alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 143 (Thursday, July 29, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 40877]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16142]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. DEA-871]


Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Purisys, LLC

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.

ACTION: Notice of application.

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

SUMMARY: Purisys, LLC. has applied to be registered as an importer of 
basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to Supplementary 
Information listed below for further drug information.

DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), 
and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to 
the issuance of the proposed registration on or before August 30, 2021. 
Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the 
application on or before August 30, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement 
Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 
8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for a 
hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: 
Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All 
request for a hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement 
Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/OALJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, 
Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, 
Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, 
Springfield, Virginia 22152.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this 
is notice that on June 29, 2021, Purisys, LLC., 1550 Olympic Drive, 
Athens, Georgia 3601-1602, applied to be registered as an importer of 
the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Drug
          Controlled substance            code           Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opium, raw.............................    9600  II
Opium, powdered........................    9639  II
Opium, granulated......................    9640  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to import Opium, raw (9600), Opium, powered 
(9639) and Opium, granulated (9640) to manufacture Active 
Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) only for distribution to its customers. 
No other activity for these drug codes is authorized for this 
registration. Approval of permit applications will occur only when the 
registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized 
under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import 
of the Food and Drug Administration-approved or non-approved finished 
dosage forms for commercial sale.

Brian S. Besser,
Acting Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021-16142 Filed 7-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
Order entered May 26, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00321-CR

MICHAEL FOY WALLING, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 296-83626-2017

ORDER

We have received the Supplemental Clerk’s Record containing (1) the 

Amended Bill of Costs dated May 10, 2022, and (2) the trial court’s Order 

Assessing the Recalculated Costs dated May 16, 2022. Accordingly, we 

REINSTATE this appeal as of the date of this Order.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL

PRESIDING JUSTICE
**Exhibit
      32.1**





Written
      Statement of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Traffix, Inc.
      ("Registrant"), hereby certifies that the Registrant’s annual Report on Form
      10-K for the year ended November 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with
      the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Registrant.




/S/ Jeffrey
              L. SchwartzJEFFREY
              L. SCHWARTZChairman
                and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         130,967
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,206,510
<ALLOWANCES>                                   896,664
<INVENTORY>                                  3,532,684
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,826,854
<PP&E>                                      14,524,708
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,579,074
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,139,989
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,080,349
<BONDS>                                      3,776,432
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    15,769,018
<OTHER-SE>                                (15,485,810)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,139,989
<SALES>                                      20,055,14
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,055,014
<CGS>                                       11,931,097
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,290,080
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                94,830
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,120,695
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,481,688)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,481,688)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 110,476
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              5,350,286
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   979,074
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Levenston HALL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-50334

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 16, 2011.

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

Levenston Hall, Terre Haute, IN, pro se.

Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Levenston Hall, federal prisoner # 82299-080, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal from the district court’s order granting his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), in which he sought a reduction in his sentences for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base (crack cocaine) and distribution of crack cocaine. The district court reduced his sentences to 188 months of imprisonment pursuant to recent amendments to the crack cocaine guidelines.

The website of the .Bureau of Prisons shows that Hall was released from prison on September 3, 2010. “Where a defendant has begun serving a term of supervised release, the appeal of the denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion is moot.” *United States v. Booker,*645 F.3d 328, 328 (5th Cir.2011). Here, as with the defendant in *Booker,*Hall “makes no mention of his term of supervised release and does not argue that it should be terminated; his arguments pertain only to relief under § 3582(c)(2). Any termination of supervised release must be sought by a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1).” *Booker,*645 F.3d at 328.

IT IS ORDERED that Hall’s motion to proceed IFP is DENIED as unnecessary and the appeal is DISMISSED as moot.

*

 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.
# C_2019213EN.01008001.xml

| 24.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/80 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/80

---

Action brought on 3 May 2019 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO (Representation of two curved red lines arranged one above the other)

(Case T-290/19)

(2019/C 213/76)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Stada Arzneimittel AG (Bad Vilbel, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark (Representation of two curved red lines arranged one above the other) — Application for registration No 1 375 540

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 February 2019 in Case R 1918/2018-5

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. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of StarTek, Inc. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersignedindividuals, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

2)              The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

 

 
| Date:  October 29, 2010 | /s/A. LAURENCE JONES                   |   |
|------------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                         | A. Laurence Jones                      |
|                         | President and Chief  Executive Officer |

 

 
| Date:  October 29, 2010 | /s/ DAVID G. DURHAM                                              |   |
|------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                         | David G. Durham                                                  |
|                         | Executive Vice President,  Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906,has been provided to the Corporation and will be retained by the Corporationand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

----
#### In the Matter of Richard Farran, Respondent, v Nicole Fenner, Appellant.

[943 NYS2d 173]

In a child custody and visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Sheares, J.), dated January 10, 2011, which, after a hearing, granted the father’s petition to modify a prior order of custody and visitation dated January 4, 2005, so as to award him sole custody of the child with certain visitation to the mother.

Ordered that the order dated January 10, 2011, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

To modify an existing custody arrangement, there must be a showing of a change in circumstances such that modification is required to protect the best interests of the child *(see Matter of Morillo v Nunez,*91 AD3d 875 [2012]; *Matter of Dorsa v Dorsa,*90 AD3d 1046 [2011]; *Matter of Nava v Kinsler,*85 AD3d 1186, 1186 [2011]). “ ‘[S]ince the Family Court’s custody determination is largely dependent upon an assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and upon the character, temperament, and sincerity of the parents, its determination should not be disturbed unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the *1117record’ ” *(Matter of Sweetser v Willis,*91 AD3d 963, 963-964 [2012], quoting *Matter of Plaza v Plaza,*305 AD2d 607, 607 [2003]; *see Dhingra v Puri,*62 AD3d 935 [2009]).

Here, the father presented evidence at the hearing which established that the child had developed recurring infections while in the mother’s care, and the mother failed to treat the infections as prescribed by the doctor. In addition, the father’s evidence showed that the child had numerous absences and was late to school on many occasions when she was in the mother’s care. The child is thriving in the father’s care, and her previously recurring medical issues have resolved. Moreover, the father actively participates in the child’s educational process and fosters the relationship between the child and the noncustodial parent. This evidence was sufficient to demonstrate a change in circumstances warranting a modification of the prior order of custody to protect the best interests of the child. Accordingly, we decline to disturb the Family Court’s award of sole custody of the child to the father with certain visitation to the mother. Skelos, J.E, Dillon, Eng and Austin, JJ, concur.
(55 Misc. Rep. 402.)

#### ÆTNA LIFE INS. CO. v. NORTH STAR MINES CO.

(Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County.

July, 1907.)

Pleading—Answer—Demurrer.

Where defendant, in a statement of the separate defense, intended to reiterate the allegations in previous paragraphs of his answer, but instead referred to them as paragraphs of “this amended complaint,” a demurrer to the answer will be sustained.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 39, Pleading, §§ 193, 408-421.]

Action by the JEtna Life Insurance' Company against the North Star Mines Company. Demurrer to second counterclaim sustained.

E. Sidney Berry, for plaintiff.

Joseph H. Choate, Jr., for defendant.

BISCHOFE, J.

Because of what is doubtless an error in the form of the counterclaim demurred to, I cannot determine the issue of law upon the merits of the pleading, as to substance, and the demurrer must be sustained. The action is for premiums upon policies of insurance against injury to employés of the defendant, and the counterclaim is based upon claims accruing to the employés and collectible from the plaintiff by the defendant as "trustee.”

There is no averment in the counterclaim that the parties had entered into any contractual relations, since the contract is not alleged otherwise than by reiteration of “each and every allegation contained in the first, fourth, and fifth paragraphs of this amended complaint.” Doubt*546less, the defendant intended to refer to the answer, not the complaint; but the issue of law must be determined upon the words employed. Resort to the complaint, which is not, indeed, an “amended complaint,” does not aid the counterclaim, because the paragraphs referred to do not set forth the contract, and, as the counterclaim stands, there is no statement of fact to support the plaintiff’s liability to the defendant either as “trustee” or otherwise. The demurrer is therefore sustained, with costs, with leave to defendant to amend upon payment of costs within 20 days.

Demurrer sustained, with costs, with leave to defendant to amend upon payment of costs within 20 days.
Order entered April 27, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01028-CR

ADOLPH JUNIOR MENJIVAR, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F13-57185-U

ORDER

The Court ORDERS court reporter Peri Wood to file, within FIFTEEN DAYS of the 

date of this order, a supplemental record containing State’s Exhibit nos. 2, 17, 39, and 67, and 

Defendant’s Exhibit nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 12.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Peri 

Wood, official court reporter, 292nd Judicial District, and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ ADA BROWN

JUSTICE
860 F.2d 1093

#### NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, v. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION, Appellants.

No. 87-5244.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Oct. 5, 1988.

Before WALD, Chief Judge, and ROBINSON, MIKVA, EDWARDS, RUTH BADER GINSBURG, STARR, SILBERMAN, BUCKLEY, WILLIAMS, D.H. GINSBURG and SENTELLE, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Appellant's suggestion for rehearing *en banc*has been circulated to the full court. The taking of a vote was requested. Thereafter, a majority of the judges of the court in regular active service voted in favor of the suggestion. Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED, by the Court *en banc,*that this case will be considered and decided by the Court sitting *en banc.*

A future order will govern further proceedings.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-03-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,486
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (382)
<INVENTORY>                                     14,148
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,210
<PP&E>                                          76,463
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,726
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 153,226
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,564
<BONDS>                                         52,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      62,492
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   153,226
<SALES>                                         83,820
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                83,820
<CGS>                                           68,442
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,423
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   142
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   175
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,557
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,044)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         9
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,053)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 27,937
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,884
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
- 1 -

State of New York

Court of Appeals

MEMORANDUM

This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to 

revision before publication in the New York Reports.

No. 85 

JPMorgan Chase Bank, National 

Association,

 Respondent,

 v.

Ross R. Caliguri, &c.,

 Appellant,

et al.,

 Defendants.

Jeffrey Herzberg, for appellant. 

Alan E. Schoenfeld, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM:

The judgment appealed from and so much of the Appellate Division order reviewed 

should be affirmed, with costs.
- 2 - No. 85

- 2 -

In this mortgage foreclosure action, defendant raised the affirmative defense of 

standing in his answer. Accordingly, to be entitled to summary judgment dismissing that 

defense, plaintiff bore the burden to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that it had standing to 

foreclose. There is no “checklist” of required proof to establish standing. Here, plaintiff 

satisfied its burden through evidence that it possessed the note when it commenced this 

action, including a copy of the original note endorsed in blank, and other supporting 

material, including an affidavit of possession based on an employee’s review of plaintiff’s 

business records (see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v Taylor, 25 NY3d 355, 361 [2015]). In 

response, defendant failed to raise any factual issue as to plaintiff’s standing or the 

authenticity of the note. 

Under these circumstances, Supreme Court did not err in denying defendant’s 

request for inspection of the original note. Contrary to defendant’s contention, there is no 

per se rule requiring the court to grant a request for inspection of the original note prior to 

awarding summary judgment to a plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure action (see id. at 362). 

To the extent that cases have held or suggested otherwise, they should not be followed (see 

e.g. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Hill, 133 AD3d 1057, 1058-1059 [3d Dept 2015]).

Defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Judgment appealed from and so much of the Appellate Division order reviewed affirmed, 

with costs, in a memorandum. Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Stein, Fahey,

Garcia, Wilson and Feinman concur.

Decided December 17, 2020
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Small Grains and Potato Germplasm Research: Aberdeen, ID
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Aberdeen, Idaho Small Grains and Potato Germplasm Research Docs





- Find a person
- Find a location
- ARS Organizational Chart
- People

emplinkswipheadline bar


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov