alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 52.7 Disinfection of premises, conveyances, and materials.

All premises, including barns, stockyards and pens, and all cars and other conveyances, and the materials on any premises or conveyances used to house or transport swine for which indemnity is paid under this part must be cleaned and disinfected under the supervision of an APHIS employee after removal of the swine from the known infected herd. Premises may be restocked with swine 30 days following an approved cleaning and disinfection, unless an official pseudorabies epidemiologist determines that a shorter or longer period of time is adequate or necessary to protect new animals against infection. The owner to whom the indemnity is paid will be responsible for expenses incurred in connection with the cleaning and disinfection, except for cleaning and disinfection of the conveyances used to transport the swine to the location of disposal.

[64 FR 13065, Mar. 17, 1999. Redesignated at 65 FR 20711, Apr. 18, 2000]
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1324

AN ACT

To expand the boundaries of the Gettysburg National Military Park to include the Wills House, and for other

purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 1324 ES

1 SECTION 1. GETTYSBURG NATIONAL MILITARY PARK

2 BOUNDARY REVISION.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1 of the Act entitled ‘‘An

4 Act to revise the boundary of the Gettysburg National

5 Military Park in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and

6 for other purposes’’ approved August 17, 1990 (16 U.S.C.

7 430g–4) is amended—

8 (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as sub9 section (c);

10 (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the fol11 lowing:

12 ‘‘(b) ADDITIONAL LAND.—In addition to the land

13 identified in subsection (a), the park shall also include the

14 property commonly known as the Wills House located in

15 the Borough of Gettysburg and identified as Tract P02–

16 1 on the map entitled ‘Gettysburg National Military Park’

17 numbered MARO 305/80,011 Segment 2, and dated April

18 1981, revised May 14, 1999.’’; and

19 (3) in subsection (c) (as redesignated by para20 graph (1)), by striking ‘‘map referred to in sub21 section (a)’’ and inserting ‘‘maps referred to in sub22 sections (a) and (b)’’.

23 SEC. 2. ACQUISITION AND DISPOSAL OF LAND.

24 Section 2 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to revise the

25 boundary of the Gettysburg National Military Park in the

26 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and for other purposes’’
3

S 1324 ES

1 approved August 17, 1990 (16 U.S.C. 430g–4) is amend2 ed by striking ‘‘1(b)’’ each place it appears and inserting

3 ‘‘1(c)’’.

Passed the Senate November 19, 1999.

Attest:

Secretary.
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1324

AN ACT

To expand the boundaries of the Gettysburg National Military Park to include the Wills House,

and for other purposes.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-50440

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

NORBERTO AQUINO-LOPEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:12-CR-10-1

Before WIENER, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

For the first time on appeal, Defendant-Appellant Norberto Aquino-Lopez

asserts that his 60-month guidelines sentence for illegal reentry is substantively

unreasonable. Aquino-Lopez contends that, in setting his sentence, the district

court failed to recognize that illegal reentry is a non-violent offense, that he

committed the offense for the comprehensible reason of seeking to avoid gang

involvement and violence in El Salvador, and that he plans to move to Spain to

avoid further illegal reentry offenses.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 28, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-50440 Document: 00512126742 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/28/2013
No. 12-50440

Although we ordinarily review sentences for reasonableness under an

abuse-of-discretion standard, we review here for plain error because AquinoLopez did not object to his sentence. See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389,

391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). Although he disagrees that such an objection is

necessary to preserve error, Aquino-Lopez recognizes that we have ruled

otherwise and raises the issue only to preserve it for further review. See Peltier,

505 F.3d at 391-92. Similarly, he asserts that the presumption of

reasonableness should not apply to his sentence because the illegal reentry

guideline is not supported by empirical data or national experience, but

recognizes that this argument is foreclosed as well. See United States v. Duarte,

569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir. 2009).

