints Preview Page

Application Tips
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

2

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

5. Under Export as, you have the following options:

o Select PDF, Excel or Word format

o Click Download

▪ Or

o Click Print PDF Report

• TGA denotes a deposit processing OTC Endpoint.

• CHK denotes a check capture OTC Endpoint.

• M denotes a mapped accounting code; an open lock denotes access permission; 

and a closed lock denotes no access permission.

• CDC denotes card processing OTC Endpoint.

Click Previous to return to the previous page.

Application Tips

Additional Button
|     |                                                                                                                         |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of 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:  February 23, 2017 | By | /s/ Abu M. Arif |
|                          |   | Abu M. Arif |
|                          |   | Chief Executive Officer |
|                          |   | (Principal Executive Officer) |

|                               |
|-------------------------------|
|                               |  |  |
| Date:  February 23, 2017 | By | /s/ Janet C. Langner |
|                          |   | Janet C. Langner |
|                          |   | Chief Financial Officer |
|                          |   | (Principal Financial Officer) |
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

MICHAEL D. BURCH and THE

BANKRUPTCY ESTATE OF MICHAEL

D. BURCH,

NO. CIV. S-04-0038 WBS GGH

Plaintiffs, 

v. ORDER

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA; LARRY VANDERHOEF;

GREG WARZECKA; PAM GILLFISHER;

ROBERT FRANKS, and LAWRENCE

SWANSON,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Defendants move ex parte for an order to continue the

final pre-trial conference and to set deadlines for opposition

and reply papers regarding defendants’ motion for summary

judgment. Plaintiffs oppose the motion.

The cut-off dates for discovery and the filing of

dispositive motions, as well as the date of the final pre-trial

conference, were set at the time of the court’s initial

scheduling order and subsequently modified on February 16, 2005

Case 2:04-cv-00038-WBS-GGH Document 67 Filed 06/22/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

upon stipulation of the parties. The fact that defendants first

sought to schedule the hearing on their motion for summary

judgment on a Friday, when counsel should have known the court

does not hold law and motion calendars, was not the fault of

plaintiffs. Likewise, it was not plaintiffs’ fault that

defendants’ attorney was unavailable on the next three available

law and motion dates. The motion for summary judgement is now

set for hearing on July 25, 2005. That will still be before the

date of the final pre-trial conference. The parties will simply

have to file their pre-trial statements before the court decides

the motion for summary judgment, upon the assumption that the

motion will be denied.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ ex parte

application for an order to continue the final pre-trial

conference and to set deadlines for opposition and reply papers

re motions for summary judgment be, and the same hereby is,

DENIED.

DATED: June 22, 2005

Case 2:04-cv-00038-WBS-GGH Document 67 Filed 06/22/05 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET, STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS AND CASH FLOWS AND
ACCOMPANYING NOTES AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-29-1996
<CASH>                                           7,508
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  179,504
<ALLOWANCES>                                    13,977
<INVENTORY>                                    230,626
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               459,035
<PP&E>                                         341,958
<DEPRECIATION>                                 115,460
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 822,257
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          272,295
<BONDS>                                        202,937
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,184
<OTHER-SE>                                     297,379
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   822,257
<SALES>                                      2,523,197
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,523,197
<CGS>                                        2,298,577
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,298,577
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,783
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,485
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 27,754
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,679
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             24,075
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    24,075
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.32
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                             EXHIBIT 12

                        MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST V
                        MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING V, L.P.
                         COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO
           COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED SECURITIES DISTRIBUTIONS

                                            FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 26, 1999
                                      -------------------------------------------------
                                      MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED   MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED
                                         CAPITAL TRUST V             FUNDING V, L.P.
                                      -----------------------   -----------------------
<S>                                         <C>                      <C>        
Earnings                                    $15,948,660              $18,694,441
                                            ===========              ===========
                                                                 
Fixed charges                               $        --              $        --
                                                                 
Preferred securities distribution                                
  requirements                               15,470,000               15,948,660
                                            -----------              -----------
                                                                 
Total combined fixed charges and                                 
  preferred securities distributions        $15,470,000              $15,948,660
                                            ===========              ===========
                                                                 
Ratio of earnings to combined                                    
  fixed charges and preferred                                    
  securities distributions                         1.03                     1.17
</TABLE>
FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
    
    
    FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDEDMarch 31, 2011
    
    
    March 31, 2010MERRILL LYNCH
    
    
    MERRILL LYNCH
    
    
    MERRILL LYNCH
    
    
    MERRILL LYNCHPREFERRED
    
    
    PREFERRED
    
    
    PREFERRED
    
    
    PREFERREDCAPITAL TRUST III
    
    
    FUNDING III, L.P.
    
