alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 220A/22 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 220A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6622 June 2023 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 220A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6622 June 2023

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2023/C 220 A/01 | Notice of open competition – EPSO/AD/402/23 – Administrators (AD 6) in the following fields: 1. Microeconomics/macroeconomics, 2. Financial economics, 3. Industrial economics | 1 |

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2023/C 220 A/01

Notice of open competition – EPSO/AD/402/23 – Administrators (AD 6) in the following fields: 1. Microeconomics/macroeconomics, 2. Financial economics, 3. Industrial economics

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALEXANDER McLAREN; et al., 

Appellants, 

 v. 

PETER H. ARKISON; et al., 

Appellees.

No. 15-35849 

D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00575-TSZ 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Thomas S. Zilly, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 9, 2017**

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Alexander McLaren appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing for failure to prosecute his appeal of a bankruptcy court order. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. AlTorki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm. 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

AUG 14 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-35849 

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed McLaren’s 

appeal for failure to prosecute because McLaren had failed to file the opening brief 

more than 17 months after the appeal was filed. See id. at 1384-85 (discussing 

factors to be considered before dismissing a case for failure to prosecute); Ferdik v. 

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (although dismissal is a harsh 

penalty, the district court’s dismissal should not be disturbed absent “a definite and 

firm conviction” that it “committed a clear error of judgment” (citations and 

internal quotation marks omitted)). Contrary to McLaren’s contention, the district 

court did not abuse its discretion when it denied his untimely motion for an 

extension of time to file the opening brief because McLaren failed to establish 

extraordinary circumstances. See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 

1253, 1258-62 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and factors to be 

considered before denying an untimely motion for an extension of a deadline).

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied McLaren’s 

motion for reconsideration because McLaren failed to demonstrate any grounds for 

relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 

1262 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and identifying 

circumstances when reconsideration is appropriate).

AFFIRMED.
|  | (3)   | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|--|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | (4)   | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|              | /s/ Steve Schaeffer              |
|-------------------|----------------------------------|
|              | Steve      Schaeffer             |
|              | Principal      Financial Officer |
|              | Modigene      Inc.               |
| May      14, 2009 |                             |

----
Independent Auditors' Consent



To the Shareholders and Board of Trustees of
Smith Barney Variable Account Funds:

We consent to the use of our reports dated February 8, 1999, with 
respect to the Funds listed below of Smith Barney Variable Account 
Funds, incorporated herein by reference and to the references to our 
Firm under the headings "Financial Highlights" in the Prospectus and 
"Independent Auditors" in the Statement of Additional Information.

Funds
Income and Growth Portfolio
U.S. Government/High Quality Securities Portfolio
Reserve Account Portfolio



	KPMG LLP


New York, New York
April 26, 1999
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7091
RICARDO ST. AUBIN GREEN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID CHESTER, Respondent - Appellee, and STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-144-5-BO) Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 19, 2002 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Ricardo St. Aubin Green, Appellant Pro Se. Diane Appleton Reeves, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Ricardo St. Aubin Green, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We dismiss the appeal of the district court’s denial of Green’s § 2254 petition for lack of jurisdiction because Appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed as to that order. Parties are acc orded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4 (a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court’s order denying Green’s § 2254 petition was entered on the docket on April 10, 2001. Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on April 28, 2002. Because Appellant failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Green’s notice of appeal is timely, however, as to the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reconsider. We review the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse4 of discretion. NOW v. Operation Rescue , 47 F.3d 667, 669 (4th Cir. 1995). Because Green’s motion stated no viable ground for relief under the rule, we find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the ruling of the district court. 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.

DISMISSED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

FRANCIS B. HARRIS,

Appellant

v.

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, COMMISSIONER, 

JOHN WETZEL, GRIEVANCE COORDINATOR, DORINA VARNER, 

SUPERINTENDENT, ROBERT 

GILMORE, GRIEVANCE OFFICER, 

TRACY SHAWLEY, JOHN AND JANE 

DOE,

Appellees

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 57 MAP 2016

Appeal from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court dated 4/13/16, 

exited on 4/14/16, at No. 149 MD 2016

ORDER

PER CURIAM DECIDED: January 17, 2017

AND NOW, this 17th day of January, 2017, the Order of the Commonwealth 

Court is AFFIRMED. Appellant’s Motion requesting appointment of counsel or 

appointment of law student to assist is DENIED. Appellant’s Motion Requesting Nunc 

Pro Tunc and Letter in Application are DENIED.
**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 Quarterly Report of Performance Health Technologies, Inc.
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Robert D. Prunetti, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
      certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:





1)           The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.





Date:  August
                  20, 2007
              By:
              /s/ Robert
                D. PrunettiRobert
                  D. PrunettiPresident
                and
                Chief Executive Officer(Principal
                Executive Officer)
Eddie Taylor KNOTT, Lee Edward Knott, and Henry Knott, II v. DIXIE-DENNING SUPPLY COMPANY.

