alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|   | (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                Registrant. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |   |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ David              Salzman                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |   |   |        |
| David SalzmanChief                  Executive Officer of Richman TaxCredit                  Properties Inc., general partner ofRichman                  Tax Credit Properties L.P., generalpartner                  of the RegistrantMarch                  28, 2008 |   |   |        |

----
EX-10.6.1





 Exhibit 10.6.1 

 

			
	



	  	 InMed Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

340-200 Granville St.

Vancouver, BC V6C 1S4

Canada


 3 July 2019 
 Dear Michael
Woudenberg, 
 On behalf of InMed’s Board of Directors, I am pleased to inform you of the following compensation related items: 

 

	1.	 Salary Increase  



Based on several criteria, including the Company’s overall financial position as well as your performance in your current role, your
annual base salary will be increased 2% to $285,600, effective July 1, 2019. The salary will continue to be paid semi-monthly, in arrears, and less any statutory deductions. 

 

	2.	 Annual Bonus for FY2018-19  



Based on overall corporate achievement of key goals as well as your individual contributions, you will receive a
one-time bonus of $49,383, as calculated below. This will be paid in the 15 July 2019 payroll period, less statutory deductions. 

Note that the payout of any such future bonuses will be subject to achievements of corporate and personal goals, as defined by the Executive
Team and subject to the financial position of the Company, as determined at the sole discretion of the Board of Directors. 
 Thank you once again for your
past and continued contributions to InMed! 
 Best Regards, 
  





 
 Eric A. Adams 
 CEO + President














																													
	 Employee
	  	 Goals

(x/75)
	 	  	 Personal

(x/25)
	 	  	 Total
	 	  	 %
	 	 	
Salary 2018-19
	 	  	 Bonus Target
	 	 	
Total Bonus
	 
	 Mike Woudenberg
	  	 	70	 	  	 	22.5	 	  	 	92.5/100	 	  	 	92.5	% 	 	$	177,955	 	  	 	30	% 	 	$	49,383
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

I N RE:

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS APPROVED

AS DEPOSITORIES FOR FIDUCIARY

ACCOUNTS :

:

:

:

:

:

: NO

. 167

DISCIPLINARY RULES

DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 8 th day of August

, 201 8

, it is hereby Ordered that the financial

inst itutions named on the attached l ist are approved as depositories for fiduciary accounts

in accordance with Pa.R.D.E. 221.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-2825

WALTER C. JENKINS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ECKERD DRUG STORE #1038,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. C. Weston Houck, Chief District

Judge. (CA-94-1209-2-2AJ)

Submitted: February 27, 1996 Decided: March 28, 1996

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter C. Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se. David Brian McCormack, BUIST,

MOORE, SMYTHE & MCGEE, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the magistrate judge's order granting

Defendant's motion for summary judgment on his Title VII claim

alleging race discrimination. The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. We have reviewed the record and

the magistrate judge's opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge.

Jenkins v. Eckerd Drug Store #1038, No. CA-94-1209-2-2AJ (D.S.C.

Sept. 7, 1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
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 Annual Report of Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Cubist") on Form 10-K for the period
ending December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David W.J. McGirr, Chief Financial Officer of Cubist, 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; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Cubist.

February 27,
2009

|                                                                                          |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ DAVID W.J. MCGIRR David W.J. McGirr Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer |  | 

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 21.1  Guess?, Inc.
List of Subsidiaries (as of 1/31/09)  Investment In
  
  Location
  
  Owned By
  
  Percentage of OwnershipFocus Europe, Srl
  
  Italy
  
  Guess? Europe, B.V.
  
  75
  %(1)F.P. France Sarl
  
  France
  
  Guess France SAS
  
  100
  %Guess? Apparel Retail, B.V.
  
  Netherlands
  
  Guess? Europe, B.V.
  
  100
  %Guess Apparel Spain, SL
  
  Spain
  
  Guess? Europe, B.V.
  
  100
  %Guess? Asia Limited
  
  Hong Kong
  
  Guess? Europe, B.V.
  
  100
  %Guess? Asia Limited (Hong Kong) (Taiwan
  Branch)
  
  Taiwan
  
  Guess? Asia Limited
  
  100
  %Guess? Bermuda Holdings, LLC
  
  United States
  
  Guess?, Inc.
  
  100
  %Guess? Bermuda Holdings, L.P.
  
  Bermuda
  
  Guess?, Inc.
  
  99
  %(2)Guess? Canada Corporation
  
  Canada
  
  Guess? Euro-Canada, B.V.
  
  100
  %Guess.com, Inc.
  
  United States
  
  Guess?, Inc.
  
  100
  %Guess? Deutschland GmBH
  
  Germany
  
  Guess? Europe, B.V.
  
  100
  %Guess? Euro-Canada, B.V.
  
  Netherlands
  
  Guess? Europe, B.V.
  
  100
  %Guess? Europe, B.V.
  
  Netherlands
  
  Guess? Bermuda Holdings, L.P.
  
  100
  %Guess Europe Sagl
  
  Switzerland
  
  Guess? Europe, B.V.
  
  99
  %(3)Guess Fisher LLC
  
  United States
  
  Guess?, Retail Inc.
  
  51
  %(4)Guess France SAS
  
  France
  
  Guess? Europe, B.V.
  
  100
  %Guess? Holdings Korea Limited
  Liability Company
  
  Korea
  
  Guess? Europe, B.V.
  
  100
  %Guess? IP GP LLC
  
  United States
  
  Guess? Licensing, Inc.
  
  100
  %Guess? IP Holder L.P.
  
  United States
  
  Guess? IP LP LLC
  
  82.7
  %(5)Guess? IP LP LLC
  
  United States
  
  Guess?, Inc.
  
  100
  %Guess Italia, Srl
  
  Italy
  
  Guess? Europe, B.V.
  
  100
  %Guess? Licensing, Inc.
  
  United States
  
  Guess?, Inc.
  
  100
  %Guess Macau
  
  Macau
  
  Guess? Asia Ltd.
  
  96
  %(6)Guess? Retail, Inc.
  
  United States
  
  Guess?, Inc.
  
  100
  %Guess Service Srl
  
  Italy
  
  Guess Italia, Srl
  
  100
  %Guess? Shanghai Limited
  
  China
  
  Guess? Asia Limited
  
  100
  %Guess Sud SAS
  
  France
  
  Guess France SAS
  
  60
  %(7)Guess Swiss Sagl
  
  Switzerland
  
  Guess? Europe, B.V.
  
  99
  %(8)Guess U.K. Limited
  
  United Kingdom
  
  Guess? Europe, B.V.
  
  100
  %Guess? Value LLC
  
  United States
  
  Guess? Retail, Inc.
  
  100
  %Grupo Guess, S. de R.L. de C.V.
  
  Mexico
  
  Guess? Europe, B.V.
  
  51
  %(9)Surfol Trade, S.L.
  
  Spain
  
  Guess Apparel Spain, SL
  
  100
  %  
 (1)The remaining 25% is owned by
Focus Pull SpA, an Italian company (2)The remaining 1% is owned by
Guess? Bermuda Holdings, LLC (3)The remaining 1% is owned by
Guess? Apparel Retail, B.V. (4)The remaining 49% is owned by
Marc Fisher Holdings LLC, a Delaware company (5)The remaining 17.3% is owned by
Guess? IP GP LLC (6)The remaining 4% is owned by
Guess? Holdings Korea Limited Liability Company (7)The remaining 40% is owned by
Sebastien Chiche (36%) and Anne-Flor Chiche (4%), individuals (8)The remaining 1% is owned by
Guess Italia, Srl (9)The remaining 49% is owned by
Adivina S.A. de C.V., a Mexican company
NUMBER 13

- 20

- 00 369

- CV



### COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

HV, LLC D/B/A CIRCO HERMANOS

VASQUEZ, AURORA

ENTERTAINMENT MARKETING, LLC,

RAMON VASQUEZ, JOSE VASQUEZ,

ALDO VASQUEZ, JESUS VASQUEZ

GUILLERMO 'MEMO' VASQUEZ

, Appellant s

,

v.

RACIEL JUAREZ,

S2DIO HVAC, LLC, AND

CARRIGAN & ANDERSON, PLLC

, Appellee s

.

_

___________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law No

. 4

of Nueces County, Texas.

_

___________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides2 This cause is before the Court on appellants’ amended motion to dismiss.

Appellants assert the underlying trial court has not disposed of all pending parties and

cl aims.

In terms of appellate jurisdic tion, appellate courts only have jurisdiction to review

final judgments and certain interlocutory orders identified by statute. Lehmann v. Har

Con Corp ., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Because there is no final judgment or order

subject to appeal, the n otice of appeal is premature. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, 27.1(a)

.

Accordingly, the amended motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the appeal is

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(a).

GINA M. BENAVIDES

Justice

D elivered and filed the

7th day of January , 20 21

.
#### In re Howard.

On September 24, 2004, this court found Gregory T. Howard to be a vexatious litigator under S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(5)(B). This court further ordered that Howard was prohibited from continuing or instituting legal proceedings in the court without obtaining leave. On December 2, 2009, Howard filed a motion for leave to file a notice of appeal from the court of appeals’ November 9, 2009 decision. Upon consideration thereof,

It is ordered by the court that Gregory Howard’s motion for leave is denied.
#### Manuel Mata RAMIREZ and Yadira Mata Perez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-73649.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 14, 2010.*

Filed Jan. 6, 2011.

Roxana V. Muro, Law Offices of Roxana V. Muro, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.

OIL, Patricia Ann Smith, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Manuel Mata Ramirez and Yadira Mata Perez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for can*30cellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, *Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review petitioners’ ineffective assistance of counsel claim because they failed to raise it before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (explaining that this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency).

The BIA did not err in summarily dismissing petitioner’s appeal where petitioners did not meaningfully apprise the BIA of the reason underlying the appeal. *See Garcia-Cortez v. Ashcroft,*366 F.3d 749, 753 (9th Cir.2004) (notice of appeal satisfies specificity requirement if stated reasons show what aspects of IJ’s decision were allegedly incorrect and why).

Petitioners’ remaining contentions are unavailing.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE BODY OF THE ACCOMPANYING 10-Q AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                           3,098
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,995
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,345)
<INVENTORY>                                     44,990
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                79,212
<PP&E>                                           3,589
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,393)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  86,046
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,905
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            89
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,632
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    86,046
<SALES>                                         35,848
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                35,848
<CGS>                                           30,554
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,554
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,098
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 590
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,606
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (401)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,205
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (193)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,012
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.13
        

</TABLE>
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 13, 2018.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-18-00745-CV

MICHAEL COLEMAN AND ROCO MANAGEMENT LLC, Appellants 

V.

BRIAN CWEREN, Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 1 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 1102359 

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 

This is an appeal from a judgment signed July 9, 2018. The notice of appeal 

was filed August 22, 2018. To date, our records show that appellants have not paid 

the appellate filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5 (requiring payment of fees in civil 

cases unless party is excused by statute or by appellate rules from paying costs). Tex. 

Gov’t Code Ann. § 51.207 (West 2013). 
2

On October 16, 2018, this court ordered appellants to pay the appellate filing 

fee on or before October 31, 2018, or the appeal would be dismissed. Appellants 

have not paid the appellate filing fee or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c) (allowing 

involuntary dismissal of case because appellant has failed to comply with notice 

from clerk requiring response or other action within specified time). 

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jamison and Donovan.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, 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.

 May 20, 2015

p0513

Order 

Clerk

May 20, 2015

149830 & (25)

JOSE CRUZ ALONZO, JR., 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 149830 

COA: 320526

Ingham CC: 12-001090-CZ

STATE OF MICHIGAN and 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 25, 2014 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to appoint 

counsel is DENIED.
**Exhibit 32.02**

**Certification ofPrincipal Financial OfficerPursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**

I, RosemarieMecca, Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) of LaureateEducation, Inc. (the “Registrant”), certify that to the best of my knowledge,based upon a review the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period endedDecember 31, 2006 of the Registrant (the “Report”):

(1)       The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and

(2)       The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Registrant.

 
| /s/ Rosemarie Mecca                                                                           |   |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Name:     Rosemarie  Mecca  Date:       March 1, 2007 |   |   |

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carl Leverne PENDER, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-14314

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

June 4, 2014.

Yvette Rhodes, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, Frank Merrill Talbot, II, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Jacksonville, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

James H. Burke, Jr., Susan Good Yazgi, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Jacksonville, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before HULL, MARCUS and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

James H. Burke, Jr., appointed counsel for Carl Leverne Pender, Jr., in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Pender’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
[No. 58877-0-I.

Division One.

August 27, 2007.]

#### Rogelio H.A. Ruvalcaba et al., *Appellants,*v. Kwang Ho Baek et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 06-2-07787-3, Michael J. Fox, J., entered August 25, 2006. *Affirmed in part*and *reversed in part*by unpublished opinion per Grosse, J., concurred in by Dwyer, J.; Cox, J., concurring separately.
# Percent Positive - User Note

https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/0273bc3d-2363-45b3-befb-1190c25f3c8b/MLG-41.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

# FY2024Q1
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 41 (Thursday, March 1, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 12965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4958]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee Meeting on 
Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena; Notice of Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena will hold a 
meeting on March 15, 2001, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland.
    Portions of the meeting will be closed to public attendance to 
discuss proprietary information per 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) pertinent to 
the Westinghouse Electric Corporation.
    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
    Thursday, March 15, 2001--1 p.m. until the conclusion of business.
    The Subcommittee will review the Westinghouse Electric 
Corporation's proposed approach to address thermal-hydraulic issues 
pertaining to its AP1000 passive plant design. The purpose of this 
meeting is to gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, 
and to formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for 
deliberation by the full Committee.
    Oral statements may be presented by members of the public with the 
concurrence of the Subcommittee Chairman. Written statements will be 
accepted and made available to the Committee. Electronic recordings 
will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are 
open to the public, and questions may be asked only by members of the 
Subcommittee, its consultants, and staff. Persons desiring to make oral 
statements should notify the cognizant ACRS staff engineer named below 
five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate 
arrangements can be made.
    During the initial portion of the meeting, the Subcommittee, along 
with any of its consultants who may be present, may exchange 
preliminary views regarding matters to be considered during the balance 
of the meeting.
    The Subcommittee will then hear presentations by and hold 
discussions with representatives of the Westinghouse Electric 
Corporation, the NRC staff, and other interested persons regarding this 
review.
    Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the 
meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, and the Chairman's ruling on 
requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and the time 
allotted therefor, can be obtained by contacting the cognizant ACRS 
staff engineer, Mr. Paul A. Boehnert (telephone 301-415-8065) between 
7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. (EST). Persons planning to attend this meeting 
are urged to contact the above named individual one or two working days 
prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the 
agenda, etc., that may have occurred.

    Dated: February 22, 2001.
James E. Lyons,
Associate Director for Technical Support.
[FR Doc. 01-4958 Filed 2-28-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P