alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 77.12 Interstate movement from modified accredited States and zones. Cattle or bison that originate in a modified accredited State or zone, and that are not known to be infected with or exposed to tuberculosis, may be moved interstate only in accordance with 9 CFR part 86 and, if moved anywhere other than directly to slaughter at a recognized slaughtering establishment, under one of the following additional conditions: ( a ) The cattle or bison are sexually intact heifers moved to an approved feedlot, or are steers or spayed heifers; are officially identified, and are accompanied by an ICVI stating that they were classified negative to an official tuberculin test conducted within 60 days prior to the date of movement.
( b ) The cattle or bison are from an accredited herd, are officially identified, and are accompanied by an ICVI stating that the accredited herd completed the testing necessary for accredited status with negative results within 1 year prior to the date of movement.
( c ) The cattle or bison are sexually intact animals; are not from an accredited herd; are officially identified; and are accompanied by an ICVI stating that the herd from which they originated was negative to a whole herd test conducted within 1 year prior to the date of movement and that the individual animals to be moved were negative to an additional official tuberculin test conducted within 60 days prior to the date of movement, except that the additional test is not required if the animals are moved interstate within 60 days following the whole herd test.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0146) [78 FR 2066, Jan. 9, 2013]
```
**CERTIFICATION**

I, R. Paul Gray certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10QSB of Surgical Safety
   Products, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
   statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
   make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
   statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
   this annual report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
   information included in the this annual report, fairly present in all
   material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
   flows of the registrant as of, and for the periods presented in this annual
   report;
4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
   establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures for the
   registrant and have:
        a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
           material information relating to the registrant, including the
           consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
           entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report
           is being prepared;
        b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
           and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing of this
           annual report; and
        c. Presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
           effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
           evaluation noted preceding;
5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
   our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors:
        a. All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
           controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
           record, process, summarize, and report financial data and have
           identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
           internal controls; and
        b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
           employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
           controls; and
6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
   annual report whether there were significant changes in internal controls
   or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
   subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any
   corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
   weaknesses.

Date:    August 12, 2003

                                                   /s/      R. Paul Gray
                                                   By:      R. Paul Gray
                                                   Title:   Chief Financial Officer
```
#### § 72.14 [Reserved]
-  Home 
-  107 

# In This Section

-  PHMSA Rules 
-  Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits 
-  Notices and Advisory Bulletins 
-  Pipeline Special Permits & State Waivers 

# 107.501

## Section §107.501: Scope

Below are the available interpretations and guidance for the given section. To return to the list of parts, use the Parts link above. If you do not see any guidance or interpretation information below, that means there is none available for the given part/section. Return to the search page to browse additional regulations sections.

PHMSA has published several Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) documents on regulatory topics. Please review our FAQ documents below:

https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/about-phmsa/phmsa-faqs.

Additionally PHMSA has Hazardous Materials FAQs based on letters of interpretation on the following topics:
                              - Applicability of the Hazardous Materials Regulations
                              - Hazardous Materials Incident Reporting
                              - Hazardous Materials Training Requirements

This section of the website provides the ability to find regulations information including regulations parts, content of sections, and interpretations for regulations sections. Below is a list of parts, identified by the part number and subject. To browse sections by part, click on the subject link below. You will be taken to the eCFR website to view sections for a part.

A written regulatory interpretation, response to a question, or an opinion concerning a pipeline safety issue may be obtained by submitting a written request to the Office of Pipeline Safety (PHP–30), PHMSA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590–0001 or at the email address: pipeline_interp_submittal@dot.gov. In addition to email address, the requestor must include his or her return address and should also include a daytime telephone number. Requests should be submitted at least 120 days before the time the requestor needs a response.

Note: electronic submission is provided as alternative to the 49 CFR Part 190.11(b) mail-in requirement.

The regulations text of the section can be found on the eCFR website. To view the regulations text, use the link below. For assistance, please send an email to PHMSA.Webmaster@dot.gov.

