alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 590.901 Egg products offered for entry and entered to be handled and transported as domestic; entry into official plants; transportation. ( a ) All egg products, after entry into the United States in compliance with this subpart, will be deemed and treated and, except as provided in §§ 590.935 and 590.960, will be handled and transported as domestic product, and will be subject to the applicable provisions of this part and to the provisions of the Egg Products Inspection Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
( b ) Imported egg products entered in accordance with this subpart may, subject to the provisions of the regulations, be taken into official plants and be mixed with or added to egg products that are inspected and passed or exempted from inspection in such plants.
( c ) Imported egg products that have been inspected and passed under this subpart may be transported in commerce only upon compliance with the applicable regulations.
§ 392.4 Supporting documentation. ( a ) Information referred to or relied on in support of a petition should be included in full and should not be incorporated by reference. A copy of any article or other source cited in a petition should be submitted with the petition.
( b ) Sources of information that are appropriate to use in support of a petition include, but are not limited to: ( 1 ) professional journal articles,
( 2 ) research reports,
( 3 ) official government statistics,
( 4 ) official government reports,
( 5 ) industry data, and
( 6 ) scientific textbooks.
( c ) If an original research report is used to support a petition, the information should be presented in a form that would be acceptable for publication in a peer reviewed scientific or technical journal.
( d ) If quantitative data are used to support a petition, the presentation of the data should include a complete statistical analysis using conventional statistical methods.
# C_2010328EN.01005703.xml

| 4.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/57

---

Order of the General Court of 7 October 2010 — Söns v OHIM — Settimio (GREAT CHINA WALL)

(Case T-140/10) (1)

1

()

2010/C 328/90

Language of the case: English

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.

1

---
Exhibit 10.7 

 

**Summary of Amendments to Certain of the Registrant’s Equity Plans**

 

1996 Equity Incentive Plan

 

On October 21, 1999, the Board of Director of Cambridge Heart, Inc. (the “Company”) adopted, subject to stockholder approval, an amendment tothe Company’s 1996 Equity Incentive Plan (the “1996 Plan”) increasing the number of shares of common stock authorized for issuance under the 1996 Plan from 1,000,000 to 1,300,000. This amendment was approved by the stockholders of theCompany at the Special Meeting of Stockholders held on December 21, 1999. 

 

2001 Stock Incentive Plan

 

On April 23, 2003,the Board of Directors of the Company adopted, subject to stockholder approval, an amendment to the 2001 Stock Incentive Plan (the “2001 Plan”) to increase the total number of shares of common stock authorized for issuance under the 2001Plan from 1,700,000 to 5,000,000 and to increase the number of restricted shares of common stock authorized for issuance under the 2001 Plan from 170,000 to 770,000 shares. This amendment was approved by the stockholders of the Company at the AnnualMeeting of Stockholders held on June 16, 2003.
# C_2010179EN.01004301.xml

| 3.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/43

---

Action brought on 23 April 2010 — Emram v OHIM — Guccio Gucci (G)

(Case T-187/10)

(2010/C 179/76)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Maurice Emram (Marseille, France) (represented by: M. Benavï, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Guccio Gucci SpA (Florence, Italy)

Form of order sought

| — | annulment of the decision of OHIM in Case R 1281/2008-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

annulment of the decision of OHIM in Case R 1281/2008-1;

| — | reject the opposition to the filing of the trade mark G line No 2421402 of Gucci spa; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the opposition to the filing of the trade mark G line No 2421402 of Gucci spa;

| — | consequently, order OHIM to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, order OHIM to pay the costs;

| — | order Gucci spa to pay the costs or expenses of the proceedings before OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Gucci spa to pay the costs or expenses of the proceedings before OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Maurice Emram.

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative trade mark “G” for goods in Classes 9, 18 and 25 — Application No 2 421 402.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Guccio Gucci SpA.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community and national figurate trade marks “G” for goods in Classes 9, 18 and 25.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division and refusal to register the mark applied for.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8 and 75 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Articles 8 and 77 of Regulation No 207/2009) inasmuch as the Board of Appeal failed to apply the legal provisions concerned correctly and carried out too brief an analysis of the evidence raised by the applicant.

---
#### § 381.223 Control and disposition of nonfederally inspected poultry products in States designated under paragraph 5(c) of the Act.