No. 56P04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 6, 2004.

Sid Hassell, Jr., Washington, for Knott et al.

Wayland J. Sermons, Jr., Washington, for Dixie-Denning Supply Co.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th day of February 2004 by Plaintiffs in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of May 2004."
To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
Smith Barney Funds, Inc.:

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements
of Smith Barney Funds, Inc., consisting of Short-Term High Grade
Bond Fund, U.S. Government Securities Fund, and the Large Cap
Value Fund (the "Funds") for the year ended December 31, 1998, we
considered its internal control, including control activities for
safeguarding securities, in order to determine our auditing
procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the
financial statements and to comply with the requirements of Form
N-SAR, not to provide assurance on the internal control.

The management of the Funds is responsible for establishing and
maintaining internal control.  In fulfilling this responsibility,
estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the
expected benefits and related costs of controls.  Generally,
controls that are relevant to an audit pertain to the entity's
objective of preparing financial statements for external purposes
that are fairly presented in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles. Those controls include the safeguarding of
assets against unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in internal control, errors or
fraud may occur and not be detected.  Also, projection of any
evaluation of internal control to future periods is subject to
the risk that it may become inadequate because of changes in
conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and operation
may deteriorate.

Our consideration of the internal control would not necessarily
disclose all matters in the internal control that might be
material weaknesses under standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A material weakness
is a condition in which the design or operation of one or more of
the internal control components does not reduce to a relatively
low level the risk that misstatements caused by error or fraud in
amounts that would be material in relation to the financial
statements being audited may occur and not be detected within a
timely period by employees in the normal course of performing
their assigned functions.  However, we noted no matters involving
the internal control and its operation, including controls for
safeguarding securities that we consider to be material
weaknesses as defined above.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of
management, the Board of Directors of the Funds, and the
Securities and Exchange Commission.





February 8, 1999
John D. OLIVER, OHR Building, Inc. and Glenda Faye Motsinger Oliver, Plaintiffs, v. Zachary R. BYNUM, III, Bynum & Murphrey, PLLC, MTNJ Construction Company, Inc. and M.T.N.J. Development Company, Inc., Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs v. Randolph M. James and Paul Freer, Counterclaim Defendants

No. 200P04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 24, 2004.

Stephen Russell, for Oliver, Oliver and OHR.

G. Gray Wilson, Richard V. Bennett, Winston-Salem, for Bynum, Bynum Murphy, MTNJ.

Urs R. Gsteiger, Winston-Salem, for Paul Freer.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 30th day of April 2004 by Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendant (James) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th day of June 2004."
FILED

July 8, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

EASTERN SECTI ON

RONALD E. LEONARD a nd wi f e ) WASHI NGTON COUNTY

VI CKI E J . LEONARD ) 03A01- 9611- CH- 00370

)

Pl a i ntif f s - Appe lle e s )

)

) HON. THOMAS J . SEELEY, J R. ,

v. ) J UDGE

) 

)

BUTLER MARKLAND, Cont r a c t or )

)

De f e nda nt - Appe l l a nt ) AFFI RMED AND REMANDED

M. STANLEY GI VENS OF J OHNSON CI TY FOR APPELLANT

ROBERT D. ARNOLD OF J OHNSON CI TY FOR APPELLEES

 O P I N I O N

 Godda r d, P. J .

Thi s c ont r ove r s y a r os e a s a r e s ul t of a c ont r a c t

e nt e r e d i nt o be t we e n Robe r t E. Le ona r d a nd hi s wi f e , Vi c ki e J .

Le ona r d a nd But l e r Ma r kl a nd. The c ont r a c t pr ovi de d t ha t Mr .

Ma r kl a nd woul d bui l d a hous e on a l ot owne d by t he Le ona r ds a t a

t ot a l c os t of $96, 000.
2

The Tr i a l Cour t f ound i n a c c or da nc e wi t h t he c ompl a i nt

t ha t t he r e we r e nume r ous de f e c t s i n c onne c t i on wi t h t he

c ons t r uc t i on of t he hous e a nd t ha t i t wa s not bui l t i n a

wor kma nl i ke ma nne r . He a c c or di ngl y e nt e r e d a j udgme nt of

$30, 267. 06, a f t e r gi vi ng c r e di t f or $3500, whi c h wa s t he ba l a nc e

owe d on t he c ont r a c t a nd wa s be i ng he l d by a ba nk.

Mr . Ma r kl a nd a ppe a l s , r a i s i ng t he f ol l owi ng t wo i s s ue s :

Whe t he r t he Tr i a l Cour t e r r e d i n gr a nt i ng a

J udgme nt f or a n e nt i r e l y ne w, a nd be t t e r a i r

c ondi t i oni ng uni t ?

