alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 148/5 Ma

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 148 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 585 May 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 148

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 585 May 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 148/01 | Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 to 28 February 2015(Published pursuant to Article 13 or 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council) | 1 |
| 2015/C 148/02 | Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 March 2015 to 31 March 2015(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council) | 4 |
| 2015/C 148/03 | Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 March 2015 to 31 March 2015(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC) | 13 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2015/C 148/01

Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 to 28 February 2015(Published pursuant to Article 13 or 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

(Published pursuant to Article 13 or 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

1

2015/C 148/02

Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 March 2015 to 31 March 2015(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

4

2015/C 148/03

Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 March 2015 to 31 March 2015(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC)

(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC)

13

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
No. 11-963.

#### Blair *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER R EINSTATING A PPEAL

Appellate case name: Robert Moore v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number s : 01

- 21

- 00012

- CR

Trial court case number s : 1672800

Trial court: 209th Judicial District Court of Harris County

Th is case w as abated and remanded to the trial court to conduct a hearing to address a motion for withdrawal and for appointment of new counsel for Appellant. See T EX

. R

. A PP

. P

. 43.6. A supplemental clerk’s record has been filed containing an order granting the withdrawal and an order appointing new counsel. Accordingly, the appeal is reinstated

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

____

/s/ Sarah Beth Landau

_______ _________________ Acting individually

Date: _

__ February 15, 2022

___________________
#### Salar Omar KARIM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eddie L. PEARSON, Warden Greensville Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-7147

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 30, 2018

Decided: February 16, 2018

Salar Omar Karim, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Maughan, Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Salar Omar Karim seeks to appeal the *187magistrate judge’s * order granting in part and denying in part, without prejudice, Respondent’s motion to dismiss Karim’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final .orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp,,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Karim seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, as one of the claims raised in Karim’s § 2254 petition remains pending in the district court. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*

*

 This case was decided by a magistrate judge with the parties’ consent pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012).
#### Anthony Eugene LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KING COUNTY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-35527

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 29, 2017

Anthony Eugene Lewis, Pro Se

Allyson K. Zerba, Senior Litigation Attorney, King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed, R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Anthony Eugene Lewis appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims related to Washington’s sex offender registration requirements. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Szajer v. City of Los Angeles,*632 F.3d 607, 610 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Lewis’s Eighth Amendment claim because Washington’s sex offender registration statute does not impose criminal punishment. *See State v. Ward,*123 Wash.2d 488, 869 P.2d 1062, 1068-69 (1994) (Washington’s sex offender registry serves a regulatory, rather than punitive, purpose).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Lewis’s Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and substantive due process claims because Lewis failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the sex offender registration statute is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. *See United States v. Juvenile Male,*670 F.3d 999, 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2012) (statute that does not burden a protected class or a fundamental right will be upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate state interest); *Ward,*869 P.2d at 1077 (sex offender registration statute advances the valid state interest of assisting law enforcement).

*433The district court properly granted summary judgment on Lewis’s Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim because Lewis failed to' raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the registration requirement was not based on his prior criminal conviction. *See Juvenile Male,*670 F.3d at 1014 (no additional due process required where the requirement to register is based solely on prior conviction).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<PAGE>   1


EXHIBIT 99.1

                        SAFE HARBOR COMPLIANCE STATEMENT


         The Company believes that the following factors could cause actual
results to differ materially from those in forward-looking statements set forth
in this Form 10-QSB.

1.       The Company's ability to grow through affiliations with additional
         orthodontic practices.

2.       The Company's ability to identify suitable affiliation candidates and
         to profitably manage or successfully integrate new Affiliated
         Practices with the Company and its existing Affiliated Practices.

3.       The level of competition in the orthodontic practice management
         industry.

4.       Regulatory development and changes in the United States healthcare
         system and dental and orthodontic professions that may affect the
         profitability of the Company or the enforceability of the Company's
         operative agreements with its Affiliated Practices and Affiliated
         Orthodontists.

5.       The Company's dependence on revenues generated by the Affiliated
         Orthodontists of the Affiliated Practices and the ability of the
         Affiliated Practices to repay loans made for the benefit of the
         Affiliated Practices to fund deficits in monthly cash flows of the
         Affiliated Practices.

6.       The Company's ability to secure capital, and the related cost of such
         capital, needed to fund the future growth of the Company through
         affiliations with orthodontic practices as well as internal growth.