The district court here implicitly adopted the presentence report, which

described Aquino-Lopez’s personal history and characteristics. The court also

heard Aquino-Lopez’s arguments for a below-guidelines sentence as well as his

allocution. After considering the presentence report, the Guidelines, and

Aquino-Lopez’s personal circumstances, the district court determined that a 60-

month sentence was appropriate. Aquino-Lopez has failed to show that his

presumptively reasonable sentence does not account for a factor that should

have received significant weight, that it gives significant weight to an irrelevant

or improper factor, or that it represents a clear error of judgment in balancing

sentencing factors. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). 

The judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 12-50440 Document: 00512126742 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/28/2013
CERTIFICATION
OF
 CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER
 PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  In
connection with this Quarterly Report of Mega
Media Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period
ending April 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Aleksandr
Shvarts, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to
the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  1. Such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 30, 2008, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ending April 30, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Mega Media Group,
Inc.
  By:
                /s/Aleksandr
      ShvartsALEKSANDR
      SHVARTSChief
      Executive Officer,
                  DirectorDate:
                June
      21, 2008
### §1803. Antitrust exemptions

#### (a) Joint operating arrangements entered into prior to July 24, 1970

It shall not be unlawful under any antitrust law for any person to perform, enforce, renew, or amend any joint newspaper operating arrangement entered into prior to July 24, 1970, if at the time at which such arrangement was first entered into, regardless of ownership or affiliations, not more than one of the newspaper publications involved in the performance of such arrangement was likely to remain or become a financially sound publication: Provided, That the terms of a renewal or amendment to a joint operating arrangement must be filed with the Department of Justice and that the amendment does not add a newspaper publication or newspaper publications to such arrangement.

#### (b) Written consent for future joint operating arrangements

It shall be unlawful for any person to enter into, perform, or enforce a joint operating arrangement, not already in effect, except with the prior written consent of the Attorney General of the United States. Prior to granting such approval, the Attorney General shall determine that not more than one of the newspaper publications involved in the arrangement is a publication other than a failing newspaper, and that approval of such arrangement would effectuate the policy and purpose of this chapter.

#### (c) Predatory practices not exempt

Nothing contained in the chapter shall be construed to exempt from any antitrust law any predatory pricing, any predatory practice, or any other conduct in the otherwise lawful operations of a joint newspaper operating arrangement which would be unlawful under any antitrust law if engaged in by a single entity. Except as provided in this chapter, no joint newspaper operating arrangement or any party thereto shall be exempt from any antitrust law.

(Pub. L. 91–353, §4, July 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 467.)
**Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 October 2012 — Bimbo v OHIM — Panrico (BIMBO DOUGHNUTS)**

**(Case T-569/10)**

Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark BIMBO DOUGHNUTS — Earlier national word mark DOGHNUTS — Relative ground for refusal — Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Application for alteration — Admissibility

1.                     *Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition
by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood
of confusion with the earlier mark — Word marks BIMBO DOUGHNUTS and DOGHNUTS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 53, 97-100)*

2.                     *Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition
by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood
of confusion with the earlier mark — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b))
(see paras 50-52, 55, 69, 90, 96)*

3.                     *Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition
by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity
of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment — Complex mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras
56, 77, 78)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2010 (Case R 838/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Panrico SA and Bimbo SA. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Bimbo SA to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by OHIM; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3. | | Orders Panrico SA to bear its own costs. |
#### §§ 381.446-381.453 [Reserved]
EXHIBIT 23.3

            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors
Clarus Corporation

We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  registration  statement
(Registration  No  333-42602)  on Form S-8 of Clarus  Corporation  of our report
dated April 27, 2005,  relating to the statements of financial  condition of the
Global  Employee  Stock  Purchase Plan of Clarus  Corporation as of December 31,
2004 and 2003,  and the related  statements  of  operations  and changes in plan
equity for each of the years in the  three-year  period ended December 31, 2004,
which report  appears in the December  31, 2004,  annual  report on Form 11-K of
Clarus  Corporation.


