alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2007301EN.01000801.xml

| 13.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/8

---

Initiation of proceedings

(Case COMP/M.4513 — Arjowiggins/M-Real Zanders Reflex)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 301/03)

On 7 December 2007, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the above-mentioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.

In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax ((32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4513 — Arjowiggins/M-Real Zanders Reflex, to the following address:

| Commission of the European Communities |
| --- |
| Competition DG |
| Merger Registry |
| Rue Joseph II/Jozef II-straat 70 |
| B-1000 Brussels |

Commission of the European Communities

Competition DG

Merger Registry

Rue Joseph II/Jozef II-straat 70

B-1000 Brussels

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 23-0162 

ROBERT L. ROSE, 

Petitioner and Appellant, 

V. 

MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, BRIAN GOOTKIN, Director; 

and JAMES SALMONSEN, Warden of Montana 

State Prison, 

Respondents and Appellees. 

FILED 

JUL 1 8 2023 

Bowen Greenwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

State of montana 

ORDER 

Appellant Robert L Rose has filed a motion for extension of time to file his opening 

brief. Good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant has until August 24, 2023, to file his 

opening brief. 

DATED this i day of July, 2023. 

For the Court, 

Chief Justice 

07/18/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0162
Exhibit 15


August 8, 2005


Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Commissioners:

We are aware that our report dated August 8, 2005 on our review of interim
financial information of UniSource Energy Corporation (the Company) and Tucson
Electric Power Company (TEP) for the three and six month periods ended June 30,
2005 and 2004 and included in the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended June 30, 2005 is incorporated by reference in its Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (Nos.333-43765, 333-43767, 333-43769, 333-53309,
333-53333, 333-53337, and 333-99317), and on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-31043,
333-93769, and 333-103392).

Very truly yours,

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Los Angeles, California
Jump to navigation

            - About
            - Browse Collections
            - Advanced Search
            - Contact

## You are here

- Home  › 
- Browse Collections  › 
- U.S. Government Posters

# Fort Kent, Maine, local protection project

                - U.S. Government Posters

## Description

                    -           Title        
                    -  Fort Kent, Maine, local protection project 
                    -           Creator        
                    -  United States. Army. Corps of EngineersFitzgerald, Janet 
                    -           Description        
                    -  Fort Kent, Maine, local protection project by Janet Fitzgerald 
                    -           Subject: Time        
                    -  1970-1980 
                    -           Subject: Place        
                    -  United States 
                    -           Country        
                    -  United States 
                    -           State        
                    -  Maine 
                    -           Town        
                    -  Fort Kent 
                    -           Physical Description        
                    -  141 × 50 cm 
                    -           Number of Pages        
                    -  1 
                    -           Host institution        
                    -  University of Iowa. Libraries. Government Publications 
                    -           Digitization Specifications        
                    -  Scanned with Zeutschel OS 12000 Scanner at 300 ppi, 24-bit color. Archival tiff image available. 
                    -           Rights Management        
                    -  This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. 
                    -           Contact Information        
                    -  Please contact the Government Publications Department at the University of Iowa Libraries: lib-govpub@uiowa.edu 
                    -           Item Type (AAT)        
                    -  Posters 
                    -           Item Type (IMT)        
                    -  jpeg 
                    -           Identifier        
                    -  D103.49-3.R52-09.jpg 

                - Contact the Libraries
                - Library locations & hours
                - News & Events
                - Help using the Libraries
                - Assistance for people with disabilities
                - Our diversity statement
                - Thank a Librarian
                - Web site/page feedback  OR  general suggestions
                -  

                -  
                - 100 Main Library (LIB)
                - 125 West Washington St.
                - Iowa City, IA 52242-1420
                - 319-335-5299 (Service Desk)
                - ©2020  The University of Iowa
                -
Exhibit
      15











November
      1,
      2007





Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission


100
      F Street,
      N.E.


Washington,
      DC
      20549





Commissioners:





We
      are aware that our report dated November 1, 2007 on our review of interim
      financial information of UniSource Energy Corporation (the "Company") for the
      three
      month****periods****ended September
      30, 2007 and 2006 and included in the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q
      for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 is incorporated by reference in the
      Company’s Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos.333-43765, 333-43767,
      333-43769, 333-53309, 333-53333, 333-53337, 333-99317, and 333-140353) and
      on
      Form S-3 (Nos. 333-31043, 333-93769, 333-103392, and 333-126141).