View section 107.501 on the ECFR website

## Interpretation Responses
# C_2011173EN.01001201.xml

| 11.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/12

---

Order of the General Court of 11 April 2011 — Département du Gers v Commission

(Case T-482/10) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Environment and protection of human health - Genetically modified food and feed - No individual concern - Inadmissibility)

2011/C 173/27

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Département du Gers (France) (represented by: S. Mabile and J.-P Mignard, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and L. Pignataro, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/432/EU of 28 July 2010 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize 1507x59122 (DAS-Ø15Ø7-1xDAS-59122-7) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2010 L 202, p. 11).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

| 2. | The Département du Gers is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those of the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Département du Gers is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those of the European Commission;

| 3. | There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, the Centre Region, the Picardy Region, the Départment de la Haute–Garonne, the Brittany Region, the Poitou-Charentes Region, the Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur Region, the Burgundy Region, the Midi-Pyrénées Region, the Auvergne Region, the Pays de la Loire Region, the Rhône-Alpes Region, the Départment des Côtes d'Armor, the Île de France Region and the Nord-Pas-de-Calais Region. |
| --- | --- |

3.

There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, the Centre Region, the Picardy Region, the Départment de la Haute–Garonne, the Brittany Region, the Poitou-Charentes Region, the Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur Region, the Burgundy Region, the Midi-Pyrénées Region, the Auvergne Region, the Pays de la Loire Region, the Rhône-Alpes Region, the Départment des Côtes d'Armor, the Île de France Region and the Nord-Pas-de-Calais Region.

---

(1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.

1

---
# C_2015213EN.01002402.xml

| 29.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2015 — Niki Luftfahrt v Commission

(Case T-162/10) (1)

1

((Competition - Mergers - Air transport - Decision declaring the merger compatible with the common market - Assessment of the effects of the merger on competition - Undertakings))

(2015/C 213/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Niki Luftfahrt GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: H. Asenbauer and A. Habeler, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: S. Noë, R. Sauer and N. von Lingen, and subsequently by: S. Noë, R. Sauer and H. Leupold, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Austria (represented initially by: C. Pesendorfer, E. Riedl and A. Posch, and subsequently by: C. Pesendorfer and M. Klamert, acting as Agents); Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented initially by: S. Völcker and A. Israel, and subseqeuntly by: S. Völcker and J. Orologas, lawyers), and Österreichische Industrieholding AG (Vienna) (represented by: H. Kristoferitsch, P. Lewisch and B. Kofler-Senoner, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision C (2009) 6690 final of 28 August 2009 declaring a merger compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.5440 — Lufthansa/Austrian Airlines).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Niki Luftfahrt GmbH to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission, Österreichische Industrieholding AG and Deutsche Lufthansa AG. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Niki Luftfahrt GmbH to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission, Österreichische Industrieholding AG and Deutsche Lufthansa AG.

| 3. | Orders the Republic of Austria to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Republic of Austria to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.

1

---
From: pfarina4@gmail.com [ mailto:pfarina4@gmail.com ] On Behalf Of Phil Farina

Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2014 11:38 AM

To: Jordan, Ronald; Flanders, Phillip; DeMeo, Sharon M.

Subject: Liberty Hydro Technology

I am sorry it took so long but we had so many projects ongoing, not an excuse just a

fact!

Here is a technical explanation of the Liberty Hydro ZVI Blue technology for managing

selenium FGD waste water.

We ar e working on the economics per you request.

We have also been asked by EPRI to respond to questions that the EPA has asked

EPRI. We are working on that as well.

If you have any questions please call us anytime.

Phil Farina

Sales Executive

Liberty Hydr o

Phil.farina@libertyhydro.com

419

- 346

- 8848
**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 on Form 10-K of Cambridge Heart, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), the undersigned, Vincenzo LiCausi, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 the Company. 

Dated: March 31, 2009
# C_2007082EN.01005502.xml

| 14.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/55

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 February 2007 — Fernández Ortiz v Commission

(Case F-1/06) (1)

1

(Officials - Recruitment - Probationary period - Dismissal after the end of the probationary period)

(2007/C 82/116)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Fernández Ortiz (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Iturriagagoitia Bassas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, L Lozano Palacios and L. Escobar Guerrero, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment of the decision whereby the Commission of the European Communities dismissed the applicant after the end of his probationary period.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 74 of 25.3.2006.

1

---
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-19-00018-CR

CHRISTOPHER LAVELL MCFADDEN,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 367th District Court

of Denton County (F16-2700-367)

March 14, 2019

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the 

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Lee Gabriel 

 Justice Lee Gabriel
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT

USDA Extends Foreclosure and Eviction Relief on Single Family Housing Guaranteed Loans

WASHINGTON, June 19, 2020 – U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Deputy Under Secretary for Rural 

Development Bette Brand today announced USDA extended foreclosure and eviction moratorium for all Single 

Family Housing Guaranteed Loan Program (SFHGLP) loans through Aug.31, 2020.

The moratorium applies to:

• Initiation of foreclosures or completion of foreclosures in process, excluding vacant and abandoned

properties. 

