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



                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

For Immediate Release

               Tanox, INC. announces decision of Court of Appeals

HOUSTON (August 29, 2002) -- Tanox, Inc. (Nasdaq: TNOX) announced that the Texas
Court of Appeals for the 14th District in Houston affirmed today the Texas
District Court's judgment confirming an arbitration award in favor of the
Company's former law firms in a fee dispute with the Company. Tanox intends to
appeal the decision of the Court of Appeals to the Texas Supreme Court.

"We clearly disagree with the ruling by the Court of Appeals," said Nancy T.
Chang, Ph.D., President and CEO of Tanox. "While our business plan is not
dependent on a legal victory in this case, we believe strongly in our position
and will continue to pursue this in the court system."

The fee dispute arose out of the law firms' prior representation of Tanox in a
lawsuit with Genentech, Inc., which was settled in 1996 with the formation of
Tanox's collaboration with Genentech. The decision of the appeals court affirms
the arbitration award entitling the law firms to a portion of certain milestone
payments and royalties received by Tanox on sales of anti-IgE products.

About Tanox

Tanox, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company with demonstrated expertise in
monoclonal antibody technology. The Company is engaged in the discovery and
development of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies designed to address significant
unmet medical needs in the areas of asthma, allergy, inflammation and other
diseases affecting the human immune system. XolairTM, Tanox's most advanced
product in development, is an anti-immunoglobulin E, or anti-IgE, antibody whose
therapeutic effect has been validated through clinical trials in patients
suffering from allergic asthma and seasonal allergic rhinitis (hay fever).
Xolair is being developed under an agreement among Tanox, Novartis Pharma AG and
Genentech. In June 2002, Xolair received marketing approval in Australia for
treating adults and adolescents with moderate allergic asthma. Novartis and
Genentech indicated that they expect to submit an amended Biologics License
Application to the Federal Drug Administration in fourth quarter 2002.

This release and other information about Tanox, Inc. can be found on the World
Wide Web at http://www.tanox.com.


<PAGE>


For further information, contact:

Ashraf Hanna, Ph.D., M.D.
Tanox - Director of Strategic Planning (713) 578-4444

Michelle DeSantis
Tanox - IR/PR Coordinator (713) 578-4444
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gilberto ANAYA-MONTOYA, also known as Manuel Montoya-Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-50345 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed March 2, 2018

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Gilberto Anaya-Montoya, Pro Se

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Gilberto Anaya-Montoya has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Ana-ya-Montoya has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected there*398in. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **CMBS Department**

 

MAC N9401-011

1055 10th Avenue SE

Minneapolis, MN 55414 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc. 

1585 BROADWAY

NEW YORK, New York 10036-8200

 

RE: Annual Statement of Compliancefor Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2015-C21, CommercialMortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-C21

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of February 1, 2015 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Custodian("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the yearending December 31, 2016 (the "Reporting Period"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo'sactivities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under theAgreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of suchofficer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

/s/ Gail Vannest

GAIL VANNEST

Vice President

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8894 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8894

To repeal the authority of the Food and Drug Administration to require 
that drugs be dispensed only upon prescription, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 8, 2020

  Mr. Biggs introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To repeal the authority of the Food and Drug Administration to require 
that drugs be dispensed only upon prescription, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Prescription Freedom Act of 2020''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF FDA AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE PRESCRIPTIONS.

    (a) Repeal.--Effective as of the date that is 6 months after the 
date of enactment of this Act, subsection (b) of section 503 of the 
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 353) is repealed.
    (b) References.--Beginning on the effective date described in 
subsection (a), any reference in a Federal statute, regulation, or 
guidance--
            (1) to prescribing, a prescription, a prescription drug, or 
        a drug subject to section 503(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
        Cosmetic Act is deemed to be a reference to prescribing, a 
        prescription, or a prescription drug, respectively, under 
        applicable State law; and
            (2) to any requirement or provision of section 503(b) of 
        the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is deemed to be a 
        reference to the corresponding requirement or provision, if 
        any, in applicable State law, as determined by the Federal 
        official or officials responsible for administering the 
        respective Federal statute, regulation, or guidance.
    (c) Exception.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b), the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services may continue to exercise the 
authority vested by subsection (b) of section 503 of the Federal Food, 
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 353), as in effect on the day before 
the effective date described in subsection (a), with respect to any 
drug that is intended for use in terminating a pregnancy.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2022191EN.01002002.xml

| 10.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/20

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 2 March 2022 — Criminal proceedings against OE