/s/ KPMG LLP

Stamford, Connecticut
April 27, 2005
§ 114.10 Corporations and labor organizations making independent expenditures and electioneering communications. ( a ) *General.* Corporations and labor organizations may make independent expenditures, as defined in 11 CFR 100.16, and electioneering communications, as defined in 11 CFR 100.29. Corporations and labor organizations are prohibited from making coordinated expenditures as defined in 11 CFR 109.20, coordinated communications as defined in 11 CFR 109.21, or contributions as defined in 11 CFR part 100, subpart B. Note to paragraph ( a
):
Pursuant to *SpeechNow.org* v. *FEC,* 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (en banc), and *Carey* v. *FEC,* 791 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D.D.C. 2011), corporations and labor organizations may make contributions to nonconnected political committees that make only independent expenditures, or to separate accounts maintained by nonconnected political committees for making only independent expenditures, notwithstanding 11 CFR 114.2(b) and 11 CFR 114.10(a). The Commission has not conducted a rulemaking in response to these cases.
( b ) *Reporting independent expenditures and electioneering communications.* ( 1 ) Corporations and labor organizations that make independent expenditures aggregating in excess of $250 with respect to a given election in a calendar year shall file reports as required by 11 CFR part 114, 104.4(a), and 109.10(b)-(e).
( 2 ) Corporations and labor organizations that make electioneering communications aggregating in excess of $10,000 in a calendar year shall file the statements required by 11 CFR 104.20(b).
( c ) *Non-authorization notice.* Corporations or labor organizations making independent expenditures or electioneering communications shall comply with the requirements of 11 CFR 110.11.
( d ) *Segregated bank account.* A corporation or labor organization may, but is not required to, establish a segregated bank account into which it deposits only funds donated or otherwise provided by persons other than national banks, corporations organized by authority of any law of Congress, or foreign nationals (as defined in 11 CFR 110.20(a)(3)), as described in 11 CFR 104.20(c)(7), from which it makes disbursements for electioneering communications.
( e ) *Activities prohibited by the Internal Revenue Code.* Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize any organization exempt from taxation under 26 U.S.C. 501(a) to carry out any activity that it is prohibited from undertaking by the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. 501, *et seq.*
[79 FR 62819, Oct. 21, 2014, as amended at 81 FR 34864, June 1, 2016]
#### § 85.3 General restriction.

Livestock shall not be moved interstate except in compliance with the regulations in this part.
EXHIBIT 32

              CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350 AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Aviation General,
Incorporated and Subsidiaries. (the "Company") for the fiscal quarter ended June
30,  2003,  as  filed  with  the  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof  (the  "Report"),  the undersigned President and Principal Accounting and
Financial  Officer  of  the  Company  each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
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 the
Company.

Dated:  March  25,  2004


                                         /s/  Wirt  D.  Walker  III
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Wirt  D. Walker  III
                                         Director,  Chairman  of  the  Board,
                                           and  Chief  Executive  Officer,
                                           President  and  Treasurer

                                         /s/  Glenn  A.  Jackson
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Glenn  A.  Jackson
                                         Chief  Financial  Officer
#### § 592.220 Other applicable regulations.

Compliance with the regulations in this part shall not excuse failure to comply with any other Federal or any State or municipal applicable laws or regulations.
(No. 27522.

#### The People *ex rel.*Stanley Kozielec, Plaintiff in Error, *vs.*Peter B. Carey, Sheriff, Defendant in Error.

*Opinion filed November 19, 1943.*

James M. Burke, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

George F. Barrett, Attorney General, and Thomas J. Courtney, State’s Attorney, of Chicago, (Edward E. Wilson, John T. Gallagher, and Melvin S. Rembe, all of Chicago, of counsel,) for the People.

Mr. Justice Murphy

delivered the opinion of the court

In this case plaintiff in error Stanley Kozielec seeks review of an ordered entered in the criminal court of Cook county denying his petition for a writ of *habeas corpus.*Plaintiff in error was arrested as a fugitive from justice under authority of a warrant issued by the Governor of this State on the requisition of the Governor of Georgia.

The sole ground urged by plaintiff in error in the trial court and renewed here is that he was not within the State of Georgia on a certain date. On the hearing the State’s *17Attorney, on behalf of the sheriff, offered in evidence the warrant issued by the Governor of the State of Georgia and “a certified and exemplified copy of all the extradition papers that had been submitted to the Governor of Illinois.” These were admitted in evidence over the objection of plaintiff in error. However, the contents of such writings are not set forth in the record and without them we have no means of ascertaining the date that plaintiff in error was alleged to have fled from the State of Georgia.