Very
      truly
      yours,







/s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers
      LLP


PricewaterhouseCoopers
      LLP
# C_2004118EN.01004302.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/43

---

Action brought on 4 March 2004 by Marta Cristiana Moren Abat against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-92/04)

(2004/C 118/95)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 4 March 2004 by Marta Cristiana Moren Abat, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by G. Leibitsch, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare void and annul the decision of the selection board of open competition COM/A/1/02 of 22 April 2003 by which the applicant was refused admission to the next stage of the selection procedure on the basis of the results of the preliminary test; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare void and annul the decision of the selection board of open competition COM/A/1/02 of 22 April 2003 by which the applicant was refused admission to the next stage of the selection procedure on the basis of the results of the preliminary test;

| — | declare void and annul the decision of the selection board of the appointing authority of 30 January 2004 concerning the applicant's complaint of 17 July 2003 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare void and annul the decision of the selection board of the appointing authority of 30 January 2004 concerning the applicant's complaint of 17 July 2003 under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those submitted in Case T-91/04 Just v Commission.

---
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 2, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

____________

NO. 14-12-00006-CR

____________

GERALD JEROD DURDEN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 248th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 905464

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an attempted appeal of a notice from the trial court that no action has been 

taken on appellant's motion for post-conviction DNA testing.1

Generally, an appellate court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal 

defendant only when there has been a final judgment of conviction. Workman v. State, 

 

1

This court affirmed the trial court's denial of appellant's previous motion for post-conviction 

DNA testing. See Durden v. State, No. 14-09-00120-CR, 2010 WL 454935 (Tex. App. [14th Dist.] 2010, 

pet. ref'd) (not designated for publication). 
2

170 Tex. Crim. 621, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (1961); McKown v. State, 915 S.W.2d 160, 161 

(Tex. App.CFort Worth 1996, no pet.).2 The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure expressly 

provides for appeal from the denial of a request for post-conviction DNA testing. See

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 64.05 (West 2006). The record before this court contains no 

order denying appellant's motion. 

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Brown, and Christopher.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

 

2 Exceptions include: (1) certain appeals while on deferred adjudication community 

supervision, Kirk v. State, 942 S.W.2d 624, 625 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); (2) appeals from 

the denial of a motion to reduce bond, Tex. R. App. P. 31.1; McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161; 

and (3) certain appeals from the denial of habeas corpus relief, Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 

588, 589 (Tex. App. - Dallas 1998, no pet.); McKown, 915 S.W.2d at 161.
Draft Proposal CB-7 

This concept has been developed by the DOE Building Energy Codes Program (BECP) as a possible code

change proposal to the Commercial provisions of the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code

(IECC).   Interested parties are asked to submit any and all comments on DOE's initial concepts and draft

code change proposals. For instructions on submitting comments, visit:

www.energycodes.gov/development/commercial/codes/iecc/concepts/

Define Rooftop Monitor (CB-7) 

Objective:  Provide a definition of the term “Rooftop Monitor” as used in Section C402.3.2.1 (4).

Suggested Code Change Proposal

Add a new definition to Section C202 as follows:  

C202 ROOFTOP MONITOR. A raised section of a roof containing vertical fenestration along one or 

more sides. 

Reason:  There is currently no definition of rooftop monitor, yet the term is used in Section C402.3.2.1

(4).  A definition of rooftop monitor is needed to clarify the intent and ensure uniform application of the

exception.

Cost Impact:   There is no cost impact associated with this proposed change.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

JENNIFER D. BROWN, : Case No. 2:12-CV-0511 

 : 

 Plaintiff, : JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

 : 

 v. : 

 : Magistrate Judge King 

COMMISSIONER OF : 

SOCIAL SECURITY, : 

 : 

 Defendant. : 

 

OPINION AND ORDER 

On June 7, 2013, the United States Magistrate Judge recommended that the decision of 

the Commissioner be reversed and that the action be remanded to the Commissioner of Social 

Security for further consideration of the opinions of Plaintiff’s treating neurologist. Report and 

Recommendation, Doc. 14. Although the parties were advised of their right to object to the 

recommendation and of the consequences of their failure to do so, there has nevertheless been no 

objection. 

The Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 14, is ADOPTED AND AFFIRMED. The 

decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and the action is REMANDED to the 

Commissioner of Social Security, pursuant to Sentence 4 of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further 

consideration of the opinions of Plaintiff’s treating neurologist. 

The Clerk shall enter FINAL JUDGMENT pursuant to Sentence 4 of 42 U.S.C. 