(Case C-142/22)

(2022/C 191/26)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Criminal proceedings against

OE

Questions referred

| 1. | Should Article 27 of the Framework Decision (1) be interpreted as meaning that a decision to surrender a person creates a legal relationship between him, the executing State and the requesting State such that any issue taken to have been finally determined in that decision must also be taken to have been determined for the purposes of the procedure for obtaining consent to further prosecution or punishment for other offences? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should Article 27 of the Framework Decision (1) be interpreted as meaning that a decision to surrender a person creates a legal relationship between him, the executing State and the requesting State such that any issue taken to have been finally determined in that decision must also be taken to have been determined for the purposes of the procedure for obtaining consent to further prosecution or punishment for other offences?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is that Article 27 does not require that interpretation, does a national procedural rule breach the principle of effectiveness if it operates so as to prevent the person concerned from relying, in the context of the consent application, upon a relevant judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered in the period of time after the order for surrender? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is that Article 27 does not require that interpretation, does a national procedural rule breach the principle of effectiveness if it operates so as to prevent the person concerned from relying, in the context of the consent application, upon a relevant judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered in the period of time after the order for surrender?

---

(1)  2002/584/JHA: Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision (OJ 2002, L 190, p. 1).

---
# OAR Box 1112 Prepped by Ryan Dugan



## Document

Number: 

# 12)ll-B-2 i Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 2

Printed 4/16/20089:12:06

AM Sheet 12 of 97 P. 1P. 2 

## A- <?3" 2.1. 

# ARCONN E NATIONA L LABORATOR Y^^ ^ 970 0 SOUTI H CAS S AVENUE , ARQONNE , IHiNois 6045 9 TdEpk M 512/972-843 0

Apri l 4 , 198 5

Dr . Michae l Rutte r Departmen t o f Psycholog y Institut e o f Psychiatry DeCrespign

yPar k London , SE 5 8A

F Englan d Dea r Dr . Rutter :

I tried t o cal l yo u a few day s ag o an d learne d tha t yo u wer e on holiday . I hop e tha t yo u ha d a good time . I ha d calle d t o se e i f yo u ha d receive d m

ylette r date d Marc h 19 , 198 5 an d t o as k i f yo u woul d b e willing t o participat e i n the lea d study . Becaus e o f th e lon g lea d tim e neede d t o plan foreign trave l o n U.S . governmen t business , I hav e ha d t o procee d wit h arrangement s assuming tha t yo u wil l b e willin g t o participat e an d tha t the Apri l 3 0 an d Ma y2 date s wil l fi t int o you r schedule . Becaus e w e als o plan t o mee t wit h Dr . Yul e o n May1 an

d 3 , i t ma yb e possibl e t o wor k ou t alternat e date s wit h yo u i f yo u wis h t o participat e bu t canno t accommodat e our propose d dates . Our constraint s ar e the following : w e arriv e i n Londo n o n Monda ymorning (Apri l 29 ) an d leav e fo r German yon Sunda

y(Ma y5) . Withi n thes e constraints , w e ar e willin g t o mak e everypossibl e effor t t o mee t wit h you . Enclose d i s a cop

yo f our I Q protoco l tha t wil l b e the basi s o f our intervie w wit h you . I t woul d be good i f yo u coul d revie w i t prio r t o ou r firs t meeting , i f yo u ar e abl e t o participate . To mWallste n an

d I ar e ver

ymuc h looking forward t o meetin g wit h you . W e sincerel yhop e tha t our plan s an d assumption s wor k out . Sincerely ,
Ronal d G . WWitfiel d Energyan

d Environmenta l System s Divisio n RGW:b f Enclosur e

U.S
. DEPARTMEN To f ENERQ V T k

U\ivERSiT

yof ClnicAq o
# C_2021357EN.01003001.xml

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/30

---

Action brought on 15 July 2021 — Apex Brands v EUIPO — SARTORIUS Werkzeuge (SATA)

