alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 97 (Friday, May 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 26893]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12331]



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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration


Advisory Committee for Women's Services; Meeting

    Pursuant to Pub.L. 92-463, notice is hereby given of the meeting of 
the Advisory Committee for Women's Services of the Substance Abuse and 
Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).
    The meeting of the Advisory Committee for Women's Services will 
include a discussion of policy and program issues relating to women's 
substance abuse and mental health service needs at SAMHSA, including 
the SAMHSA FY 1996 budget, the SAMHSA Strategic Plan, and on-going 
women's activities within SAMHSA's Center for Substance Abuse 
Prevention, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment and Center for Mental 
Health Services.
    A summary of the meeting and/or a roster of committee members may 
be obtained from: Jennifer B. Fiedelholtz, Executive Secretary, 
Advisory Committee for Women's Services, Office for Women's Services, 
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Parklawn 
Building, Room 13-99, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857, 
Telephone: (301) 443-5184.
    Substantive information may be obtained from the contact whose name 
and telephone number is listed below.

    Committee Name: Advisory Committee for Women's Services.
    Meeting Date: June 12-13, 1995.
    Place: Conference Room B, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, 
Rockville, Maryland 20857.
    Open: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Contact: Jennifer B. Fiedelholtz, Room 13-99, Parklawn Building, 
Telephone (301) 443-5184.

    Dated: May 15, 1995.
Jeri Lipov,
Committee Management Officer, Substance Abuse and Mental Health 
Services Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-12331 Filed 5-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
Exhibit 3.1

ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF

PURAMED BIOSCIENCE, INC

For the purpose of forming a corporation under Chapter 302A of Minnesota Statutes, the following articles of incorporation are hereby adopted:

ARTICLE I

The name of this corporation is PuraMed Bioscience, Inc.

ARTICLE II

The registered office of this corporation in the State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin, is 9372 Creekwood Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55347.

ARTICLE III

This corporation shall have the authority to issue up to an aggregate total of forty five million (45,000,000) shares of capital stock, $.001 par value, and five million (5,000,000) shares of undesignated stock.

ARTICLE IV

The name and address of the incorporator of this corporation is Robert O. Knutson, 9372 Creekwood Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55347.

ARTICLE V

There shall be no cumulative voting by the holders of common stock for the election of directors or any other matter.

ARTICLE VI

The holders of capital stock of this corporation shall have no preemptive rights to subscribe for or otherwise acquire any new or additional shares of stock of this corporation of any class whether now authorized or authorized hereafter, or any options or warrants or other derivative rights to purchase or otherwise acquire any new or additional shares of any class of capital stock.

ARTICLE VII

This corporation shall indemnify all of its officers and directors against any liability asserted against them and incurred in any capacity related to their status or position as a director or officer to the fullest extent permissible under the provisions of the Minnesota Business Corporation Act, as now enacted or hereafter amended.

In WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned incorporator has executed these Articles of Incorporation on the 9th day of May, 2006.

| |                       | 
| | --------------------- | 
| | /s/ Robert O. Knutson | 



(SEAL)

Mary Kiffmeyer

Minnesota Secretary of State Business Services

Retirement Systems of Minnesota Building

60 Empire Drive Ste 100

St. Paul, MN 55103

On May 9, 2006, before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared Robert O. Knutson, to me known to be the person named as Incorporator, and who executed the foregoing document and acknowledged he executed the same as his free act and deed.

| |                      | 
| | -------------------- | 
| | /s/ Rachel E. Julius | 
| | Rachel E. Julius     | 
| | Notary Public        |
USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00318-CAN document 56 filed 02/05/16 page 1 of 1
USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-4   filed 07/14/15   page 1 of 4

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-4   filed 07/14/15   page 2 of 4

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-4   filed 07/14/15   page 3 of 4

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-00315-RL   document 36-4   filed 07/14/15   page 4 of 4
Risa KAPLAN, et al., petitioners, v. CODE BLUE BILLING & CODING, INC., et al.

No. 13-179.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 12, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

AMBER RAEDER )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Cause No. 3:12-cv-00843-PPS-CAN

)

NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING )

PHARMACY, INC. a/k/a NEW )

ENGLAND COMPOUNDING CENTER; )

AMERIDOSE, LLC; ALAUNUS )

PHARMACEUTICAL, LLC; BARRY )

CADDEN; LISA CADDEN; )

and GREGORY CONIGLIARO, )

)

Defendants. )

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT ALAUNUS PHARMACEUTICAL, LLC'S 

MOTION TO DISMISS

Pursuant to L.R. 6.1, Plaintiff Amber Raeder, by counsel, hereby moves this Court for an 

extension of time to respond to Defendant Alaunus Pharmaceutical, LLC's Motion to Dismiss 

through and including April 5, 2013. Plaintiff's response is currently due March 6, 23013. 

Defendant's counsel has been consulted and has no objection to the requested extension. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, by counsel prays for an Order allowing Plaintiff up to and 

including April 5, 2013 to respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and for all relief just and 

proper in the premises. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Douglas A. Mulvaney __________

Douglas A. Mulvaney, # 10263-20

STUTSMAN & MULVANEY

1300 Cassopolis Street

P.O. Box 1337

Elkhart, IN 46515-1337

(574) 266-8500

case 3:12-cv-00843-PPS-CAN document 19 filed 02/18/13 page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court 

on February 18, 2013 using the CM/ECF system which sent notification of this filing to all 

counsel of record.

/s/ Douglas A. Mulvaney____________ 

Douglas A. Mulvaney

case 3:12-cv-00843-PPS-CAN document 19 filed 02/18/13 page 2 of 2
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Annual Report of Beauty Brands Group, Inc., (the “Company”)
on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dan
Kelly, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:




(1)  
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2)   The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




Dated:  March
18, 2008





/S/_________________________________


Dan Kelly, Chief Financial
Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing
certifications are accompanying the Company's Form 10-KSB solely pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed
as part of the Form 10-KSB or as a separate disclosure document.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2205
In Re: WILLIE A. KEY, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Prohibition. (CA-01-3076) Submitted: January 17, 2002 Decided: January 28, 2002 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie A. Key, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Willie A. Key filed this petition for a writ of prohibition, or in the alternative, a writ of mandamus, asking this court to direct the district court to cease certain practices concerning the treatment of pro se petitions and to increase the amount of time in which parties may respond to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. Key also asks this court to order the district court to grant a hearing on his request for injunctive relief and to refund his filing fee. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Mandamus relief is only available when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted, In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987), and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Catawba Indian Tribe , 973 F.2d 1133, 1135 (4th Cir. 1992). The party seeking a writ of mandamus or prohibition carries the heavy burden of showing that he has no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires and that his entitlement to such relief is clear and indisputable. Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc. , 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980); In re Braxton , 258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th Cir. 2001). Key has failed to establish his right to such relief or that he has no other adequate means of relief. Accordingly, we deny Key’s petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus, his request3 for a hearing, and his request for refund of the filing fee. 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.

PETITION DENIED
**EXHIBIT 15**

**LETTER FROM INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM REGARDING UNAUDITED**

**INTERIM FINANCIAL INFORMATION**

**LETTER IN LIEU OF CONSENT FOR REVIEW REPORT**

October 20, 2010 

Boeing Capital Corporation 

500 Naches Avenue SW,3rd Floor 

Renton, Washington 

We have reviewed, in accordance with the standards of the Public CompanyAccounting Oversight Board (United States), the unaudited interim financial information of Boeing Capital Corporation and subsidiaries for the periods ended September 30, 2010 and 2009, as indicated in our report dated October 20, 2010;because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information. 

We are aware that our report referred to above, whichis included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, is incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-154844 on Form S-3. 

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of theRegistration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act. 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

Seattle, Washington 

 
24
EX-35.1
OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE
Centerline Servicing Inc.

The undersigned, Keith Crandall, Servicing Officer of Centerline Servicing
Inc., (f/k/a ARCap Servicing, Inc.), the Special Servicer under that certain
Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement") dated as
of September 28, 2007, relating to the J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage
Securities Corp., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
2007-CIBC20, hereby certifies as follows:

1. a review of the activities of the Special Servicer during the preceding
calendar year or portion thereof and of the performance of the Special Servicer
under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under the undersigned
officer's supervision; and

2. the best of the undersigned's knowledge, based on such review, the
Special Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout such year, or portion
thereof commencing from the Transaction Closing Date.

Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings
given them in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, as of the 7th day of March, 2008, I have hereunto signed
my name.


/s/ Keith Crandall
Keith Crandall
Servicing Officer of
Centerline Servicing Inc.,
a Delaware corporation
Robert Edward Lee SHELL, petitioner, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.

No. 13-5829.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Michael DeWayne HILL, petitioner, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.

No. 13-5856.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 12, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
1

Filed 6/21/16 P. v. Lougin CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MICHAEL LOUGIN,

Defendant and Appellant. A146388

(Alameda County

Super. Ct. No. C172992)

Defendant Michael Lougin appeals following the denial of his motion to reduce a

restitution fine. His court

- appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent

review of the record pursuant t o People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 to determine

whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. We conclude there are no issues

requiring further review and affirm.

Lougin was charged with two counts of sexual acts with a child 10 years old or

you ng er in violation of Penal Code section 288.7 with special allegations as violent

felonies and an allegation of a prior felony

. In accord with a negotiated disposition,

Lougin entered no contest pleas to a single count of oral copulation by force in violati on

of section 288a, and sexual penetration by foreign object in viola tion of section 289. All

other counts and enhancements were dismissed.

On January 6, 2014, in accord with the plea agreement, Lougin was s entenced to

two consecutive six

- year prison t erms. He was awarded 353 days pre

- sentence credits.

Among other fees and fines, he was ordered to pay a $5,000 restitution fine.2

On August 6, 2015, Lougin filed a petition to reduce or vacate the restitution fine on the

grounds that the trial court di d not consider his ability to pa y the fine imposed. The court

denied the petition for lack of jurisdiction because Lougin’ s criminal proceedings were

concluded and the judgment was final. Lougin appealed.

When the f

ine was imposed at Lougin’ s sentencing on January 6, 2014, he was

represented by counsel and ma de no objection. Thereafter, the judgment became final

without appeal, and the court correctly concluded it had no jurisdiction to entertain

Lougi n ’ s petition filed more than 120 days after sentenci ng

. ( Pen. Code, § 1170 (d);

People v. Superior Court ( Cornelius ) (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 343, 348.)

Lougin’ s counsel has represented that he advised Lougin of h is intention to file a

Wende brief in this case and of Lougin ’ s right to submit supplemental wri tten argument

on his own behalf. He has not done so. Lougin has also been advised of his right to

request that counsel be relieved.

Our full review of the record reveals no issue that requires further briefing.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

_________________________ Siggins, J.

We concur:

_________________________ McGuiness, P.J.

_________________________ Pollak, J.
---

Exhibit 99.16

CONSENT OF EXPERT To:
        United States Securities and Exchange Commission Washington, D.C. 20549Alberta Securities CommissionBritish Columbia Securities CommissionManitoba Securities CommissionOntario Securities CommissionAutorité des marchés financiersNew Brunswick Securities CommissionNorthwest Territories Registrar of SecuritiesNova Scotia Securities CommissionNunavut Registrar of SecuritiesPrince Edward Island Securities OfficeSaskatchewan Financial Services CommissionSecurities Commission of Newfoundland and LabradorYukon Registrar of Securities Rio Alto Mining Limited
 Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: Technical report entitled “La Arena Project, Peru”, effectiveDecember 31st, 2014(the “Report”prepared for Rio Alto Mining Limited (the “Company") I, Fernando Angeles, do hereby confirm that I am a qualified person under National Instrument 43-101 and a co-author of the Report. The undersigned, for himself, pursuant to Section 8.3 of National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects confirms thatthis letter is being filed as the consent to the use of extracts from, or summaries of, the Report in the Company's Annual Information Form for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 (the "AIF") and to being named in the AIF. The undersigned further acknowledges that the AIF will be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission as an Exhibit to the Company's Annual Report on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 (the "Form 40-F"), and consents to being named in the Form 40-F and authorizes the use of the information represented therein relating to the Report. DATED the 13rdday of March 2015 /s/ Fernando AngelesFernando Angeles P.Eng.,Senior Mining Consultant,Mining Plus Peru SAC.


---
Exhibit 32.01   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Annual Report of Pacific Blue Energy Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joel Franklin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (1)        The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)        The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.    /s/ Joel Franklin By: Joel Franklin Chief Executive Officer  Dated: April 8, 2010  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
KeOndra M. CHESTANG, petitioner, v. Ray HOBBS, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.

No. 12-8647.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

CHERYL CHAPLIN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 3:14-CV-1718-TLS

)

KEYSTONE RV COMPANY, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Stipulation of Dismissal [ECF No. 32], filed by the

Plaintiff on January 26, 2016. The parties stipulate and agree that this cause of action can be

dismissed with prejudice.

The Court, being duly advised, GRANTS the Stipulation of Dismissal [ECF No. 32]. The

Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), DIRECTS the Clerk of this

Court to DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE this cause of action. Each party will bear its own costs

and attorneys’ fees. 

SO ORDERED on February 29, 2016.

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-01718-TLS document 37 filed 02/29/16 page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 12




Boeing Capital Corporation and Subsidiaries
Computation of Ratio of Income to Fixed Charges


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                     Six months ended
                                                                                         June 30,
(Dollars in millions)                                                             1998              1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income:
<S>                                                                            <C>                <C>        
    Income before provision for income taxes                                   $      50.1        $      39.9
    Fixed charges                                                                     66.8               65.9
                                                                           -------------------------------------
    Income before provision for income taxes and fixed charges                 $     116.9        $     105.8
                                                                           =====================================

Fixed charges:
    Interest expense                                                           $      64.7        $      64.2
    Preferred stock dividends                                                          2.1                1.7
                                                                           -------------------------------------
                                                                               $      66.8        $      65.9
                                                                           =====================================

Ratio of income before provision for income taxes and fixed
    charges to fixed charges                                                           1.75               1.61
                                                                           =====================================
</TABLE>