alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 121.13 Restricted experiments. ( a ) An individual or entity may not conduct, or possess products resulting from, the following experiments unless approved by and conducted in accordance with the conditions prescribed by the Administrator: ( 1 ) Experiments that involve the deliberate transfer of, or selection for, a drug resistance trait to select agents that are not known to acquire the trait naturally, if such acquisition could compromise the control of disease agents in humans, veterinary medicine, or agriculture.
( 2 ) Experiments involving the deliberate formation of synthetic or recombinant DNA containing genes for the biosynthesis of select toxins lethal for vertebrates at an LD[50] <100 ng/kg body weight.
( b ) The Administrator may revoke approval to conduct any of the experiments in paragraph (a) of this section, or revoke or suspend a certificate of registration, if the individual or entity fails to comply with the requirements of this part.
( c ) To apply for approval to conduct any of the experiments in paragraph (a) of this section, an individual or entity must submit a written request and supporting scientific information. A written decision granting or denying the request will be issued.
[70 FR 13284, Mar. 18, 2005, as amended at 73 FR 61331, Oct. 16, 2008; 77 FR 61080, Oct. 5, 2012; 79 FR 26831, May 12, 2014]
# C_2007096EN.01002601.xml

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/26

---

Order of the Court of 20 March 2007 — Theodoros Kallianos v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-323/06 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Official - Remuneration - Maintenance payments in the context of divorce proceedings - Deductions from salary)

(2007/C 96/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Theodoros Kallianos (represented by: G. Archambeau, avocat)

Applicant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, acting as Agents, and D. Waelbroeck, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 17 May 2006 in Case T-93/04 Kallianos v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed, first, the application for annulment of the Commission's decision concerning certain deductions made from the appellant's remuneration in pursuance of interim measures ordered by a Belgian court, and second, the appellant's claim for reimbursement of those sums and for damages — Powers of the European institutions in the context of national divorce proceedings — Methods of communication of divorce decrees and their effectiveness vis-à-vis those institutions

Kallianos

Commission

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Kallianos shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Kallianos shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.

1

---
#### § 311.26 Emaciation.

Carcasses of livestock too emaciated to produce wholesome meat, and carcasses which show a serous infiltration of muscle tissues, or a serous or mucoid degeneration of the fatty tissue, shall be condemned. A gelatinous change of the fat of the heart and kidneys of well-nourished carcasses and mere leanness shall not be classed as emaciation.

[35 FR 15569, Oct. 3, 1970; 36 FR 11903, June 23, 1971]
# C_2007022EN.01000201.xml

| 31.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

30 January 2007

(2007/C 22/02)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2972 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 157,99 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4542 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,66030 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0383 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,6236 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 88,62 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1680 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5787 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,300 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 257,74 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6965 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9385 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,4090 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 35,278 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,8535 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6790 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5342 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,1311 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8677 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9950 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 222,87 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,5150 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,0857 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3690 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 804,52 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5432 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 63,514 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,4180 |
| THB | Thai baht | 44,450 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2972

JPY

Japanese yen

157,99

DKK

Danish krone

7,4542

GBP

Pound sterling

0,66030

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0383

CHF

Swiss franc

1,6236

ISK

Iceland króna

88,62

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1680

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5787

CZK

Czech koruna

28,300

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

257,74

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6965

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9385

RON

Romanian leu

3,4090

SKK

Slovak koruna

35,278

TRY

Turkish lira

1,8535

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6790

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5342

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,1311

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8677

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9950

KRW

South Korean won

1 222,87

ZAR

South African rand

9,5150

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,0857

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3690

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 804,52

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5432

PHP

Philippine peso

63,514

RUB

Russian rouble

34,4180

THB

Thai baht

44,450

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1218 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.1218

                       One Hundred Sixth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
             the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

                                 An Act

 
To direct the Secretary of the Interior to issue to the Landusky School 
 District, without consideration, a patent for the surface and mineral 
            estates of certain lots, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That subject to valid 
existing rights, the Secretary of the Interior shall issue to the 
Landusky School District, without consideration, a patent for the 
surface and mineral estates of approximately 2.06 acres of land as 
follows: T.25 N, R.24 E, Montana Prime Meridian, section 27, block 2, 
school reserve, and section 27, block 3, lot 13.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### John McNellis *v.*Edward F. Pulsifer *et al.*

New *trial—verdict against the evidence.*In this case, the only question is as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding of the court below; and no such error is perceived in the finding as to call upon this court to disturb it.

Appeal from the Superior Court. of Cook *county;*the Hon. Joseph' E. Gary, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. Hawes & Lawrence, for the appellant.

Messrs. Dent & Black, for the appellees.

Mr. Justice Sheldon

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The appellees, the plaintiffs below, during the years 1868 and 1869, were engaged in the grain commission business in Chicago, and the appellant, the defendant below, who resided in Morris, was engaged in the buying and selling of grain. He shipped most of his grain to Chicago, for sale, and employed appellees to transact his business there. They bought and sold grain for him during the years 1868 and 1869, during which time there was a running account between them, and no final settlement ever made. This action was brought by appellees, in the court below, against the appellant, to recover an alleged balance of account due from him to them October 31, 1869. The cause was tried by the court without a jury, and a judgment rendered against the appellant for $1487.88, from which judgment he appealed. The only question now made is as to the correctness of the finding of the court in respect to a single item in the appellees’ account. It is one of $880 for cash paid by the appellees to Murry, Nelson *&*Co., for damages awarded by arbitrators, to be paid by *495the appellees to Murry, Nelson & Co., because of the nondelivery by appellant of a cargo of no-grade-corn, which the appellees, as commission merchants, sold for the appellant to Murry, Nelson & Co., but which the appellant failed to deliver. And the only point made upon this question is a want of authority in the appellees to make the sale.

We have carefully examined the evidence in the case, and find that it was directly in conflict, and can not be reconciled. It was for the court trying the case to judge of the credibility of the witnesses, and to give credit where he believed it to be due.

We do not know that it would serve any useful purpose to discuss the evidence, and we will content ourselves with saying that we do not perceive any such error in the finding of the court, as to call upon us to disturb it.

The judgment of the court below must be affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
### §2401. Establishment of Commission

There is established the National Commission on Electronic Fund Transfers (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission") which shall be an independent instrumentality of the United States.

(Pub. L. 93–495, title II, §201, Oct. 28, 1974, 88 Stat. 1508.)
**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 Foamex International Inc. on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Raymond E. Mabus, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of Foamex International Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Foamex International Inc. |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| /s/ Raymond E. Mabus, Jr. |
|---------------------------|

Raymond E. Mabus, Jr.

Chief Executive Officer

March 30, 2007
### §1131. Identification of major system acquisitions

(a) In General.—

(1) Support mechanisms.—The Commandant shall develop and implement mechanisms to support the establishment of mature and stable operational requirements for all acquisitions.

(2) Mission analysis; affordability assessment.—The Commandant may not initiate a Level 1 or Level 2 acquisition project or program until the Commandant—

(A) completes a mission analysis that—

(i) identifies the specific capability gaps to be addressed by the project or program; and

(ii) develops a clear mission need to be addressed by the project or program; and

(B) prepares a preliminary affordability assessment for the project or program.

(b) Elements.—

(1) Requirements.—The mechanisms required by subsection (a) shall ensure the implementation of a formal process for the development of a mission-needs statement, concept-of-operations document, capability development plan, and resource proposal for the initial project or program funding, and shall ensure the project or program is included in the Coast Guard Capital Investment Plan.

(2) Assessment of trade-offs.—In conducting an affordability assessment under subsection (a)(2)(B), the Commandant shall develop and implement mechanisms to ensure that trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance are considered in the establishment of preliminary operational requirements for development and production of new assets and capabilities for Level 1 and Level 2 acquisitions projects and programs.

(c) Human Resource Capital Planning.—The Commandant shall develop staffing predictions, define human capital performance initiatives, and identify preliminary training needs required to implement each Level 1 and Level 2 acquisition project and program.

(Added Pub. L. 111–281, title IV, §402(a), Oct. 15, 2010, 124 Stat. 2941, §571; renumbered §1131, Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §108(b), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4208.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–282 renumbered section 571 of this title as this section.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7609

DONALD WAGNER, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Department of

Corrections; ARMOR HEALTH SERVICES, Health

Provider; DILLMAN, Warden, C.W.C.C.; GARY L.

BASS, Department of Corrections; FRED

SCHILLING, Health Service Director; THOMAS

PARHAM, Medical Director; CHERIAN JOSEPH,

Doctor,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief

District Judge. (3:06-cv-00527)

Submitted: January 18, 2008 Decided: February 11, 2008

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion.

Donald Wagner, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. William W. Muse, Assistant

Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, Gauhar Rehman Naseem, DUANE,

HAUCK & GNAPP, PC, Richmond, Virginia, Elizabeth Martin Muldowney,

RAWLS & MCNELIS, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
- 2 -

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Donald Wagner, Jr., timely appealed an order of the

district court (1) denying Wagner’s motion for preliminary

injunction and (2) ruling on various motions to dismiss and for

summary judgment. In its order, the district court did not rule on

all claims as to all defendants. 

With respect to the denial of preliminary injunctive

relief, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Wagner v. Johnson, No. 3:06-cv-00527 (E.D. Va. Sept. 25,

2007).

The remainder of the district court’s order is neither a final

order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. This

court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28

U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial

Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). Accordingly, we dismiss

this portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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 IN PART;

DISMISSED IN PART
§ 116.10 Disputed debts. ( a ) *Reporting disputed debts.* A political committee shall report a disputed debt in accordance with 11 CFR 104.3(d) and 104.11 if the creditor has provided something of value to the political committee. Until the dispute is resolved, the political committee shall disclose on the appropriate reports any amounts paid to the creditor, any amount the political committee admits it owes and the amount the creditor claims is owed. The political committee may also note on the appropriate reports that the disclosure of the disputed debt does not constitute an admission of liability or a waiver of any claims the political committee may have against the creditor. (*See also* 11 CFR 9035.1(a)(2) regarding the effect of disputed debts on a candidate's expenditure limitations under 11 CFR part 9035.)
( b ) *Disputed debts owed by terminating committees.* If a terminating committee and a creditor have been unable to resolve a disputed debt, and the terminating committee files a debt settlement plan covering other debts or other creditors, the terminating committee shall include in the debt settlement plan a brief description as to the nature of the dispute and the status of the terminating committee's efforts to resolve the dispute. The debt settlement plan need not include a signed affidavit from the creditor involved in the dispute pursuant to 11 CFR 116.7(e)(2).
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

LEJUNE NEISON CHRISTIE
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 355

[ June 30, 2021 ]

Appeal from the C ounty Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Kathleen McHugh , Judge; L.T. Case No s

. 18

- 007847
MM10A and 19

- 51 AC10A

.

Gordon Weekes, Public Defender, and Sarah W. Sandler, Assistant Public Defender, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marc B. Hernandez,

A ssistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

C IKLIN and K LINGENSMITH
, JJ., concur.

W ARNER
, J., dissents with opinion.

W ARNER , J., dissenting.

I dissent . In the trial of this domestic violence offense, a litany of evidentiary rulings were erroneous. The court allowed a 911 call into evidence, when it did not constitute an excited utterance because the S tate
failed to show that the victim who made the ca ll did not engage in reflective thought. See State v. Jano , 524 So. 2d 660, 661

– 62 (Fla. 1988). The court erred in allowing an officer to testify that her interviews of other witnesses who did not testify were consistent with the victim’s testimony, thus providing inferential hearsay, defeating appellant’s Sixth Amendment right

to confront witnesses against him. See Postel l v. State

, 3 98 S o. 2d 851, 854 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). In addition, the court allowed the investigating2 officer to bolster her testimony on redirect. The officer stat ed that if she thought she had been given false statements, she would not have submitted the case to the State Attorney’s O ffice . Further

, she testified
that in her twenty

- five years of policing

, she would not move forward w ith an arrest unless she felt it was warranted. Her “integrity [ wa ] s entirely too high” to put her name on a probable cause affidavit unless she thought her investigation warranted it. These statements amount to improper bolstering and commenting on the guilt of the defendant. See

, e.g. , Martinez v. State

, 761 So. 2d 1074 , 1080 (Fla. 2000) (“[w]hen a police officer, who is generally regarded by the jury as disinterested and objective and therefore highly credible, is the corroborating witness, the danger of improperly influencing the jury becomes particularly grave.” (quoting Rodriguez v. State , 609 So. 2d 493, 500 (Fla. 1992) ) )

. The door was not

open ed on cross

- examination by the defense probing the extent of the
officer’s investigation of the case. I cannot find that the cumulative effect of these rulings was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, a
new trial is warranted.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
### §4904. Authorized levels of military strength and training

(a) Active Duty Strength.—The Coast Guard is authorized an end-of-year strength for active duty personnel of 44,500 for each of fiscal years 2022 and 2023.

(b) Military Training Student Loads.—The Coast Guard is authorized average military training student loads for each of fiscal years 2022 and 2023 as follows:

(1) For recruit and special training, 2,500 student years.

(2) For flight training, 165 student years.

(3) For professional training in military and civilian institutions, 385 student years.

(4) For officer acquisition, 1,200 student years.

(Added Pub. L. 114–120, title I, §101(a), Feb. 8, 2016, 130 Stat. 29, §2704; renumbered §4904 and amended Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §121(b), title II, §203, Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4238, 4242; Pub. L. 116–283, div. G, title LVXXXI [LXXXI], §8102, Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4634; Pub. L. 117–263, div. K, title CXI, §11102, title CXIV, §11413(c), Dec. 23, 2022, 136 Stat. 4004, 4120.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2022—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 117–263, §11102(1), substituted "fiscal years 2022 and 2023" for "fiscal years 2020 and 2021".

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 117–263, §11102(2), substituted "fiscal years 2022 and 2023" for "fiscal years 2020 and 2021".

Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 117–263, §11413(c), substituted "385" for "350".

2021—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 116–283, §8102(1), substituted "44,500 for each of fiscal years 2020 and 2021" for "43,000 for fiscal year 2018 and 44,500 for fiscal year 2019".

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 116–283, §8102(2), substituted "fiscal years 2020 and 2021" for "fiscal years 2018 and 2019" in introductory provisions.

2018—Pub. L. 115–282 renumbered section 2704 of this title as this section.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 115–282, §203(1), substituted "for fiscal year 2018 and 44,500 for fiscal year 2019" for "for each of fiscal years 2016 and 2017".

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 115–282, §203(2), substituted "fiscal years 2018 and 2019" for "fiscal years 2016 and 2017" in introductory provisions.