alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 179 (Monday, September 15, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53250-53251]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21447]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS


Updated OGE Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board

AGENCY: Office of Government Ethics (OGE).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the appointment of the members of 
the updated OGE Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance Review 
Board.

DATES: Effective Date: September 15, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph E. Gangloff, Deputy Director 
for Agency Programs, Office of Government Ethics, Suite 500, 1201 New 
York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20005-3917; Telephone: 202-482-9300; 
TDD: 202-482-9293; FAX: 202-482-9238.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 5 U.S.C. 4314(c) requires each agency to 
establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of 
Personnel Management at 5 CFR part 430, subpart C and Sec.  430.310 
thereof in particular, one or more Senior Executive Service performance 
review boards. As a small executive branch agency, OGE has just one 
board. In order to ensure an adequate level of staffing and to avoid a 
constant series of recusals, the designated members of OGE's SES 
Performance Review Board are being drawn, as in the past, in large 
measure from the ranks of other agencies. The board shall review and 
evaluate the initial appraisal of each OGE senior executive's 
performance by his or her supervisor, along with any recommendations in 
each instance to the appointing authority relative to the performance 
of the senior executive. This notice updates the membership of

[[Page 53251]]

OGE's SES Performance Review Board as it was most recently published at 
72 FR 54666-54667 (September 26, 2007).

    Approved: September 9, 2008.
Robert I. Cusick,
Director, Office of Government Ethics.
    The following officials have been appointed as regular members of 
the SES Performance Review Board of the Office of Government Ethics:

Joseph E. Gangloff [Chair], Deputy Director for Agency Programs, Office 
of Government Ethics;
Don W. Fox [Alternate Chair], General Counsel, Office of Government 
Ethics;
Daniel L. Koffsky, Special Counsel, Office of Legal Counsel, Department 
of Justice;
David Maggi, Chief, Ethics Law and Programs Division, Office of the 
Assistant General Counsel for Administration, Department of Commerce; 
and
Robert A. Shapiro, Associate Solicitor for Legal Counsel, Department of 
Labor.

[FR Doc. E8-21447 Filed 9-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6345-02-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: D.R., A MINOR

PETITION OF: FAYETTE COUNTY 

CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES

:

:

:

:

No. 296 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

IN THE INTEREST OF: A.R., A MINOR

PETITION OF: FAYETTE COUNTY 

CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES

:

:

:

:

No. 297 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: G.R., A MINOR

PETITION OF: FAYETTE COUNTY 

CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES

:

:

:

:

No. 298 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: R.R., A MINOR

PETITION OF: FAYETTE COUNTY 

CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES

:

:

:

:

No. 299 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: C.R., A MINOR

PETITION OF: FAYETTE COUNTY 

CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES

:

:

:

:

No. 300 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 18th day of October, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

GRANTED. The issue, as stated by petitioner is:

Whether the Superior Court erred on an issue of first impression and 

substantial public importance by vacating and remanding the trial court’s 

order requiring parents to provide a urine sample for drug testing in an 

investigation relating to allegations of drug usage by one of the parents.
exv10w36



 





Exhibit 10.36




AMENDMENT TO

QUESTCOR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

8% DEBENTURE




     This Amendment (the “Amendment”) to the 8% Convertible Debenture (the “Debenture”) dated March
15, 2002 issued by Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a California corporation (the “Company”), in
favor of Defiante Farmaceutica L.D.A. (the “Holder”) is made and entered into as of March 8, 2005.
The Company and Holder desire to amend the Debenture to extend the Maturity Date thereunder.



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the
parties hereby agree to amend the Debenture as follows:



     1. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein will have the meanings set forth in the
Debenture.



     2. The parties hereby agree that the Maturity Date of the Debenture is extended until April
15, 2005.



     3. This Amendment shall be effective as of the date hereof. The Debenture, as amended by this
Amendment, shall remain in full force and effect.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first written
above.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	QUESTCOR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	/s/ JAMES FARES
	 	 	 
	

	 	By:
	 	Mr. James Fares
	

	 	Title:
	 	President & CEO
	 
	 	 	 	 
	

	 	DEFIANTE
	 	FARMACEUTICA L.D.A.
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	/s/ PEDRO QUINTAS
	 	 	 
	

	 	By:
	 	Mr. Pedro Quintas
	

	 	Title:
	 	Director
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

V.

Maura Wylie

Case No . 05-cr-262-01-S M

ORDER

Defendant Wylie's motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 8). Trial has been rescheduled for the May 2006

trial period. Defendant Wylie shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later

than January 18, 2006. On the filing of such waiver, her continuance shall be

effective.

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S .C . § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances.

Final Pretrial Conference : April 19, 2006 at 2 :00 p.m.

Jury Selection : May 2, 2006 at 9 :30 a.m.

Case 1:05-cr-00262-SM Document 9 Filed 01/11/06 Page 1 of 2
SO ORDERED.

January 11, 2006

cc : Jonathan Saxe, Esq.

Clyde R.W. Garrigan, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

2

Case 1:05-cr-00262-SM Document 9 Filed 01/11/06 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> UT
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      175,199
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          72,512
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        12,800
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 260,511
<COMMON>                                         1,244
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       37,607
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             44,479
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                  83,330
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      6,400
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            72,331
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              30,250
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                       73,040
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    1,939
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                      1,711
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                   481
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  65,780
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  260,511
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      138,263
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             5,763
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     117,716
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     123,479
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         14,784
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 251
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  15,035
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         3,763
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,272
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        348
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   10,924
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         2,388
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        3,032
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                           5,015
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     8.78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     8.78
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit







Exhibit 10.4









AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO LOAN ORIGINATION AGREEMENT


THIS AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO LOAN ORIGINATION AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made as of May 15, 2019 by and between GreenSky, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company (“Servicer”), and Fifth Third Bank, an Ohio-chartered, FDIC-insured bank (“Lender”).  Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Loan Origination Agreement (as defined herein).
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Lender and Servicer have previously entered into that certain Loan Origination Agreement dated as of August 25, 2016, as amended (collectively, the “Loan Origination Agreement”); 
WHEREAS, Lender and Servicer desire to further amend the Loan Origination Agreement as set forth herein; 
NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Lender and Servicer hereby agree as follows:
1.    The Loan Origination Agreement is hereby amended by deleting Section 6.01 thereof in its entirety and inserting the following in lieu thereof:
“Secton 6.01    Term.  This Loan Origination Agreement shall commence as of the Effective Date and shall continue until November 23, 2019, provided that such date shall be extended automatically for additional one year periods without further action by the Parties, unless not less than 90 days prior to the expiration date then in effect either party gives the other party written notice of nonrenewal.”
2.    Except as expressly amended hereby, the Loan Origination Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
3.    This Amendment may be executed and delivered by Lender and Servicer in facsimile or PDF format and in any number of separate counterparts, all of which, when delivered, shall together constitute one and the same document.


[Signature page follows]


    








    








IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.


SERVICER:


GREENSKY, LLC




By:     /s/ Robert Partlow            
Name:    Robert Partlow
Title:    CFO




    






LENDER:


FIFTH THIRD BANK




By:     /s/ Ben Hoffman            
Name:    Ben Hoffman
Title:    SVP




By:     /s/ Jennifer Bosse            
Name:    Jennifer Bosse
Title:    Senior Analyst Sourcing Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Charles Jay Wolff

v. Civil No. 05-cv-309-SM

Commissioner, NH Department of Corrections

O R D E R

After due consideration of the objection filed, I herewith approve the Report

and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Muirhead dated October 18, 2005 for the

reasons stated therein. The complaint is hereby dismissed.

SO ORDERED.

November 4, 2005 _________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Charles Jay Wolff, pro se

Case 1:05-cv-00309-SM Document 9 Filed 11/04/05 Page 1 of 1
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 9, 2016

a0906 

# Order

Clerk September 9, 2016

154140 & (4)

In re ANONYMOUS JUDGE

SC: 154140

JTC Grievance Nos.

2015

- 21594; 2016

- 22079

BEFORE THE JUDICIAL TENURE COMMISSION

____________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the parties having stipulated to the withdrawal of the

petition for interim suspension, the petition is DISMISSED. The motio n to seal file is

GRANTED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Housing and Urban Development

          - [Docket No. FR-5186-N-37]

# AGENCY:

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:**August 12, 2008*.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 7262, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in                     *National Coalition for the Homeless*                     v.                     *Veterans Administration*, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week.                

Dated: September 4, 2008.

Mark R. Johnston,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs.

[FR Doc. E8-21002 Filed 9-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. CITY OF VERO BEACH, a Municipal Corporation in County of Indian River, State of Florida, Relator, v. A. C. MacCONNELL, City Clerk of City of Vero Beach, a Municipal Corporation, etc., Respondent.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Aug. 3, 1936.

Vocelle •& Mitchell, of Vero Beach, for relator.

Ben C. Willis and Charles H. Spitz, both of Tallahassee, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is a companion case to that other case entitled State of Florida ex rel. City of Vero Beach, a Municipal Corporation, etc., Relator v. A. C. MacConnell, as City Clerk of City of Vero Beach, a Municipal Corporation, etc., Respondent, 169 So. 628; the only difference being that the revenue certificates in this case are sought to be issued *658against the net revenues of an electric power system, while in the other case they are sought to be issued against the net revenues of a water supply system. See Williams v. Town of Dunnellon (Fla.) 169 So. 631, filed this term.

On authority of the opinion and judgment in the above-mentioned case and cases therein cited, the motion to quash should be denied and the peremptory writ of mandamus should issue, and it is so ordered.

• WHITFIELD, C. J., and TERRELL, BROWN, BUFORD, and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

ELLIS, P. J.,

concurring upon the principle announced in his specially concurring opinion in the companion case, 169 So. 628, this day filed.
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 Amendment No. 1 to this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of
      Maxco, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Max
      A. Coon, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, that:




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




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




Date: February
      20, 2007


/s/ Max
              A.
              CoonMax
              A. CoonChief
              Executive Officer







A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 106 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 106

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
             respecting real and virtual child pornography.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 17, 2002

Mr. Brown of South Carolina (for himself, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. 
 Chambliss, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Goode, Mr. Graham, Mr. Hall 
    of Texas, Ms. Hart, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Jones of North 
    Carolina, Mr. Kerns, Mr. Kingston, Mr. McHugh, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. 
 Norwood, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Pence, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Riley, 
    Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Shows, Mr. Smith of Michigan, Mr. Souder, Mr. 
Sullivan, Mr. Taylor of North Carolina, Mr. Tiahrt, Mr. Vitter, and Mr. 
 Wilson of South Carolina) introduced the following joint resolution; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
             respecting real and virtual child pornography.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. Neither the Constitution nor any State constitution 
shall be construed to protect child pornography, defined as visual 
depictions by any technological means of minor persons, whether actual 
or virtual, engaged in explicit sexual activity.
    ``Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this 
article by appropriate legislation.''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7391

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JERONZA THORNE,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cr-00293-MOC-1; 3:17-cv-00234-

MOC)

Submitted: December 21, 2021 Decided: December 27, 2021

Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeronza Thorne, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jeronza Thorne seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 motion.

1

 We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal 

was not timely filed. 

When the United States or its officer or agency is a party in a civil case, the notice 

of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final 

judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 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). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court entered its order on June 29, 2020. Thorne filed the notice of 

appeal on September 16, 2021.

2 Because Thorne failed to file a timely notice of appeal or 

to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. 

We deny Thorne’s motion to appoint counsel and dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

1 We dismissed Thorne’s previously filed appeal for failure to prosecute. United 

States v. Thorne, No. 20-7065 (4th Cir. Sept. 21, 2020) (unpublished order).

2 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of 

appeal is the earliest date Thorne could have delivered the notice to prison officials for 

mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).
Exhibit 10.51

Award Recipient:                            _______________________________

Number of Restricted shares awarded:        _______________________________

Date of Award:                              _______________________________

Vesting Schedule:       Awards will vest in three equal annual installments, as
                        follows, commencing on the first anniversary of the Date
                        of Award, subject to Director's continued service with
                        the company.

          Date Vested:   _______    Number of Shares Vested:   _______
          Date Vested:   _______    Number of Shares Vested:   _______
          Date Vested:   _______    Number of Shares Vested:   _______