§ 405(g). 

s/Algenon L. Marbley_________ 

ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

DATE: September 11, 2013

Case: 2:12-cv-00511-ALM-NMK Doc #: 15 Filed: 09/11/13 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-05-052-CV

LLOYD MARK SUTTON 	APPELLANT

A/K/A MARK SUTTON

	V.

LLOYD P. SUTTON, DANIEL C. 	APPELLEES

SUTTON, PAULA L. WHITE, AND 

BOB DAY

	------------

	FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF WICHITA COUNTY

	------------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

	------------

	Appellant Lloyd Mark Sutton perfected this interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s rulings granting a temporary injunction in favor of Lloyd P. Sutton, Daniel C. Sutton, Paula L. White, and Bob Day (collectively Appellees) and refusing his request for a temporary injunction.  See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(4) (Vernon 1997).  On July 22, 2005, during the pendency of this appeal, the trial court signed a final judgment, disposing of all claims and all parties.  See id. § 51.014(b).  On July 28, 2005, in light of the trial court’s final judgment, Appellees filed a motion to dismiss this interlocutory appeal as moot.   

	A justiciable controversy must exist between the parties at every stage of the legal proceedings, including the appeal.  Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171, 184 (Tex. 2001).  Accordingly, if a controversy ceases to exist—“the issues presented are no longer 'live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome”—the case becomes moot.  Id. (quoting Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481, 102 S. Ct. 1181, 1183 (1982)); see also Isuani v Manske-Sheffield Radiology Group, P.A., 802 S.W.2d 235, 236 (Tex. 1991).  If a case becomes moot, the parties lose their standing to maintain their claims.  Williams, 52 S.W.3d at 184. 

	The trial court’s final judgment renders the issues presented in this interlocutory appeal moot.  Accordingly, we grant Appellees’ motion and dismiss the interlocutory appeal as moot. 

							SUE WALKER

							JUSTICE

PANEL A:	CAYCE, C.J.; WALKER, J.; and SAM J. DAY, J. (Retired, Sitting by Assignment).

DELIVERED: August 18, 2005
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 199 

To authorize the production of records by the Permanent Subcommittee 

on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 18, 2005 

Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. REID) submitted the following resolution; 

which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION

To authorize the production of records by the Permanent 

Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Whereas the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of 

the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs has been conducting an investigation into the 

United Nations ‘‘Oil-for-Food’’ Programme; 

Whereas the Subcommittee has received a number of requests 

from law enforcement officials, regulatory agencies, and 

other governmental entities for access to records of the 

Subcommittee’s investigation; 

Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States 

and rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the possession of the Sen-
2

SRES 199 ATS

ate can, by administrative or judicial process, be taken 

from such control or possession but by permission of the 

Senate; and 

Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or 

in the possession of the Senate is needed for the promotion of justice, the Senate will take such action as will 

promote the ends of justice consistent with the pivileges 

of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Chairman and Ranking Minority 

2 Member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investiga3 tions of the Committee on Homeland Security and Govern4 mental Affairs, acting jointly, are authorized to provide 

5 to law enforcement officials, regulatory agencies, and 

6 other entities or individuals duly authorized by Federal, 

7 State, or foreign governments, records of the Subcommit8 tee’s investigation into the United Nations ‘‘Oil-for-Food’’ 

9 Programme.

Æ
### Process defInition for 

### OHOreporting rule Higgs, 

### Tim 0 to: KirstenCappel 

### 10/08/2009 12:38 PM Cc: Page 1 of 1

"Hannan,DavidE", "Meyers, Jerry", "Curtis, Michael R", "Harper, Stephen", "Brady, ToddA" ShowDetails

Kirsten' , Thanks for taking time to meet with us and give us an opportunity 

### to comment on the definition ofprocess for use in the GHG reporting rule. Attached are Intel's suggestions for how process step can be defined. With this breakdown, we attempted to strike a balance that groups similar process steps together without needing emission factors for many individual substeps. We are concerned that ifyou try to .identify different emission factors for numerous substeps underneath these categories, then itwill bevery d .ifficult to keep up to date as these substeps can change every couple years as new processes are introduced. We believe these definitions can provide sufficient detail for accurate reporting, and can perhaps be updated periodically as part ofthe existing IPCC process for establishing emission factors. AlsO, as you requested, below are brief descriptions ofthe process steps. Please let me know ifyou have any other questions. Thanks a lot Tim Chamber Cleaning Categories In situ plasma - plasma cleaning for TF tools where the plasma is generated insidethe.chamber . In situ thermal - plasma cleaning for tools where the'fluorinated gasses are broken down thermally in the chamberfor cleaning Remote Plasma System (RPS) (please note; should be in chambercleaning section, not patterning) - plasmacleaning for TF tools where the plasma is generated outsidethe chamberand fed into the chamberas a mixture ofplasmabyproducts Patterning Categories Oxide etch - Any process that is primarily associated with SiOx etch processing orlow k dielectric etch Nitride etch - Any process that is primarily associated with SixOxNxXx etch pro¢essing (SiN, SiON, SiC, etc) Silicon etch - Any process that is primarily associated with Si only based etch Metal etch - Any process that is**pri~arily** associated with etching ofmetals WaferCleaning Categories Bevel Cleaning - plasma cleaning processes that use fluorinated materials for edge cleaning ofwafers Ashing - cleaning ofwafers with assisted fluorinated etch
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MAY 9, 2013

