alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 156 (Monday, August 13, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 39987]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17310]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XG413


Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of a public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Spiny Dogfish 
Monitoring Committee will hold a public meeting to review annual 
specifications and management measures and make any appropriate 
recommendations.

DATES: The meeting will be held Friday, September 14, 2018, from 9 a.m. 
to 11 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held via webinar, but anyone can also 
attend at the Council office address (see below). The webinar link is: 
http://mafmc.adobeconnect.com/spinydogmc-2018/. Please call the Council 
at least 24 hours in advance if you wish to attend at the Council 
office.
    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. 
State St, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D. Executive 
Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone: (302) 
526-5255. The Council's website, www.mafmc.org also has details on the 
proposed agenda, webinar access, and briefing materials.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 
Council's Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee will hold a public meeting 
to review annual specifications and management measures and make any 
appropriate recommendations. New annual specifications should begin May 
1, 2019 and can be set for up to five years. Public comment will be 
taken.

Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should 
be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior 
to the meeting date.

    Dated: August 8, 2018.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-17310 Filed 8-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
Exhibit 31.2


CERTIFICATIONS
--------------

I, Enzo J. Vialardi, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Del Laboratories, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
   material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
   statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
   were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual
   report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
   information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
   the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
   registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
   establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
   in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
   controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
   material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
   subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
   particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
   procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
   effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
   period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
   financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
   quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
   report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
   affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
   most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
   registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
   directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
   operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
   likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
   summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
   employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
   over financial reporting.



Date: March 12, 2004



                                                    /S/ ENZO J. VIALARDI
                                                    ------------------------
                                                    Enzo J. Vialardi
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
#### Lucille Smith GODWIN and Phoenix Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Ann M. PRESLEY and Melvin C. Presley, Appellees.

No. Q-192.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 8, 1972.

Robert P. Gaines, of Beggs, Lane, Daniel, Gaines & Davis, Pensacola, for appellants.

Robert L. Stone, of Harrell, Wiltshire, Bozeman, Clark & Stone, Pensacola, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Interlocutory appeal dismissed on the authority of McNulty v. Cusak, 104 So.2d 785 (Fla.App., 1958).

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 160 (Friday, August 17, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41101-41102]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17729]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

[189A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900253G]


Indian Gaming; Approval of Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact 
Amendments in the State of Oklahoma

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The State of Oklahoma entered into compact amendments with the 
Absentee Shawnee Tribe, Cherokee Nation, Chickasaw Nation, Citizen 
Potawatomi Nation, Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Iowa Tribe of 
Oklahoma, Kaw Nation, Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Seneca-Cayuga Nation, 
Wichita and Affiliated Tribes, and Wyandotte Nation of Oklahoma 
governing certain forms of class III gaming; this notice announces the 
approval of the State of Oklahoma Gaming Compact Non-house-Banked Table 
Games Supplement between the State of Oklahoma and the Absentee Shawnee 
Tribe, Cherokee Nation, Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Eastern Shawnee 
Tribe of Oklahoma, Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma, Kaw Nation, Muscogee (Creek) 
Nation, Seneca-Cayuga Nation, Wichita and Affiliated Tribes, and 
Wyandotte Nation.

DATES: The compact amendments take effect on August 17, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of 
Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary--Policy and 
Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act (IGRA) Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq., the 
Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the Federal Register notice 
of approved Tribal-State compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class 
III gaming activities on Indian lands. As required by IGRA and 25 CFR 
293.4, all compacts and amendments are subject to review and approval 
by the Secretary. The compact amendments authorize the Tribes to engage 
in certain additional class III gaming activities, provide for the 
application of existing revenue sharing agreements to the additional 
forms of class III gaming, and designate how the State will distribute 
revenue sharing funds.


[[Page 41102]]


    Dated: August 9, 2018.
Tara Sweeney,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2018-17729 Filed 8-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
#### SEABREEZE MANOR VERANDAH, INC., etc., Appellant, v. DOMINION INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., Appellee. SEABREEZE MANOR VERANDAH, INC., etc., Appellant, v. PROVIDENCE WASHINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. SEABREEZE MANOR VERANDAH, INC., etc., Appellant, v. HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. SEABREEZE MANOR VERANDAH, INC., etc., Appellant, v. JEFFERSON INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Appellee. SEABREEZE MANOR VERANDAH, INC., etc., Appellant, v. INTERSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellee.