Upon the effective date of designation of a State under paragraph 5(c) of the Act, no poultry products can be processed within the State unless they are prepared under inspection pursuant to the regulations or are exempted from the requirement of inspection under § 381.10, and no unexempted poultry products which were processed without any inspection can lawfully be distributed within the State. For a period of 90 days from the effective date of such designation, poultry products which were processed in any State listed in § 381.187 and inspected and passed under the supervision of a responsible State or local inspection agency or exempted from State inspection can be distributed solely within the State, provided they are not adulterated or misbranded, except that the official inspection legend shall not be used. Such products may not enter official establishments. After said 90-day period, only federally inspected and passed products may be distributed within the designated State, except as provided in § 381.10.
# C_2010100EN.01006201.xml

| 17.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 100/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 100/62

---

Action brought on 18 February 2010 — Xeda International and Pace International v Commission

(Case T-71/10)

2010/C 100/92

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Xeda International (Saint Andiol, France) and Pace International LLC (Seattle, United States of America) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare the application admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application admissible and well-founded;

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the Commission to pay all the costs and expenses of these proceedings, |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay all the costs and expenses of these proceedings,

| — | take such other further measures as justice may require. |
| --- | --- |

—

take such other further measures as justice may require.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of their application, the applicants seek the annulment of Commission’s decision No 2009/859/EC of 30 November 2009 concerning the non-inclusion of diphenylamine in Annex I to Council directive No 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance [notified under number C(2009) 9262] (OJ 2009 L 314, p. 79).

The applicants claim that, as a result of the contested decision, the first applicant will no longer be allowed to sell diphenylamine and diphenylamine-based products in the European Union and will lose its product registrations in the Member States effective as of 30 May 2010.

The applicants submit that the contested decision is unlawful because it is based on an underlying assessment of diphenylamine that is scientifically and legally flawed. According to the applicants, it infringes the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and secondary EU legislation.

In summary, the applicants contend that the contested decision bans the use of diphenylamine in plant protection products on the basis of three scientific concerns mentioned in recital 5 thereof, each of which was either adequately addressed by the applicants or was not a concern justifying non-inclusion.

Further, the applicants claim that the Commission infringed the applicants’ right of defence inasmuch as it prevented them from relying on the possibility to withdraw and re-submit a new dossier while benefiting from a longer phase-out period, as it was the case for other substances belonging to the same regulatory process.

---
§ 590.700 Prohibition on disposition of restricted eggs. ( a ) No person may buy, sell, or transport, or offer to buy or sell, or offer or receive for transportation in any business in commerce any restricted eggs capable of use as human food, except as authorized in §§ 590.100 or 590.720.
( b ) No egg handler may possess with the intent to use, or use, any restricted eggs in the preparation of human food, except as provided in §§ 590.100 or 590.720.
[85 FR 68680, Oct. 29, 2020]
### §1692h. Multiple debts

If any consumer owes multiple debts and makes any single payment to any debt collector with respect to such debts, such debt collector may not apply such payment to any debt which is disputed by the consumer and, where applicable, shall apply such payment in accordance with the consumer's directions.

(Pub. L. 90–321, title VIII, §810, as added Pub. L. 95–109, Sept. 20, 1977, 91 Stat. 880.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective upon the expiration of six months after Sept. 20, 1977, see section 819 of Pub. L. 90–321, as added by Pub. L. 95–109, set out as a note under section 1692 of this title.
H. R. 6124—307 

SEC. 6105. SUBSTANTIALLY UNDERSERVED TRUST AREAS. 

The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 is amended by inserting 

after section 306E (7 U.S.C. 936e) the following: 

‘‘SEC. 306F. SUBSTANTIALLY UNDERSERVED TRUST AREAS. 

‘‘(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

‘‘(1) ELIGIBLE PROGRAM.—The term ‘eligible program’ means 

a program administered by the Rural Utilities Service and 

authorized in— 

‘‘(A) this Act; or 

‘‘(B) paragraph (1), (2), (14), (22), or (24) of section 

306(a) or section 306A, 306C, 306D, or 306E of the Consolidated 

Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a), 

1926a, 1926c, 1926d, 1926e). 

‘‘(2) SUBSTANTIALLY UNDERSERVED TRUST AREA.—The term 

‘substantially underserved trust area’ means a community in 

‘trust land’ (as defined in section 3765 of title 38, United 

States Code) with respect to which the Secretary determines 

has a high need for the benefits of an eligible program. 

‘‘(b) INITIATIVE.—The Secretary, in consultation with local 

governments and Federal agencies, may implement an initiative 

to identify and improve the availability of eligible programs in 

communities in substantially underserved trust areas. 
H. R. 6124—308 

‘‘(c) AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY.—In carrying out subsection (b), 

the Secretary— 

‘‘(1) may make available from loan or loan guarantee programs 

administered by the Rural Utilities Service to qualified 

utilities or applicants financing with an interest rate as low 

as 2 percent, and with extended repayment terms; 

‘‘(2) may waive nonduplication restrictions, matching fund 

requirements, or credit support requirements from any loan 

or grant program administered by the Rural Utilities Service 

to facilitate the construction, acquisition, or improvement of 

infrastructure; 

‘‘(3) may give the highest funding priority to designated 

projects in substantially underserved trust areas; and 

‘‘(4) shall only make loans or loan guarantees that are 

found to be financially feasible and that provide eligible program 

benefits to substantially underserved trust areas. 