Whe t he r t he Tr i a l Cour t e r r e d i n gr a nt i ng a

J udgme nt t o r e pl a c e r a t he r t ha n r e pa i r ot he r i t e ms i n

t he hous e ?

Our r e a di ng of t he r e c or d a nd t he a ppe l l a t e br i e f s of

t he pa r t i e s , pe r s ua de s us t he e vi de nc e pr e ponde r a t e s i n f a vor of

t he Tr i a l Cour t ' s de t e r mi na t i on a s t o bot h i s s ue s , a nd t ha t t hi s

i s a n a ppr opr i a t e c a s e f or a f f i r ma nc e unde r Rul e 10( a ) of t hi s

Cour t .

The Tr i a l Cour t i s a c c or di ngl y a f f i r me d a nd t he c a us e

i s r e ma nde d f or c ol l e c t i on of t he j udgme nt a nd c os t s be l ow.

Cos t s of a ppe a l a r e a dj udge d a ga i ns t Mr . Ma r kl a nd a nd hi s s ur e t y.

_______________________________

Hous t on M. Godda r d, P. J .
3

CONCUR:

________________________________

He r s c he l P. Fr a nks , J .

________________________________

Don T. Mc Mur r a y, J .
Charlene R. HEADLEY, as Administratrix of the Estate of Larry Stephen Headley v. Jennifer Lynn WILLIAMS.

No. 74P04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 6, 2004.

Kent L. Hamrick, Winston-Salem, for Williams.

Neil C. Williams, Charlotte, for Headley.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 20th day of February 2004 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of May 2004."
Exhibit 4.3


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We have issued our
report dated July 25, 2019, with respect to the financial statement of Smart Trust 437 contained in Amendment No. 2 to the Registration
Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-231056) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


July 25, 2019
**
Exhibit 35.1 

Servicer Compliance Statement of Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation 

**NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION**

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

The undersigned, Kevin J. Cullum, President and Chief Executive Officer of NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, a California corporation (the“Company”), does hereby certify, in his capacity as such corporate officer, as follows: 

(1) The undersigned has caused a reviewof the activities of the Company, in its capacity as Servicer, during the 12-month period ended March 31, 2019 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance pursuant to the Sale and ServicingAgreement, dated as of February 28, 2018 (the “Agreement”), by and among the Company, individually and as servicer, Nissan Auto Receivables Corporation II, as seller, and Nissan Auto Receivables2018-A Owner Trust, to be conducted under his supervision; and 

(2) To the best of theundersigned’s knowledge, based upon such review, the Company has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. 

This Officer’s Certificate is being furnished pursuant to Item 1123 of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB forpublicly-issued asset-backed securities. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Agreement. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand effective as of the 27th day of June, 2019. 

 
/s/ Kevin J. CullumKevin J. CullumPresident and Chief Executive Officer**
(logo)Rialto

CAPITAL

 

  

2018 Annual Statement of Servicer Compliance (Item1123)

 

 

Poolingand Servicing Agreement (the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement") datedas of May 1, 2018 by and among Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities,Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Master Servicer,Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC asOperating Advisor and as Asset Representations Reviewer, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association as Certificate Administrator, and Wilmington Trust,National Association as Trustee relating to the Wells Fargo Commercial MortgageTrust 2018-C44, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2018-C44(WFCM 2018-C44)

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Rialto CapitalAdvisors, LLC, as special servicer (the “Special Servicer”) herein certifies tothe following:

 

1.     Allservicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under thePooling and Servicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the SpecialServicer.

 

2.     Areview of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer forthe period of May 17, 2018 to December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”) inaccordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under mysupervision.

 

3.     Tothe best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the terms of the Pooling and ServicingAgreement, in all material respects for the Reporting Period and if there hasbeen a failure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect eachfailure and the nature and status thereof has been specifically identifiedherein.

 

 

Certified by: /s/ Adam Singer

Adam Singer, Managing Director 

 

Date: March 1, 2019
# Official Journal L 325/2017

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 325 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 608 December 2017 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 325

English edition

Legislation

Volume 608 December 2017

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/2119 of 22 November 2017 establishing the ‘Prodcom list’ of industrial products provided for by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3924/91 (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/2119 of 22 November 2017 establishing the ‘Prodcom list’ of industrial products provided for by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3924/91 (
  1
  )

1

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
EXHIBIT 32.1




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350




In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Effective
Profitable Software, Inc. for the year ending March 31, 2008, I, Gary
Moore, Chief Executive Officer of Effective Profitable Software, Inc. hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief,
that:




1.
            Such
      Quarterly Report of Form 10-QSB for the year ending March 31, 2008, fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
            The
      information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB  for
      the year ended March 31, 2008, fairly represents in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of Effective Profitable
      Software, Inc.




Date:
      May 14, 2008By:/s/ Gary
      MooreGary
      Moore
              Chief
      Executive Officer