7.       The Company's ability to staff the Affiliated Practices with
         appropriate qualified personnel.

8.       The continued availability to the Company of adequate insurance.

9.       The Affiliated Practices' reputation for delivering high-quality
         patient care and their ability to attract and retain patients.

10.      The Company's dependence on key personnel and the ability to attract
         and retain skilled management.

11.      Liability risks associated with providing orthodontic services.

         The foregoing factors should not be construed as exhaustive or as an
admission regarding the adequacy of disclosures previously made by the Company.
All capitalized terms used in this Exhibit 99.1 not otherwise defined herein
have the same meanings as prescribed to such terms in the Form 10-QSB.
## Comments in Response to "Final rule; request for comments"
Docket: FAA-2015-1537 Directorate Identifier 2015-SW-014-AD Comments have been received in response to: 

### "Finalrule; requestfor comments," Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket and Directorate Identifier entered above. 

### (Project engineer: Please review any comments to determine 

### if additional action is warranted Onceyou have madeyour determination, please fill in the commenter(s) name(s) andcheckthe appropriate response below. Include additional information following the appropriate response, 

### if

necessary. Then includeyourname andthe date in the spacesprovided, andreturn it to the ADdirectoratefocal.
The FAA has reviewed comment(s) related to the above FAA Docket that we received from: Tanya Tuinstra ofEnstrom Helicopter Corporation 

### (Please check one) 1Z1 These comments 

### have not been found to contain any information to warrant reconsideration or change ofthis AD. The Service Directive Bulletins (SDBs) referenced in the comment were revised after the Emergency AD was issued. Since this AD was considered to be an interim action, we will consider the most current SDBs once final action is identified. 

### D These comments 

### have been found to contain information that warrants consideration of additional regulatory action. 

### (SEEAirworthinessDirectivesManual

**F~-IR-~~.0 ~ADDITIONAL** 

### ACTION.)



### ~ **~~**

Rev 0 (9/08) Michalik July 22, 2015 

### Date:

(This form is part ofthe official docket file for this AD action.)
#### Palwinder SINGH, Debtor-Appellant, v. Thomas Patrick GORMAN, Trustee-Appellee, and USBC-Alexandria, Party-in-Interest.

No. 17-1981

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 30, 2018

Decided: February 1, 2018

Palwinder Singh, Appellant Pro Se.

Marcelo Ramiro Michel, OFFICE OF THE CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Palwinder Singh appeals from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing his Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. We have reviewed the record provided on appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Singh v. Gorman,*No. 1:17-cv-00266-TSE-MSN (E.D. Va. filed June 23, 2017; entered June 26, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard HENNIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-1157

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed December 18, 2017

(D.C. No. 1:16-CR-00U9-PAB-1) (D. Colorado)

Paul Farley, Office of the United States Attorney, District of Colorado, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Kari S. Schmidt, Conlee, Schmidt & Emerson, Wichita, KS, for Defendant-Appellant

Before MATHESON, PHILLIPS, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Per Curiam

Richard Hennis pleaded guilty to child pornography charges and was sentenced to 27 years in prison. He appeals that sentence even though his plea agreement included a broad waiver of his appellate rights. The government has moved to enforce the appeal waiver under *United States v. Hahn,*359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). Through his counsel, Mr. Hennis concedes that the waiver bars his appeal. Based on this concession and our independent review of the record, we grant the government’s motion and dismiss the appeal.

*

This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without ' oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       4,662,766
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               86,451,394
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             177,245,341
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        60,265
<OTHER-SE>                                  38,404,063
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               177,245,341
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,779,315
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,510,324
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               306,988
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,820,986
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,268,991
<INCOME-TAX>                                   526,631
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            742,360
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   742,360
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12
        

</TABLE>
(logo) CWCapital

ASSET MANAGEMENT

 

 

**Annual Statement as toCompliance**

**For the Period of January1, 2016 to December 31, 2016**

** **

** **

**JPMBB 2014-C23**

 

 

In accordance with Item 1123of Regulation AB and with the requirements detailed in §11.09 of thePooling and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”) for theabove-mentioned CMBS pool, (the “CMBS Pool”), CWCapital AssetManagement LLC (“CWCAM”), in its capacity as Special Servicer, isproviding this Officer’s Certificate with respect to the following:

 

(A) a review of CWCAM’sactivities during the preceding calendar year or portion thereof (the“Reporting Period”) and of CWCAM’s performance under theAgreement has been made under such officer’s supervision and;

 

(B) to the best of suchofficer’s knowledge, based on such review, CWCAM has fulfilled all itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

Should you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact us. 