    
    CAPITAL TRUST III
    
    
    FUNDING III, L.P.Earnings
    
    $
    13,531
    
    
    $
    15,766
    
    
    $
    13,531
    
    
    $
    15,765Fixed charges
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
    Preferred securities
distribution
requirements
    
    
    13,125
    
    
    
    13,531
    
    
    
    13,125
    
    
    
    13,531Total combined fixed
charges and preferred
securities distribution
requirements
    
    $
    13,125
    
    
    $
    13,531
    
    
    $
    13,125
    
    
    $
    13,531Ratio of earnings to
combined fixed charges
and preferred securities
distribution requirements
    
    
    1.03
    
    
    
    1.17
    
    
    
    1.03
    
    
    
    1.17
No. 60806.

#### Foreign Products Corporation *v.*United States,

protest 236949-K (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of actumus humus soil builder the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Foreign Products Corporation*v. *United States*(34 Cust. Ct. 67, C. D. 1679), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1685 was sustained.
(Part 1SUPPLEMENT) (Fiscal Year 2017 ReportingSection IV) (U.S. Standard General Ledger - Account Attribute Definition Report)

 (Bulletin No. 2017-06) (IV ADR - 1) (June 2017)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Darrell Lee Smith,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-0702 MCE PAN P

vs. Order

King, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a prisoner, without counsel, prosecuting this

civil rights action on the claim defendant King was deliberately

indifferent to his safety by releasing confidential information

about plaintiff’s enemies. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

37(a)(2)(B), plaintiff moves to compel defendants to respond to

interrogatories and produce documents.

A party may move for an order compelling discovery with

respect to objections or other failure to respond to

interrogatories or requests for documents. Fed. R. Civ. 

Case 2:04-cv-00702-MCE -EFB Document 76 Filed 02/08/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

P. 37(a)(2)(B), 33(b)(5), 34(b). 

Plaintiff makes no showing he served defendant with the

request for documents or the interrogatories.

For these reasons, I hereby deny plaintiff’s June 29, 2005,

motion.

So ordered.

Dated: February 7, 2006. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00702-MCE -EFB Document 76 Filed 02/08/06 Page 2 of 2
# C_2018022EN.01003701.xml

| 22.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2017 — Montel v Parliament

(Case T-634/16) (1)

1

((Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums wrongfully paid - Power of the Secretary-General - Electa una via - Rights of the defence - Burden of proof - Obligation to state reasons - Legitimate expectations - Political rights - Equal treatment - Misuse of power - Independence of the Members - Error of fact - Proportionality))

(2018/C 022/50)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sophie Montel (Saint-Vit, France) (represented by: G. Sauveur, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: G. Corstens and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer, R. Meyer and A. Jensen, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 24 June 2016 concerning the recovery of a sum of EUR 77 276,42 wrongfully paid as parliamentary assistance allowance, of the notification and measures implementing that decision contained in the letters of the Director-General for Finance of the Parliament of 5 and 6 July 2016 and the debit note of 4 July 2016 relating thereto and application on the basis of Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation of the loss which the applicant allegedly suffered due, in particular, to that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 24 June 2016 concerning the recovery from Ms Sophie Montel of a sum of EUR 77 276,42 wrongfully paid as parliamentary assistance allowance and the debit note of 4 July 2016 relating thereto insofar as they concern sums paid between February and April 2015; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 24 June 2016 concerning the recovery from Ms Sophie Montel of a sum of EUR 77 276,42 wrongfully paid as parliamentary assistance allowance and the debit note of 4 July 2016 relating thereto insofar as they concern sums paid between February and April 2015;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders Ms Montel, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union each to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Ms Montel, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union each to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.

1

---
Welcome
 Training Module Topics Below are the training topics you need to manage an organization hierarchy, configure a card terminal, view an audit log and view reports. Click **Expand All** to view all resources for your role, or click the arrow next to a module to view the lesson(s) and resources. You can choose to view Web Based Training (WBT) modules, certificates are assigned for critical tasks and are noted by the certificate icon Certificate icon. You can also review Printable Job Aids (PJAs) and Videos that support your OTCnet user training.  Expand All
  GETTING STARTED MODULE 1: OTCNET OVERVIEW 1.1 OTCnet Overview
            PJA
            VideoOTCnet Overview
 MODULE 2: ACCESSING OTCnet Certificate icon2.1 Start and Stop the OTCnet Local Bridge (OLB) Application
            PJA
            VideoStart and Stop the OTCnet Local Bridge (OLB) ApplicationCertificate icon2.2 Request Your OTCnet AccessSelf-Register/Create an Account in SailPoint IIQRequest Your OTCnet Access in SailPoint IIQCertificate icon2.3 Log In to OTCnet OnlineLog In to OTCnet Online
 ADMINISTRATION/CONFIGURATION MODULE 4: MANAGING ORGANIZATION HIERARCHY Certificate icon4.1 Manage an Organization Hierarchy
            PJA
            VideoCreate an OTC EndpointDelete or Neutralize an OTC EndpointModify OTC Endpoint InformationView an OTC EndpointCertificate icon4.5 Modify a User Defined FieldCreate a User Defined FieldModify a User Defined FieldDelete a User Defined FieldView a User Defined Field
 MODULE 6: CONFIGURING CARD TERMINAL PROCESSING SETTINGS Certificate icon6.1 Card Terminal Configuration
            PJA
            VideoRegister a Card TerminalUnregister a Card TerminalView Card Terminal ConfigurationCertificate icon6.2 Manage an Audit Log OnlineSearch an Audit Log Online
 MODULE 8: CONFIGURING OTCNET LOCAL BRIDGE (OLB) Certificate icon8.1 Download, Install, and Upgrade the OTCnet Local Bridge (OLB) Application
            PJA
            VideoDownload OTCnet Local Bridge (OLB) ApplicationInstall the OTCnet Local Bridge (OLB) CertificateInstall the OTCnet Local Bridge (OLB) ApplicationUpgrade the OTCnet Local Bridge (OLB) ApplicationCertificate icon8.2 Create the OTCnet Local Bridge (OLB) ProfileCreate the OTCnet Local Bridge (OLB) ProfileCertificate icon8.3 Import OTCnet Local Bridge (OLB) CredentialsImport OTCnet Local Bridge (OLB) Credentials
 Welcome
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-20-00442-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.A., Y.A., A.A., Children

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CI01637

Honorable Monique Diaz, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 19, 2021

DISMISSED

Appellant Wesam S. Aziz filed a motion to dismiss, stating the matter in controversy has 

become moot as a result of the trial court’s ruling permitting a nunc pro tunc order to resolve the 

issue for which appellant sought an appeal. Appellee Nissreen T. Aziz has not opposed the motion. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.3(a). Therefore, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). Costs of the appeal are taxed against appellant.

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 4.76


 





 


March 6, 2008


 


BY PERSONAL DELIVERY


 


Ms. Alida Gualtieri


11026 Paris Street


Montréal-Nord, Québec 
H2H 4L1


 


Re:
Employment Agreement


 


Dear Alida:


 


Further
to the recent Board of Directors, we hereby confirm that your employment
agreement with DRAXIS Health Inc. dated October 17, 2003 and amended on March 26,
2004 and January 31, 2008 (the “Employment Agreement”) is hereby amended
as follows effective January 1, 2008:


 


·                  By
deleting Section 6 and replacing it with the following Section 6:


 


The Board of Directors of
DRAXIS, in its sole discretion, and upon recommendation of the Chief Executive
Officer of DHI, based on the Bonus and Objectives Plan that is in force for all
senior executives of DHI, may declare a bonus payable.  Such bonus payment is not guaranteed and
payment of a discretionary bonus in any prior year is not a promise or
guarantee of payment in subsequent years. 
Further, to receive any discretionary bonus payment, should one be
declared, you must be employed on December 31st of the calendar
year for which the bonus is declared. 
Should  a discretionary bonus be
declared, you may be eligible to receive an amount up to a maximum equivalent
to 40% of your Base Salary, or such other amount as may be determined by the
Chief Executive Officer of DHI and the Board of Directors of DHI, in their sole
discretion.


 


All of
the other terms and conditions of your Employment Agreement remain
unchanged.  We would ask that you confirm
your acceptance of this modification by signing the duplicate of this letter.


 


If you
have any questions concerning this modification, please do not hesitate to
communicate with the undersigned.


 


Regards,


 


DRAXIS HEALTH INC.


 


 


 


	
  /s/Dan Brazier

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Dan Brazier

  	
   

  
	
  President and CEO

  	
   

  



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


DRAXIS
HEALTH  INC. / SANTÉ DRAXIS INC.


16751 Trans
Canada Highway, Kirkland, Québec, Canada H9H 4J4  Tél: (514) 694-8220 Fax: (514) 694-8201


 

















 


**********************************************************************************************************


 


I
hereby confirm having read the above mentioned modification to my employment
agreement dated October 17, 2003 and amended March 26, 2004 and January 31,
2008 and hereby confirm my acceptance of said modification.


 


Signed this 6th day of March, 2008 at Kirkland.


 


	
  /s/ Alida Gualtieri

  	
   

  
	
  Alida Gualtieri

  	
   

  



 


 


2
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18A1391. STEPHEN LEKEY JACKSON v. THE STATE.

In 2015, Stephen Lekey Jackson pled guilty to one count of aggravated assault

and four counts of reckless conduct. Jackson was sentenced to a total term of seven

yearsto be served on probation. On February 13, 2017, Jackson filed an “Application

to the Georgia Court of Appeals” in the trial court, seeking to appeal the revocation

of his probation.

1

 We, however, lack jurisdiction.

To appeal an order revoking probation, a party must first file an application for

discretionary appeal in this Court within 30 days of the entry of the order from which

the appeal is sought. OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (5), (d); see Todd v. State, 236 Ga. App.

757, 758 (513 SE2d 287) (1999) (holding that where the underlying subject matter

is probation revocation, the discretionary appeal procedure applies); accord White v.

State, 233 Ga. App. 873, 874 (505 SE2d 228) (1998). Jackson’s application, filed in

the trial court, is ineffective. See generally Gable v. State, 290 Ga. 81, 85 (2) (a) (720

1 Orders revoking Jackson’s probation were entered on March 3, 2017 and

March 29, 2017.

April 16, 2018
SE2d 170) (2011) (a discretionary application must only be filed in an appellate

court).

Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

04/16/2018