alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 9, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 24547]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11373]



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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

9 CFR Part 78

[Docket No. 94-134-2]


Brucellosis in Cattle; State and Area Classifications; Colorado

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Affirmation of interim rule as final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting as a final rule, without change, an interim 
rule that amended the brucellosis regulations concerning the interstate 
movement of cattle by changing the classification of Colorado from 
Class A to Class Free. We have determined that Colorado meets the 
standards for Class Free status. The interim rule was necessary to 
relieve certain restrictions on the interstate movement of cattle from 
Colorado.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 8, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Michael J. Gilsdorf, Senior Staff 
Veterinarian, Cattle Diseases and Surveillance Staff, VS, APHIS, USDA, 
Suite 3B08, 4700 River Road Unit 36, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 
734-4918.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In an interim rule effective and published in the Federal Register 
on January 23, 1995 (60 FR 4371-4372, Docket No. 94-134-1), we amended 
the brucellosis regulations in 9 CFR part 78 by removing Colorado from 
the list of Class A States in Sec. 78.41(b) and adding it to the list 
of Class Free States in Sec. 78.1(a).
    Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or 
before March 24, 1995. We did not receive any comments. The facts 
presented in the interim rule still provide a basis for the rule.
    This action also affirms the information contained in the interim 
rule concerning Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act, Executive Orders 12372 and 12778, and the Paperwork Reduction Act.
    Further, for this action, the Office of Management and Budget has 
waived the review process required by Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 78

    Animal diseases, Bison, Cattle, Hogs, Quarantine, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

PART 78--BRUCELLOSIS

    Accordingly, we are adopting as a final rule, without change, the 
interim rule that amended 9 CFR 78.41 and that was published at 60 FR 
4371-4372 on January 23, 1995.

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 111-114a-1, 114g, 115, 117, 120, 121, 123-
126, 134b, and 134f; 7 CFR 2.17, 2.51, and 371.2(d).

    Done in Washington, DC, this 28th day of April 1995.
Lonnie J. King,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 95-11373 Filed 5-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
EXHIBIT
10.54


 


AMENDMENT TO THE CONVERTIBLE SUBORDINATED
PROMISSORY NOTE


 


THIS
AMENDMENT is made 19th day of January 2008 by and between VGX
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(previously D.B.A. Viral Genomix, Inc.), a Delaware
Corporation, (hereinafter called “Borrower”) and  DONG KOOK PHARM, CO. LTD.,  a Korea Corporation, (hereinafter
called “Holder”).


 


WHEREAS, the
Borrower executed and issued to the
Holder the Convertible Subordinated Promissory Note in the amount of US $1,000,000.00 and dated December 30,
2005 (hereinafter called “Note” and
attached hereto as “Exhibit A”); and


 


WHEREAS, the
Note is made in favor of the Holder and has the Original Maturity Date of December 30,
2007; and


 


WHEREAS,
the Parties desire to modify
certain terms on the Note.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises,
terms and conditions set forth herein and intending to be legally bound hereby,
the Parties agree as follows:


 


1.                                       The
Original Maturity Date of the Note is hereby
extended for 6 months for the first $500,000 and the New Maturity Date
for the first $500,000 shall be June 30, 2008. Provided, the Parties agree that
the Borrower shall immediately repay the 
principal of the first $500,000 to the Holder on the New Maturity Date.


 


2.                                       The
Original Maturity Date of the Note is hereby
extended for 12 months for the remaining $500,000 and the New Maturity
Date for the remaining $500,000 shall be December 30, 2008. Provided, the Parties
agree that the Borrower shall immediately repay the principal of the remaining
$500,000 to the Holder on the New Maturity Date.


 

















 


3.                                       Upon
execution of this Amendment, the Borrower shall pay Holder $97,392,
which represents accrued interest on the
Principal from the Borrowing Date to
the Original Maturity Date of December 30, 2007.


 


4.                                       At
the time of paying each principal amount, the Borrower agrees to pay the
interest of 5% per annum in addition to each principal amount.