Plaintiff in error testified that he was not in the State of Georgia on June 19, 1942, but was living in Chicago at that time. Three relatives corroborated him as to his place of residence on that date, but the absence of the contents of the written exhibits introduced in evidence makes it impossible to determine the date that was material. Under such circumstances, the materiality of plaintiff in error’s evidence as to the date of June 19, 1942, does not appear. The warrant issued by the Governor made a *prima facie*case against plaintiff in error and, in the absence of a showing in the record of all the evidence, it can not be determined whether such *prima facie*case was overcome by other evidence.

Where a record presented to a reviewing court shows that certain written evidence has been introduced but the same is not included in the transcript of the proceedings, it will be presumed that the written evidence which has been omitted from the record sustained the findings of the court. *People*v. *Niehoff,*266 Ill. 103, and cases there cited.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
#### § 71.2 Secretary to issue rule governing quarantine and interstate movement of diseased animals, including poultry.

When the Secretary of Agriculture shall determine the fact that poultry or other animals in any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia are affected with any contagious, infectious, or communicable disease of livestock or poultry for which, in his opinion, a quarantine should be established or that other basis for a quarantine exists, notice will be given of that fact, and a rule will be issued accordingly, placing in quarantine such State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, or specified portion thereof. This rule will either absolutely forbid the interstate movement of the quarantined animals from the quarantined area or will indicate the regulations under which interstate movements may be made.

[34 FR 15641, Oct. 9, 1969]
#### § 430.1 Definitions.

*Antimicrobial agent.* A substance in or added to an RTE product that has the effect of reducing or eliminating a microorganism, including a pathogen such as *L. monocytogenes,* or that has the effect of suppressing or limiting growth of *L. monocytogenes* in the product throughout the shelf life of the product. Examples of antimicrobial agents added to RTE products are potassium lactate and sodium diacetate.

*Antimicrobial process.* An operation, such as freezing, applied to an RTE product that has the effect of suppressing or limiting the growth of a microorganism, such as *L. monocytogenes,* in the product throughout the shelf life of the product.

*Deli product.* A ready-to-eat meat or poultry product that typically is sliced, either in an official establishment or after distribution from an official establishment, and typically is assembled in a sandwich for consumption.

*Hotdog product.* A ready-to-eat meat or poultry frank, frankfurter, or wiener, such as a product defined in 9 CFR 319.180 and 319.181.

*Lethality treatment.* A process, including the application of an antimicrobial agent, that eliminates or reduces the number of pathogenic microorganisms on or in a product to make the product safe for human consumption. Examples of lethality treatments are cooking or the application of an antimicrobial agent or process that eliminates or reduces pathogenic microorganisms.

*Post-lethality exposed product.* Ready-to-eat product that comes into direct contact with a food contact surface after the lethality treatment in a post-lethality processing environment.

*Post-lethality processing environment.* The area of an establishment into which product is routed after having been subjected to an initial lethality treatment. The product may be exposed to the environment in this area as a result of slicing, peeling, re-bagging, cooling semi-permeable encased product with a brine solution, or other procedures.

*Post-lethality treatment.* A lethality treatment that is applied or is effective after post-lethality exposure. It is applied to the final product or sealed package of product in order to reduce or eliminate the level of pathogens resulting from contamination from post-lethality exposure.

*Prerequisite program.* A procedure or set of procedures that is designed to provide basic environmental or operating conditions necessary for the production of safe, wholesome food. It is called “prerequisite” because it is considered by scientific experts to be prerequisite to a HACCP plan.

*Ready-to-eat (RTE) product.* A meat or poultry product that is in a form that is edible without additional preparation to achieve food safety and may receive additional preparation for palatability or aesthetic, epicurean, gastronomic, or culinary purposes. RTE product is not required to bear a safe-handling instruction (as required for non-RTE products by 9 CFR 317.2(l) and 381.125(b)) or other labeling that directs that the product must be cooked or otherwise treated for safety, and can include frozen meat and poultry products.