NO. 03-10-00711-CV

Rita Murdock, Appellant

v.

Trisun Healthcare, LLC d/b/a Park Place Health Center, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 261ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, ROSE AND GOODWIN

REVERSED AND REMANDED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

DISSENTING OPINION BY JUSTICE ROSE

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being 

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was error in the trial court’s 

judgment: IT IS THEREFORE considered, adjudged and ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is FURTHER ordered that the appellee pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court 

and the court below; and that this decision be certified below for observance.
Exhibit 4.36
​
	​
​
​
​
​
​



	FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE
EXCLUSIVE LICENSE AGREEMENT and RENEWAL
by and among
SKINVISIBLE, INC.,
QUOIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
Dated as of June 14, 2021



​
​



FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE EXCLUSIVE LICENSE AGREEMENT RENEWAL
THIS AMENDMENT TO THE EXCLUSIVE LICENSE AGREMEMENT RENEWAL (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of June 14, 2021, by and among Skinvisible, Inc., a Nevada corporation (referred to as “SKINVISIBLE” ), and Quoin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Licensee”).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Parties have entered into the EXCLUSIVE LICENSE AGREEMENT dated October 17, 2019;
WHEREAS, the Parties have entered into the EXCLUSIVE LICENSE AGREEMENT RENEWAL dated May 8, 2020;
WHEREAS, the Parties have entered into the FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE EXCLUSIVE LICENSE AGREEMENT RENEWAL dated July 31, 2020;
WHEREAS, the Parties have entered into the SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE EXCLUSIVE LICENSE AGREEMENT RENEWAL dated September 30, 2020;
WHEREAS, the Parties have entered into the THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE EXCLUSIVE LICENSE AGREEMENT RENEWAL dated January 27, 2021;
WHEREAS, the Parties have entered into the FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE EXCLUSIVE LICENSE AGREEMENT RENEWAL dated April 19, 2021;
WHEREAS, the Parties hereby amend the EXCLUSIVE LICENSE AGREEMENT RENEWAL as follows:
7.1 License Fee. As partial consideration for the rights conveyed by Skinvisible under this Agreement, Licensee agrees to pay to Skinvisible a one-time, non-refundable, non-creditable license issue fee of one million USD dollars (USD $1,000,000) (“License Fee”).  To date, Licensee has paid three hundred ninety-two thousand five hundred US dollars (USD $392,500) of this fee as part of the First Half of the License Fee.  The balance of the First Half Payment is one hundred seven thousand five hundred US dollars (USD $107,500) which shall be paid within 5 business days of the Effective Date of this Amendment. A further payment of two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) is due no later than 10 business days after receipt by Licensee of additional funding by Altium Capital.  The remaining balance of two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) will be paid on the earlier of either after FDA approves IND application by Licensee containing Skinvisible Technology or December 31st , 2021.
7.3.2   Clinical Milestones and Milestone Payments:
		(i)	Successful completion of Phase 2 testing:  $0

		(ii)	Successful completion of Phase 3 testing:  $0

		(iii)	Regulatory approval in either the US or EU, whichever happens first: $5,000,000

​
​



		1.
	All other terms and conditions of the Exclusive License Agreement, Renewal and Amendments shall remain unchanged.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the date first above written.
​
	​


	​


	​



	​
	SKINVISIBLE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

	​
	​

	​
	By:
	/s/ Terry Howlett

	​
	Name:
	Terry Howlett

	​
	Title:
	President & Chief Executive Officer

	​
	​

	​
	​

	​
	QUOIN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

	​
	​

	​
	By:
	/s/ Michael Myers

	​
	Name:
	Michael Myers, Ph.D.

	​
	Title:
	President & Chief Executive Officer



​