 


5.                                       The Borrower represents and warrants that
the name of the Borrower has been changed from Viral Genomix, Inc. to VGX
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.


 


6.                                       All
other terms in the Note shall remain the same.


 


IN
WITNESS THEREOF, the Parties
hereto, intending to be legally bound hereby, have caused this Amendment to the
Convertible Subordinated Promissory Note to be duly executed on the above date.


 


 


	
  BORROWER:

  	
  HOLDER:

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  VGX Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

  	
  DONG KOOK PHARM, CO. LTD.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  BY:

  	
  /s/ J. Joseph Kim

  	
   

  	
  By: 

  	
  /s/ Gi Beom Kwon

  
	
   

  	
  J. Joseph Kim, CEO

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Gi Beom
  Kwon, President and CEO
EXHIBIT
32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certification
 
 Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of Xinyinhai Technology,
Ltd. (the “Company”) certify that:
  1.           The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2009
(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
  2.           The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 August
      13, 2009
                /s/ Tian
      LingTian
      Ling (Chief Executive Officer)/s/ Du
      SongDu
      Song (Chief Financial
Officer)
   22
Biosimilar and

Original Biologic

Same benefits

Same potential

side effects

Same strength

and dosage

Given the same way

Most biologic medications have minor 

differences between batches because they 

generally are made from living sources (such 

as animal cells, bacteria or yeast). Biologics 

are developed using advanced science and 

usually given by injection. 

Biosimilars are FDA-approved medications 

that are very similar, but not identical, to another 

medication — the original biologic already 

approved by FDA.

Biosimilars are a type of biologic 

medication that is safe and 

effective for treating many 

illnesses, such as chronic 

skin and bowel diseases, 

arthritis, diabetes, kidney 

conditions, macular 

degeneration, and 

some cancers.

A biosimilar and its original 

biologic are made from the 

same types of sources — and 

have the same treatment 

risks and benefits.

To learn more, visit

www.FDA.gov/biosimilars

More options Lower costs

Biosimilars Generics

Generally made from living 

sources

Require a specialized 

process to produce

Very similar, but not identical, 

to original biologics

Usually less expensive than 

original biologics

Generally made from 

chemicals

Have a simpler process 

to copy

Copy of brand-name drugs

Usually less expensive than 

brand-name drugs

Biosimilar Basics

Biosimilars can be made by multiple companies which may 

lower their cost — similar to generic drugs. Biosimilars are 

like generics in some ways but different in others.

Biosimilars are approved by FDA after a careful 

review of data, studies, and tests conducted 

by companies.

FDA monitors the safety

and effectiveness of all 

medications after their 

approval. Check for medication 

quality during 

production 

Review patient

safety reports 

Biosimilars may provide 

patients with more access to 

important treatments and an 

opportunity to save money.
EXHIBIT 31.1
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
I, Lukas Braunschweiler, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of DionexCorporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made,not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for,the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed underour supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and (c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit
 

 

  committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financialinformation; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: November 8, 2004
/s/ Lukas Braunschweiler
將熟食保存超過7天,會導致顧客身體

不適!

隨時隨地保障人們的飲食安全。

應於7日內供應或丟棄冷藏於冰箱

內的熟食!

Copyright © International Association for Food Protection

置於華氏41度(攝氏5度)的天數
Keeping prepared foods longer than

7 days can make your customers sick!

Protect People Everywhere.

Serve or discard refrigerated,

prepared food within 7 days!

Copyright © International Association for Food Protection

Days at 41oF (5oC)
Case3:05-cv-01967-CRB Document68 Filed10/18/13 Page1 of 10 Case3:05-cv-01967-CRB Document67 Filed10/17/13 Page1 of 3
Case3:05-cv-01967-CRB Document67 Filed10/17/13 Page2 of 3

18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Charles R. Breyer

Case3:05-cv-01967-CRB Document68 Filed10/18/13 Page2 of 10
Case3:05-cv-01967-CRB Document68 Filed10/18/13 Page3 of 10 Case3:05-cv-01967-CRB Document67 Filed10/17/13 Page3 of 3
Case3:05-cv-01967-CRB Document67-1 Filed10/17/13 Page1 of 7 Case3:05-cv-01967-CRB Document68 Filed10/18/13 Page4 of 10
Case3:05-cv-01967-CRB Document67-1 Filed10/17/13 Page2 of 7 Case3:05-cv-01967-CRB Document68 Filed10/18/13 Page5 of 10
Case3:05-cv-01967-CRB Document67-1 Filed10/17/13 Page3 of 7 Case3:05-cv-01967-CRB Document68 Filed10/18/13 Page6 of 10
Case3:05-cv-01967-CRB Document67-1 Filed10/17/13 Page4 of 7 Case3:05-cv-01967-CRB Document68 Filed10/18/13 Page7 of 10
Case3:05-cv-01967-CRB Document67-1 Filed10/17/13 Page5 of 7 Case3:05-cv-01967-CRB Document68 Filed10/18/13 Page8 of 10
Case3:05-cv-01967-CRB Document67-1 Filed10/17/13 Page6 of 7 Case3:05-cv-01967-CRB Document68 Filed10/18/13 Page9 of 10
Case3:05-cv-01967-CRB Document68 Filed10/18/13 Page10 of 10 Case3:05-cv-01967-CRB Document67-1 Filed10/17/13 Page7 of 7
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 17, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50550 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus EVERARDO NAVA-CHAVEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-2498-ALL

-------------------- Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Everardo NavaChavez raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 34.1

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Discover Bank

We have examined managements assertion, included in the accompanying managements Assertion on Compliance with Regulation AB Criteria, that Discover Bank (the Bank) complied with the servicing
criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commissions Regulation AB for the asset backed securities transactions involving credit card receivables conducted by Discover Card Master Trust I and Discover Card
Execution Note Trust (the Platform) as of and for the year ended November 30, 2007, excluding the criteria set forth in Items 1122 (d)(1)(iii), (d)(1)(iv), (d)(2)(iii), (d)(2)(iv), (d)(2)(v), (d)(2)(vi), (d)(3)(iii), (d)(3)(iv),
(d)(4)(i), (d)(4)(iv), (d)(4)(vi), (d)(4)(vii), (d)(4)(viii), (d)(4)(ix), (d)(4)(x), (d)(4)(xi), (d)(4)(xii), (d)(4)(xiii), (d)(4)(xiv), and (d)(4)(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Bank with
respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Banks compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion about the Banks compliance with the servicing criteria
based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Banks compliance with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a
sample basis of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether the Bank performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria during the specified period and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were limited to selected servicing activities performed by the Bank during the period covered by this report and, accordingly, such samples may not have included servicing activities related
to each asset-backed transaction included in the Platform. Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above that may have affected the balances or amounts
calculated or reported by the Bank during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Banks compliance with the
servicing criteria.

In our opinion, managements assertion that the Bank complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for
the year ended November 30, 2007, for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.



|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
|                         
|Chicago, Illinois        
|February 13, 2008
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________ No. 07 - 17 - 00 424 - CV

________________________ M&L BUILDERS, INC., APPELLANT

V. KRISU HOSPITALITY, LLC , APPELLEE On Appeal from the 2 23rd District Court

Gray C ounty, Texas Trial Court No. 38,934 ; Honorable Phil N. Vanderpool , Presiding April 30 , 201 9 

### ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT AND DISMISSAL Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE , JJ. M&L Builders, Inc. and Mukesh Bhakta appeal ed from a default judgment in favor of Krisu Hospitality, LLC. We abated the appeal on January 2, 2018 , upon receiving notice that Bhakta was in bankruptcy. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 8.1, 8.2. In April 2018, Bhakta filed a suggestion of bankruptcy, informing t his court that his bankruptcy proceeding was dismissed and that M&L Builders was now in bankruptcy. On May 1, 2018, pursuant to Bhakta’s motion, we reinstated the appeal, severed Bhakta’s appeal into cause number2

07 - 18 - 00156 - CV, and abated M&L Builders’s appeal in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 8.2. In our May 1 order, we directed M&L Builders and Krisu Hospitality to promptly inform this court of the resolution of M&L Builders’s bankruptcy proceeding or any other event authorizing rein statement of the appeal. Se e T EX . R. A PP . P. 8.3(a). We received no further communication regarding M&L Builders’s bankruptcy from the parties. I n April 2019, pursuant to an inquiry, the clerk of this court received notice from the bankruptcy court that M&L Builders’s bankruptcy had been resolved . Accordingly, by letter of April 9, 2019, we directed M&L Builders to file a motion requesting reinstatement or an extension of the abatement by April 19 , or the appeal would be dismiss ed . See id . at 42.3(c). To date, M&L Builders has not filed a response to th e court’s letter. T herefore, we reinstate th e appeal for the purpose of dismissal and dismiss the appeal because M&L Builders failed to comply with an order of this court. T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3( c ). It is so ordered. Per Curiam
Exhibit
23.1








CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements:





(1)
            Registration
      Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-150627) pertaining to the Pioneer Southwest
      Energy Partners L.P. 2008 Long Term Incentive Plan,
  and





(2)
            Registration
      Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-162566) of Pioneer Southwest Energy Partners
      L.P and PSE Finance Corporation and in the related
    Prospectus;





of our
reports dated February 26, 2010 with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Pioneer Southwest Energy Partners L.P. and the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting of Pioneer Southwest Energy Partners
L.P. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,
2009.











Dallas,
Texas


February
26, 2010
Molly C. Dwyer 

Clerk of Court 

Office of the Clerk 

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

Post Office Box 193939 

San Francisco, California 94119-3939 

415-355-8000 

September 18, 2017 

 

No.: 17-16886 

D.C. No.: 3:17-cv-00485-WHO 

Short Title: City and County of San Francis v. Donald Trump, et al 

Dear Appellants/Counsel 

A copy of your notice of appeal/petition has been received in the Clerk's office of 

the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The U.S. Court of 

Appeals docket number shown above has been assigned to this case. You must 

indicate this Court of Appeals docket number whenever you communicate with 

this court regarding this case. 

Please furnish this docket number immediately to the court reporter if you place an 

order, or have placed an order, for portions of the trial transcripts. The court 

reporter will need this docket number when communicating with this court. 

Preliminary Injunction Appeal. Circuit Rule 3-3.

Briefing schedule will be set by future court order.

Case 3:17-cv-00485-WHO Document 169 Filed 09/20/17 Page 1 of 1 Case: 17-16886, 09/18/2017, ID: 10585119, DktEntry: 1-5, Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 23.6


Consent of Independent Auditors





The Board of Directors


Kennedy-Wilson Holdings, Inc.:


We consent to the use of our report dated March 31, 2014, with respect to the statements of operations, members’ capital, and cash flows of WH Valle Di Oro 79, LLC for the year ended December 31, 2013, and the related notes to the financial statements, incorporated by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-174742, No. 333-175002, No. 333-175559, No. 333-184752, and No. 333-192059) on Form S-3, the registration statements (No. 333-164928, No. 333-182269, and No. 333-197492) on Form S-8, the registration statement (No. 333-164926) on Form S-1/A and the registration statement (No. 333-186690) on Form S-4 of Kennedy-Wilson Holdings, Inc. in reliance upon the report of KPMG LLP, independent auditors, which report appears in amendment no. 1 to the December 31, 2015 annual report on Form 10-K of Kennedy Wilson Holdings, Inc.











/s/ KPMG LLP


Los Angeles, California


March 25, 2016
Steven W. COOPER, petitioner, v. MISSOURI, et al.

No. 12-8483.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Missouri, Western District, denied.