 

Sincerely,

CWCapital Asset Management LLC

 

 

/s/ David B. Iannarone

David B. Iannarone 

President 

 

 

7501 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite500 West, Bethesda, MD 20814

www.cwcapital.com
EX-35 (i)
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

March 12, 2007

GS Mortgage Securities Corporation
85 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004

RE: Annual Statement As To Compliance for GSR Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-10F

Per Section 3.02a of the Standard Terms to Master Servicing and Trust Agreement,
dated as of 12/1/2006, the undersigned Officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
(Master Servicer), hereby certifies the following for the 2006 calendar year or
portion thereof:

(i)     a review of such party's activities during the preceding calendar year
        or portion thereof and of such party's performance under this
        Agreement, or such other applicable agreement in the case of an
        Additional Servicer, has been made under such officer's supervision and

(ii)    to the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, such
        party has fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement, or such
        other applicable agreement in the case of an Additional Servicer, in all
        material respects throughout such year or portion thereof, or, if there
        has been a failure to fulfill any such obligation in any material
        respect, specifying each such failure known to such officer and the
        nature and status thereof.

Certified By:
/s/ Kristen Ann Cronin
Kristen Ann Cronin, Vice President

Certified By:
/s/ Gordon Johnson
Gordon Johnson, Assistant Secretary
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

March 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132624 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132624 

 COA: 262677 

Wayne CC: 04-008265-01

DAX MICHAEL HAWKINS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 19, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0319 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

March 26, 2007 

 Clerk
Opinion issued January 10, 2017

In The 

## Court of Appeals
For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 1 6
- 0 0 43 6
- CV

——————————— A R A CELI ZAPATA D/B/A EL SUPER, VELJACO CORP., INC, D/B/A EL SUPER MEAT MARKET & TAQUERIA AND CARMEN GLORIA

VELJANOVICH , Appellant s

V. CLEAR CREEK INDEPEND ENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, THE CITY OF

WEBSTER, AND HARRIS COUNTY , Appellee s

O n Appeal from the 165th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 20 1 3
- 0 4925

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant s , Araceli Zapata d / b / a El Super, Veljaco Corp., Inc, d / b / a El Super Meat Market & Taqueria a nd Carmen Gloria Veljanovich , ha ve failed to timely file

t he i r appellate brief. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6( a ), (d) , 38.8(a)(1). On October 20,2

2016, this Court ordered appellant s to file t he ir brief , without a reporter’s record , within thirty days of that Order. See id. 37.3(c), 38.6(a). Because appellants failed to timely file their brief, the Clerk of this Court notified appellants o n December 9 , 2016, th at this appeal was subject to dismissal if they faile d to timely file t he i r appellate brief or an extension motion within ten days of the date of that notice.
See id. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(c). A ppellant s failed to file a timely respon se. Accordingly, w e dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution for failure to timely file a brief

. See id. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c).
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes , Higley, and Lloyd

.
# L_2013300EN.01000701.xml

| 9.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 300/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 300/7

---

TREATY

BETWEEN

THE KINGDOM OF BELGIUM, THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA, THE CZECH REPUBLIC, THE KINGDOM OF DENMARK, THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, THE REPUBLIC OF ESTONIA, IRELAND, THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC, THE KINGDOM OF SPAIN, THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC, THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THE REPUBLIC OF LATVIA, THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA, THE GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG, THE REPUBLIC OF HUNGARY, THE REPUBLIC OF MALTA, THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS, THE REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA, THE REPUBLIC OF POLAND, THE PORTUGUESE REPUBLIC, ROMANIA, THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA, THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC, THE REPUBLIC OF FINLAND, THE KINGDOM OF SWEDEN, THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND

(MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION)

AND

THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA

CONCERNING THE ACCESSION OF THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA TO THE EUROPEAN UNION

The full text of this Treaty was published in OJ L 112 of 24 April 2012, page 10.

---
Exhibit 4.63


 





 


 


 


Cabot Brown


 


 


 


10th April 2017


 


Dear Cabot, 


 


Fee Increase


 


I am pleased
to confirm that with effect from the 1st January 2017 your fees have been increased to $90,000 per annum.


 


All other
terms and conditions of your appointment remain unchanged.


 


If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.


 


Yours Sincerely


 





Adam George


Company Secretary


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 





GW Pharmaceuticals plc
Sovereign House, Vision Park, Histon, Cambridge, CB24 9BZ


Telephone : +44 (0)1223 266800       www.gwpharm.com