‘‘(d) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 

of this section and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall submit 

to Congress a report that describes— 

‘‘(1) the progress of the initiative implemented under subsection 

(b); and 

‘‘(2) recommendations for any regulatory or legislative 

changes that would be appropriate to improve services to 

substantially underserved trust areas.’’.
# C_2012126EN.01001402.xml

| 28.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 126/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 126/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2012 — Colas v OHIM — García-Teresa Gárate and Bouffard Vicente (BASE-SEAL)

(Case T-172/10) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark BASE-SEAL - Earlier national figurative marks representing a diamond shape - Earlier national and international figurative marks COLAS - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 126/28

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Colas (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: E. Logeais, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Rosario García-Teresa Gárate and Carmen Bouffard Vicente (Barcelona, Spain)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 February 2010 (Case R 450/2009-4), relating to opposition proceedings between, on the one hand, Colas and, on the other hand, Ms Rosario García-Teresa Gárate and Ms Carmen Bouffard Vicente

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 4 February 2010 (Case R 450/2009-4) in respect of goods other than the chemicals used in science, photography, agriculture, horticulture and forestry; manures; and chemical substances for preserving foodstuffs referred to in that decision; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 4 February 2010 (Case R 450/2009-4) in respect of goods other than the chemicals used in science, photography, agriculture, horticulture and forestry; manures; and chemical substances for preserving foodstuffs referred to in that decision;

| 2. | Orders OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.

1

---
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed December 23, 2020. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D20-831 Lower Tribunal No. 04-11813

________________ 

### Brian Kuei Tung, Appellant,
vs. 

### The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, etc.,

Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Reemberto Diaz, Judge. Law Office of Michael Garcia Petit, P.A, and Michael Garcia Petit, for appellant. Sequor Law, P.A., and Edward H. Davis, Jr., Arnoldo B. Lacayo, Christopher A. Noel and Cristina Vicens Beard, for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM.2

Affirmed. See Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. v. Avila-Gonzalez, 164 so. 3d 90, 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (stating that “Kozel [1] and its progeny are inapplicable” where the trial court’s findings are focused on the actions of a litigant rather than their counsel (citing Levine v. Del Am. Props., Inc., 642 So. 2d 32, 34 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994))); Ledo v. Seavie Res., LLC, 149 So. 3d 707, 710 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“Since Ledo was sanctioned for his own failures to comply with court orders . . . Kozel has no application here.” (citation omitted)); Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944, 946 (Fla. 1983) 2 (“[T]o justify reversal [of a discretionary decision refusing to excuse noncompliance with court rules], it would have to be shown on appeal that the trial court clearly erred in its interpretation of the facts and the use of its judgment and not merely that the court, or another fact-finder, might have made a different factual determination.”).

1 Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1993). 2 Although Mercer predates Kozel, this Court has recognized its continued viability, particularly that it stands for the “proposition that [a] litigant’s conduct can support extreme sanctions.” Avila-Gonzalez, 164 So. 3d at 93 n.1.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,177
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,136
<ALLOWANCES>                                       370
<INVENTORY>                                     36,660
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                41,536
<PP&E>                                         129,860
<DEPRECIATION>                                  41,648
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 133,482
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           84,177
<BONDS>                                         29,959
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           624
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,293
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   133,482
<SALES>                                        287,008
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               287,008
<CGS>                                          189,064
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  189,064
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               111,874
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,991
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,978)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (13,978)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (13,978)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.26


</TABLE>
# C_2007096EN.01000301.xml

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-64/04) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Fishing licences - Regulation (EC) No 3690/93 - Vessels Cleopatra and Ocean Quest - Definitive transfer of those vessels to Argentina)

(2007/C 96/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. van Rijn and B. Doherty, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: M. Bethell, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 3690/93 of 20 December 1993 establishing a Community system laying down rules for the minimum information to be contained in fishing licences — Failure to withdraw the fishing licences of the vessels Cleopatra and Ocean Quest after their definitive transfer to Argentina

Cleopatra

Ocean Quest

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 94, 17.4.2004.

1

---
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Comment
```

                      Certification Pursuant to 906 by CFO

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 quarterly report of Power3 Medical Products, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
J. Rosinski, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

The Report fully compiles with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                              /s/ Michael J. Rosinski
                                              Michael J. Rosinski
                                              Chief Financial Officer
                                              Power3 Medical Products, Inc.
August 17, 2004
```