Nos. Q-300 to Q-303, and Q-310.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 14, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 13, 1973.

Edward I. Matz, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

*569Raymond A. Haas and Cliff B. Gosney, Jr., of Gosney, Hutcheson & Haas, Daytona Beach, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The records on appeal, briefs, and oral arguments herein having been fully considered, and it appearing therefrom that appellant has failed to demonstrate that the judgments appealed are erroneous, the said judgments are therefore Affirmed.

WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
#### Brantley P. SLAUGHTER, Jr., Appellant, v. James M. HIGGINBOTHAM et al., Appellees.

No. 72-934.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 30, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Thomas E. Kirkland, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
-1- 



    	 



    








    	-2- 



    	 



    








    	-3- 



    	 



    








    	-4- 



    	 



    








    	-5-
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 5.1

                                               HAMMOND SUDDARDS EDGE



The Directors                                        Our ref      10/npb/ncb
Sopheon plc
Stirling House                                       Your ref
Surrey Research Park
Guildford                                            Date         23 August 2000
Surrey
GU2 5RF


Dear Sirs

We have acted as English counsel to Sopheon plc, a United Kingdom public company
limited by shares ("Sopheon"), in connection with the proposed acquisition by
Sopheon of Teltech Resource Network Corporation, a Minnesota corporation
("Teltech"), pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of January 21,
2000 (the "Merger Agreement") by and among Sopheon, Teltech and Sopheon
Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Sopheon.

We are of the opinion that if the Sopheon ordinary shares to be issued to the
shareholders of Teltech pursuant to the Merger Agreement (the "Shares") were
issued at the date hereof in accordance with the Merger Agreement the Shares
would be duly authorised, validly issued, fully paid and non-assessable. This
opinion is subject to the assumption that not more than 5 million Shares are
issued.

We are qualified to practice law only in England and are not admitted to
practice in any other jurisdiction, nor are we or do we purport to be experts on
the laws of any other jurisdiction. The opinion expressed herein is rendered
solely with respect to the laws of England.

This opinion is expressed at today's date and we assume no obligation to advise
of any changes in law or fact that may subsequently come to our attention or of
their effect on our opinion.

This opinion is limited to the matters stated in this letter and no opinion may
be implied or inferred beyond the matters expressly stated.

This opinion is rendered only to you and is solely for your benefit in
connection with the Merger Agreement. It may not be relied upon by anyone else
for any other purpose nor may it be quoted from or referred to, or copies of
this opinion delivered to, any other person, firm or corporation for any purpose
without our prior written consent.

We hereby consent to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit to the
Registration Statement on Form F-4 filed by Sopheon with respect to the Shares,
and to the reference to our firm appearing in the Registration Statement under
the caption "Validity of Securities."

Yours faithfully,

/s/ Hammond Suddards Edge

HAMMOND SUDDARDS EDGE
18 Southampton Place  London  WC1A 2AJ  DX  37984 LONDON/KINGSWAY
TELEPHONE 020 7404 4701  FAX 020 7831 9152
E-MAIL  nick.butcher@hammondsuddardsedge.com
DIRECT LINE 020 7400 7942  DIRECT FAX 020 7400 7905

OFFICES Birmingham  Bradford  Brussels  Leeds  Lloyd's  London  Manchester
www.hammondsuddardsedge.com

A list of the names of the partners and their professional qualifications is
open to inspection at our offices. The partners are either solicitors or
registered foreign lawyers. This firm is regulated by the Law Society in the
conduct of investment business.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

_________________________________________ 

)

EDWARD FEW, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 19-cv- 1669 (APM)

)

LABORERS DISTRICT COUNCIL PENSION )

& DISABILITY TRUST FUND NO. 2 )

)

Defendants. )

_________________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pro Se Plaintiff Edward Few’s Complaint, filed against Defendant Laborers District 

Council Pension & Disability Trust Fund No. 2, tersely makes the following allegation: 

“Not being paid the right amount of money for my time that I worked. I work[ed] 15 yrs. They 

are only paying me for one year worth of work. For my pension, I did not quit. I got hurt on the

job also.” Compl., ECF No. 1-2. Defendant moves to dismiss on the grounds that (1) Plaintiff 

failed to exhaust administrative remedies available under the pension benefit plan and, (2) to the 

extent Plaintiff asserts state law claims, they are preempted. See Def.’s Stmt. of P&A in Support 

of Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 7-1 [hereinafter Def.’s Mot.], at 3–8. Although the court 

notified Plaintiff of the motion’s filing, see Order, ECF No. 9, Plaintiff did not file a response. 

Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s silence, the court evaluates Defendant’s motion on its merits. 

See Cohen v. Bd. of Trustees of the Univ. of the D.C., 819 F.3d 476, 481–82 (D.C. Cir. 2016)

The court construes Plaintiff’s claim as one for unpaid pension benefits arising under the 

Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). That claim, however, must be 

dismissed for failure to exhaust remedies. “It is well established that, barring exceptional 
2

circumstances, plaintiffs seeking a determination pursuant to ERISA of rights under their pension 

plans ‘must . . . exhaust available administrative remedies under their ERISA-governed plans 

before they may bring suit in federal court.’” Commc’ns Workers of Am. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 

40 F.3d 426, 431 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (quoting Springer v. Wal–Mart Assocs. Group Health Plan, 908 

F.2d 897, 899 (11th Cir.1990)). Here, Defendant has come forward with evidence that the Fund 

tendered a check to Plaintiff in January 2005 in the amount of $2,208 for benefits payments

retroactive to June 1, 2001. See Def.’s Mot., Decl. of Renee Parenti, ECF No. 7-2, ¶ 5; Def.’s 

Mot., Ex. C, ECF No. 7-2 at 112–13. Plaintiff did not, however, dispute the amount of that benefit 

payment per the procedures set forth in the Pension Fund Plan document. Decl. of Renee Parenti, 

ECF No. 7-2, ¶¶ 6–9. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claim under ERISA must be dismissed for failure 

to exhaust. 

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 7, is granted. 

A separate final order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. 

 

Dated: September 3, 2019 Amit P. Mehta

United States District Court Judge
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA**  **23 -**  **0319**
JANICE M. DODDS

Plaintiff and Appellant,
v. GREGORY S. TIERNEY, M.D., BENEFIS HEALTH SYSTEM, and, JOHN and JANE DOES I

- IV,

Defendant s and Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) **ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED**  **MOTION TO**  **DISMISS APPEAL AS TO**  **BENEFIS HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.** 

Pursuant to the Unopposed Motion to Di smiss Appeal as to Benefis Healt h System, Inc. and for good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant and Appellee, Benefis Health System, Inc., (“Benefis”), is di smissed from the above referenced appeal with prejudice, with each si de to bear their own costs and fees. 10/16/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0319Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Appeal as to Benefis Health System, Inc.

- 2

Accordingly, the appeal ma y proceed only with respect to Appellant ’ s claims against Appellee Gregory S. Tierney , M.D. **ELECTRONICALLY SIGNED AND DATED BELOW.**
cc: Julie A. Lichte John Seidlitz Gary Kalkstein

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 16 2023
# C_2014019EN.01003701.xml

| 22.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/37

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.7097 — Bridgepoint/Orlando/La Gardenia Beauty)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 19/09

On 18 December 2013, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M7097. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M7097. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7396

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALEXANDER FAUST, a/k/a Stanka, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR-94-773) Submitted: January 31, 2002 Decided: February 6, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alexander Faust, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Assistant United States Attorney, Kelly Elizabeth Shackelford, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Alexander Faust pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base and was sentenced on May 8, 1995. He filed a notice of appeal on May 7, 2001, seeking review of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (1994). However, this statute governs direct criminal appeals and is unavailable to Faust who failed to file a timely direct appeal. Criminal defendants have ten days from the entry of the judgment or order at issue to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b). The appeal periods established by Rule 4 are mandatory and jurisdictional. Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978). Because Faust filed his notice of appeal approximately six years outside the appeal period, we lack jurisdiction to consider the merits of the appeal. To the extent that Faust seeks to appeal the district court’s November 23, 1999, denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) motion, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismissthe appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Faust’s notice of appeal is also untimely as to that order. Parties are accorded sixty days after entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). Furthermore, this court has previously reviewed that order on appeal, and affirmed on3 the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Faust , No. 99-7673, 2000 WL 347051 (4th Cir. Mar. 15, 2000) (unpublished). We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED