alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 31909]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11257]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. DEA-1011]


Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Royal 
Emerald Pharmaceuticals

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.

ACTION: Notice of application.

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

SUMMARY: Royal Emerald Pharmaceuticals has applied to be registered as 
a bulk manufacturer 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 submit electronic comments on or 
objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before 
July 25, 2022. Such persons may also file a written request for a 
hearing on the application on or before July 25, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) requires that all 
comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into 
the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier 
comments. Please go to https://www.regulations.gov and follow the 
online instructions at that site for submitting comments. Upon 
submission of your comment, you will receive a Comment Tracking Number. 
Please be aware that submitted comments are not instantaneously 
available for public view on https://www.regulations.gov. If you have 
received a Comment Tracking Number, your comment has been successfully 
submitted and there is no need to resubmit the same comment.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this 
is notice that on March 25, 2022, Royal Emerald Pharmaceuticals, 14011 
Palm Drive, Desert Hot Springs, California 92240-6845, applied to be 
registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of 
controlled substance(s):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Drug
          Controlled  substance            code          Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marihuana Extract.......................    7350  I
Marihuana...............................    7360  I
Tetrahydrocannabinols...................    7370  I
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to bulk manufacture the listed controlled 
substances to provide Marihuana (Cannabis) as botanical raw material 
and/or active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) to DEA research 
registrants and manufacturers. No other activities for these drug codes 
are authorized for this registration.

Kristi N. O'Malley,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-11257 Filed 5-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
Attachment

I. PLAINTIFFS 

(C) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)

Colin Phillips (SBN# 24105937)

Jason McManis (SBN# 24088032)

Chun Deng (SBN# 24133178)

Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Mensing, PLLC

1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2500

Houston, Texas 77010

(713) 655-1101

Andrea L. Fair (SBN# 24078488)

Ward, Smith, & Hill, PLLC

1507 Bill Owens Parkway

Longview, Texas 75604

(903) 757-6400

Case 2:23-cv-00349-JRG Document 1-2 Filed 07/27/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 24
Joe Daniel HOLT, Jr., petitioner, v. Robert M. BAKER, et al.

No. 17-8958.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See *Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals,*506 U.S. 1, 113 S.Ct. 397, 121 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992)*(per curiam )* .
```

```

----

Updated May 24, 2013
AVALON OIL & GAS, INC.

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                            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 AVALON OIL & GAS, INC. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kent
Rodriguez, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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, as amended; and

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

                                                By:  /s/ Kent Rodriguez
                                                    ------------------
                                                    Kent Rodriguez
                                                    Chief Executive Officer and
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
                                                    July 13, 2006
EXHIBIT 10.2

First Amendment to
Employment Agreement

This
First Amendment to Employment Agreement (the First Amendment) amends the
Employment Agreement effective as of June 5, 2007 by and between Palatin Technologies,
Inc. and Stephen T. Wills (the Employment Agreement), and is effective as of
December 7, 2007. The purpose of this First Amendment is to correct an error in the
Employment Agreement.

Section
6.5 (c) of the Employment Agreement is amended by striking the words 50% or
less and substituting in lieu thereof the words 50% or more.

This
First Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of New Jersey.

This
First Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall
constitute an original, and all of which, taken together, shall be deemed to constitute
one and the same agreement.

As
amended hereby the Employment Agreement remains in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as an instrument under seal
effective as of the day and year set forth above.

|                                                                     |  |                        |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- |  | 
|PALATIN TECHNOLOGIES, INC.                                           |  | EMPLOYEE              
|                                                                    
|                                                                    
|By:                                                                  |  |                        |  | 
|Name: Carl SpanaTitle: Chief Executive Officer and
        President |  | Stephen T. Wills      
|                                                                    
|Date: December 7, 2007                                               |  | Date: December 7, 2007
James WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. Officer CLARK, et al.

No. 17-8748.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32.2

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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Trimeris, Inc. (the Company) for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Andrew L. Graham, Chief Financial 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 my knowledge:

(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 results of operations of the Company.



|                                                                                     
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ ANDREW L. GRAHAM                                                                 
|Andrew L. Graham Chief Financial Officer and Secretary (Principal Accounting Officer)

August 8, 2008

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement required by § 906 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.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

#### **CERTIFICATIONS**

####  

I,James E. Hohmann, certify that:

 

1.I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Lincoln Benefit LifeCompany;

 

2.Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)                          Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)                         Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c)                          Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

5.The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors 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 of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)                         Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

May7, 2007

 
|   |   | /s/ James E. Hohmann                  |   |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   |                                  |
|   |   | James E. Hohmann                      |
|   |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

E-2

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

RONALD ANDERSON §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-302

OFFICER DANILA, ET AL. §

 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Ronald Anderson, a prisoner confined at the Stiles Unit of the Texas Department

of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed this civilrights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The action was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 for

findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition of the case.

Discussion

On September 5, 2023, Plaintiff was ordered to pay the $402.00 filing fee or submit an

application to proceed in forma pauperis within twenty days of the date of the order. Plaintiff

responded to the order by indicating that he wished to pursue this action, but he did not comply with

the order regarding the filing fee. On November 30, 2003, Plaintiff was again ordered to submit an

application to proceed in forma pauperis or to pay the filing fee. As of this date, Plaintiff has not

paid the filing fee or requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes the district court to dismiss an action sua

sponte for failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order. Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031

(5th Cir. 1998). “The power to invoke this sanction is necessary in order to prevent undue delays

Case 1:23-cv-00302-MAC-ZJH Document 15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:

137
in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts.” 

Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962); Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir.

1997).

By choosing not to comply with the court order, Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this action

diligently. Accordingly, this action should be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution.

Recommendation

This action should be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Objections

Within fourteen days after receipt of the magistrate judge’s report, any party may serve and

file written objections to the findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations of the

magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and

recommendations contained within this report within fourteen days after service shall bar an

aggrieved party from the entitlement of de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings,

conclusions and recommendations and from appellate review of factual findings and legal

conclusions accepted by the district court except on grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United

Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R.

CIV. P. 72. 

2

_________________________

Zack Hawthorn

United States Magistrate Judge SIGNED this 5th day of January, 2024.

Case 1:23-cv-00302-MAC-ZJH Document 15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:

138
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 

v. 

LOREN EDWARD PAGE, 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CASE NUMBER 6:23-CR-00056-JCB

 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION ON GUILTY PLEA 

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

PURSUANT TO RULE 11(c)(1)(C)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b), this matter has been referred by the District Court for 

administration of a plea of guilty under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

On May 16, 2023, this cause came before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge 

for a plea of guilty to an Information charging the defendant in Count One with a violation of Title 

18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) and (b)(2) – Possessing or Accessing Child Pornography. After 

conducting said proceeding in the form and manner prescribed by Federal Rules of Criminal 

Procedure Rule 11, the undersigned finds that: 

a. the Defendant, after consultation with counsel of record, has knowingly and 

voluntarily consented to the administration of the Guilty Plea in this cause by a United States 

Magistrate Judge, subject to a final acceptance and imposition of sentence by the District Judge; 

b. the Defendant and the government have entered into a plea agreement which has 

been filed and disclosed in open court pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 

11(c)(2); 

c. the Defendant is fully competent and capable of entering an informed plea, that the 

defendant is aware of the nature of the charges, the maximum penalties, and the consequences of 

Case 6:23-cr-00056-JCB-JDL Document 10 Filed 05/16/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:

20
the plea, and that the plea of guilty is a knowing and voluntary plea supported by an independent 

basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of the offense; and 

d. the Defendant understands each of the constitutional and statutory rights 

enumerated in Rule 11(b)and wishes to waive these rights, including the right to a trial by jury. 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the District Court accept the Plea Agreement 

and the Guilty Plea of the Defendant and that LOREN EDWARD PAGE should be adjudged 

guilty of that offense, reserving to the District Judge the option of rejecting the Plea Agreement 

pursuant to Rule 11(c)(5) if, after review of the presentence report, the agreed sentence is 

determined not to be the appropriate disposition of the case. 

Defendant has waived his right to object to the findings of the Magistrate Judge in this 

matter so the Court will present this Report and Recommendation to District Judge J. Campbell 

Barker for adoption immediately upon issuance. 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 16th day of May, 2023.

Case 6:23-cr-00056-JCB-JDL Document 10 Filed 05/16/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:

21
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE EASTERN DISTRICT TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION

BENEFICIENT and BRAD HEPPNER,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ALEXANDER GLADSTONE and DOW 

JONES & CO., INC., 

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 6:23-CV-00376-JDK

ORDER 

The Court hereby GRANTS the Consent Motion to Withdraw as Counsel filed by 

Theresa House, Ryan Hartman, and Devin Adams, of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, and 

Otis W. Carroll, Jr. and Mandy Carroll Nelson, of Carroll Maloney Henry & Nelson PLLC. 

Accordingly, those individuals are hereby terminated as counsel of record. 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15th October, 2024.

Case 6:23-cv-00376-JDK Document 69 Filed 10/15/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 1682
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           3,669
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           6,249
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     69,587
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          69,587
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            69,587
<LOANS>                                        349,977
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,910
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 517,848
<DEPOSITS>                                     318,215
<SHORT-TERM>                                    25,002
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              5,155
<LONG-TERM>                                    135,782
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        33,694
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 517,848
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 13,107
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                5,338
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                18,445
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               7,632
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,179
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            6,266
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      290
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  62
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  4,323
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,447
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,447
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,665
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.62
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.15
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,165
<LOANS-PAST>                                       118
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,648
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       42
<RECOVERIES>                                        14
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,910
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          2,910


</TABLE>
Charles Dean COUCHMAN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8480.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

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

Justice GORSUCH took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.