• Evictions of persons from properties secured by USDA guaranteed loans. 

Loan servicers seeking to assist SFHGLP borrowers may also pursue any of the relief options referenced in 

Chapter 18 of the Technical Handbook-1-3555. Questions regarding program policy and this announcement

may be directed to the National Office Division at sfhglpServicing@usda.gov or (202) 720-1452. 

###
§ 417.6 Inadequate HACCP Systems. A HACCP system may be found to be inadequate if: ( a ) The HACCP plan in operation does not meet the requirements set forth in this part;
( b ) Establishment personnel are not performing tasks specified in the HACCP plan;
( c ) The establishment fails to take corrective actions, as required by § 417.3 of this part;
( d ) HACCP records are not being maintained as required in § 417.5 of this part; or
( e ) Adulterated product is produced or shipped.
§ 205.202 “Effective financing statement” or EFS. ( a ) An EFS under subsection (c)(4) need not be the same as a financing statement or security agreement under the Uniform Commercial Code (or equivalent document under future successor State law), but can be an entirely separate document meeting the definition in (c)(4). Note that (c)(4) contains a comprehensive definition of the term which does not include any requirement that the EFS be the instrument by which a security interest is created or perfected. Note also the House Committee Report on Pub. L. 99-198, No. 99-271, Part 1, September 13, 1985, at page 110: “[T]he bill would not preempt basic state-law rules on the creation, perfection, or priority of security interests.”
( b ) An EFS may be filed electronically provided a State allows electronic filing of financing statements without the signature of the debtor under applicable State law under provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code or may be a paper document. An electronically filed EFS need not be a paper document and need not be signed. If an original or reproduced paper document of an EFS is filed with the State, it must be signed, authorized, or otherwise authenticated by the debtor and be filed by the secured party.
( c ) Countermeasures against mishandling after filing, such as a requirement that a copy be date stamped and returned to the secured party, are discretionary with the State. If a State chooses to adopt such countermeasures, it is responsible for establishing procedures for recording the date and time when an EFS is received, and for meeting all legal requirements associated with filing and distributing information about security interests as required by § 205.101.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0580-0016) [51 FR 29451, Aug. 18, 1986, as amended at 61 FR 54728, Oct. 22, 1996; 71 FR 56343, Sept. 27, 2006]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                                5
<CIK>                                           0001063018
<NAME>                                 ISG RESOURCES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                             1
<CURRENCY>                                    U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1.000
<CASH>                                             295,503
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,655,814
<ALLOWANCES>                                       196,393
<INVENTORY>                                      2,653,974
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,095,937
<PP&E>                                          36,424,296
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,688,074
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 212,297,420
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,837,733
<BONDS>                                        100,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               100
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,680,493
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   212,297,420
<SALES>                                         21,383,560
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                29,436,492
<CGS>                                           15,157,523
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,085,324
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,062,727
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,187,911
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,876,393)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,032,770
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,843,623)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,843,623)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        



</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

_________________________________________ Clerk April 29, 2013

t0422 

# Order

April 29, 2013

146112 & (18)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146112

COA: 311983

Wayne CC: 11

- 007685

- FC

JERRY LEWIS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 26, 2012

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

supplement record is DENIED.
### **CHAPTER 52—ELECTRIC AND HYBRID VEHICLE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION**

Sec.
2501.
Congressional findings and policy.
2502.
Definitions.
2503.
Duties of Secretary of Energy.
2504.
Coordination between Secretary of Energy and other agencies.
2505.
Research and development.
2506.
Demonstrations.
2507.
Contracts.
2508.
Encouragement and protection of small business.
2509.
Loan guarantees.
2510.
Use of electric and hybrid vehicles by Federal agencies.
2511.
Patents.
2512.
Studies.
2513.
Repealed.
2514.
Authorization for appropriations.
# C_2012138EN.01002603.xml

| 12.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/26

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 29 November 2011 — Di Tullio v Commission

(Case F-119/10) (1)

(Civil service - Temporary staff - Leave for national service - Article 18 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants - Professional soldier - Completion of a period of territorial command - Refusal)

(2012/C 138/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Di Tullio (Rovigo, Italy) (represented by: É. Boigelot and S. Woog, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and V. Joris, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of OLAF’s services refusing to grant the applicant leave for national service pursuant to Article 18 CEOS.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses Mr Di Tullio’s action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses Mr Di Tullio’s action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Di Tullio to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Di Tullio to pay all the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011, p. 66.

---