(Case T-430/21)

(2021/C 357/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Apex Brands, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: S. Fröhlich, H. Lerchl and M. Hartmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SARTORIUS Werkzeuge GmbH & Co. KG (Ratingen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark SATA — Application for registration No 18 051 525

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 May 2021 in Case R 2322/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of the general principle of equal treatment. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the general principle of equal treatment.

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alvin Lee THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40506 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed March 8, 2018

Dan Ryan Locker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Alvin Lee Thompson, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Alvin Lee Thompson has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Thompson has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47,5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4,
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Corvain T. COOPER, a/k/a CV, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7359

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 28, 2018

Decided: March 8, 2018

Patrick Michael Megaro, APPEALS LAW GROUP, Orlando, Florida, for Appellant. Elizabeth Margaret Greenough, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Corvain T. Cooper seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cooper has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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*
**Exhibit12.01**

 

## **PUBLIC SERVICECOMPANY OF COLORADO**

**STATEMENTOF COMPUTATION OF**

**RATIO OFEARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**

**(Thousandsof Dollars)**

 
| ** **                                                           | ** ** | **Year ended Dec. 31,** | ** ** |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|-------------------------|------------|
| ** **                                                           | ** ** | **2005**                | ** ** | **2004** | ** ** | **2003** | ** ** | **2002** | ** ** | **2001** | ** ** |
| Earnings as defined:                                                 |       |                    |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Pretax income                                                        |       | $                       | 281,657    |   | $ | 290,861 |   | $ | 316,144 |   | $ | 393,366 |   | $ | 405,534 |   |
| Add: Fixed Charges                                                   |       | 258,150                 |       | 260,822 |   | 263,395 |   | 237,765 |   | 226,651 |   |
| Earnings as defined                                                  |       | $                       | 539,807    |   | $ | 551,683 |   | $ | 579,539 |   | $ | 631,131 |   | $ | 632,185 |   |
| Fixed charges:                                                       |       |                    |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Interest charges                                                     |       | $                       | 258,150    |   | $ | 260,822 |   | $ | 256,023 |   | $ | 223,021 |   | $ | 211,451 |   |
| Distributions on redeemable preferred securities of subsidiary trust |       | —                  |       | — |   | 7,372 |   | 14,744 |   | 15,200 |   |
| Total fixed charges                                                  |       | $                       | 258,150    |   | $ | 260,822 |   | $ | 263,395 |   | $ | 237,765 |   | $ | 226,651 |   |
| Ratio of earnings to fixed  charges                                  |       | 2.1                     |       | 2.1 |   | 2.2 |   | 2.7 |   | 2.8 |   |
|                                                                      |            |                         |            |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |

 

 

----
#### COM. v. GREEN, C.

212 WDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/19/2017

CP-02-CR-0015533-2014 (Allegheny)

Vacated/Affirmed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         6601621
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                   89101084
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         2918972
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           2893811
<LOANS>                                      170149078
<ALLOWANCE>                                    1903635
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               279724950
<DEPOSITS>                                   223381339
<SHORT-TERM>                                  13986699
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            3762152
<LONG-TERM>                                   19054000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       4002154
<OTHER-SE>                                    15310906
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               279724950
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                6588770
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              2689740
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 38746
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               9317256
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             4174244
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             4803452
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          4513804
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   300000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                3919064
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1500960
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      516598
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    984362
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.16
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.55
<LOANS-NON>                                    1803000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                710000
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               1715068
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   127547
<RECOVERIES>                                     16114
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              1903635
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        1903635


</TABLE>