alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 300.2 FSIS responsibilities. ( a ) *Delegations of authority.* The Secretary of Agriculture and Under Secretary for Food Safety have delegated to the Administrator of the Food Safety and Inspection Service the responsibility for exercising the functions of the Secretary of Agriculture under various statutes (see 7 CFR 2.7, 2.18, and 2.53).
( b ) *Implementing regulations.* This chapter of title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations (9 CFR chapter III) includes, in addition to administrative rules, rules and regulations that implement provisions of the following statutes: ( 1 ) The Federal Meat Inspection Act, as amended (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.*), except provisions pertaining to the inspection and certification of the condition of animals for export, and related legislation;
( 2 ) The Poultry Products Inspection Act, as amended (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451 *et seq.*);
( 3 ) The Egg Products Inspection Act, as amended (EPIA) (21 U.S.C. 1031 *et seq.*), except for the shell egg surveillance program, voluntary laboratory analyses of egg products, and the voluntary grading program;
( 4 ) The Humane Slaughter Act (7 U.S.C. 1901-1906);
( 5 ) The Talmadge-Aiken Act (7 U.S.C. 450), with respect to cooperation with States in the administration of the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act;
( 6 ) The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), relating to voluntary inspection of poultry and edible products thereof; voluntary inspection and certification of technical animal fat; certified products for dogs, cats, and other carnivora; voluntary inspection of rabbits and edible products thereof; and voluntary inspection and certification of edible meat and other products; and
( 7 ) The National Laboratory Accreditation Program (7 U.S.C. 138-138i) with respect to laboratories accredited only for pesticide residue analysis in meat and poultry products.
[63 FR 72354, Dec. 31, 1998, as amended at 69 FR 253, Jan. 5, 2004]
# C_2011331EN.01002003.xml

| 12.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/20

---

Order of the General Court of 14 September 2011 — Regione Puglia v Commission

(Case T-84/10) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - ERDF - Decision incorporating reduction of financial assistance - Regional entity - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility)

2011/C 331/39

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Regione Puglia (Bari, Italy) (represented by: F. Brunelli and A. Aloia, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Cattabriga and A. Steiblytė, agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 10350 of 22 December 2009, incorporating a reduction in the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) assistance granted in application of Commission Decision C(2000) 2349 of 8 August 2000, incorporating approval of the operational programme POR Puglia for the period 2000-2006, on the basis of Objective No 1.

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 Regione Puglia will bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including the costs related to the interlocutory proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Regione Puglia will bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including the costs related to the interlocutory proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.

1

---
Exhibit
      32.1




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1250,


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 March 31, 2007, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Steven B. Rash, Chief Executive 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.





August
              14,
              2007
            
            
            /s/
              Steven B.
              RashSteven
              B. RashChairman
              and Chief
              Executive OfficerPower3 Medical Products,
              Inc.
July 12 , 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

CHARITY ANN

- MARIE ABAD , Appellant
NO. 14

- 12

- 00344

- CV V.
JUAN ANTONIO ABAD , Appellee

________________________________ Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on March 18, 2012. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We order appellant, Charity Ann

- Marie Abad, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.
### §3734. Effect of this subchapter on retirement and retired pay

Except as provided in subsection 3757(b) 1 of this title, nothing in this subchapter authorizes the retirement of a Reserve officer or the payment of retired, retainer, or severance pay to a Reserve officer; or affects in any manner the law relating to the retirement of, or the granting of retired or retainer pay or other benefits to a Reserve officer.

(Added Pub. L. 96–322, §1, Aug. 4, 1980, 94 Stat. 1007, §723; renumbered §3734 and amended Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §§118(b), 123(b)(2), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4233, 4240.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 795 of this title prior to the complete revision of former chapter 21 of this title by Pub. L. 96–322.

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–282, §123(b)(2), substituted "subsection 3757(b)" for "subsection 746(b)".

Pub. L. 115–282, §118(b), renumbered section 723 of this title as this section.

1 So in original. Probably should be "section 3757(b)".
### SUBCHAPTER VII—ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS OF THE AGENCY; MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Order entered February 6, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01366-CR

DAVID GARCIA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F18-52886-H

ORDER

We REINSTATE this appeal.

We abated the appeal for a hearing on the State’s Exhibit 17, a CD containing redacted 

recordings of jail telephone calls. The trial court held a hearing and the supplemental reporter’s 

record of that hearing has been filed along with the supplemental clerk’s record with the trial 

court’s findings of fact.

Before the Court is appellant’s January 23, 2020 motion to extend time to file his brief. 

We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief, tendered that same day, FILED as of the date of 

this order.

The State’s brief is due THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT

Secretary Vilsack Issues Proclamation Recognizing National Cooperative Month

WASHINGTON, Oct. 29, 2021 – U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Tom Vilsack on Oct. 28

issued a USDA proclamation to recognize October 2021 as National Cooperative Month and to celebrate the

vital role that cooperatives play in improving economic opportunities and the quality of life in America.

USDA designated “Build Back for Impact” as the theme for National Cooperative Month 2021, echoing the 

Biden-Harris Administration’s efforts to build back better from the COVID-19 pandemic, increase equity and 

combat climate change.

In his proclamation, Vilsack noted that more than 30,000 cooperatives operate at 73,000 places of business 

throughout the U.S. They account for more than 2 million jobs, boast about 350 million memberships and 

generate $654 billion in annual revenue.

The proclamation also stressed the importance of cooperatives to provide power, high-speed broadband internet

and improved education and health care services to people in rural America.

USDA Rural Development offers a variety of financial assistance and services to assist rural businesses, 

including cooperatives and agricultural producers. To learn more, visit https://www.rd.usda.gov/programsservices/cooperatives.

If you’d like to subscribe to USDA Rural Development updates, visit our GovDelivery subscriber page. 

###

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7388

VESTER TERRY SNEEDEN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; J. B. FRENCH, Warden,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District

Judge. (CA-94-716-5-BR)

Submitted: January 16, 1996 Decided: January 25, 1996

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vester Terry Sneeden, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,

III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh,

North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to

appeal, deny the motion to appoint counsel, and dismiss the appeal

on the reasoning of the district court. Sneeden v. North Carolina,

No. CA-94-716-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Aug. 7, 1995). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Order entered October 11, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00854-CV

HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC., Appellant

V.

AXIS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 95th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-11-00267-D

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s October 4, 2013 unopposed motion for an extension of time to 

file a reply brief. Appellant shall file its reply brief on or before October 21, 2013.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
### §1002. Golden Gate Bridge tolls; Government traffic and personnel in performance of office business not subject to tolls

Tolls may be charged for the passage or transit over the Golden Gate Bridge of Government traffic, of military or naval personnel and their dependents, and of civilian employees of the Army and Navy traveling on Government business, but such tolls shall not be in excess of the tolls charged for the passage or transit of other like traffic over such bridge: Provided, however, That subject to the provisions of section 1003 of this title, military and naval personnel, and civilian employees of the Army and Navy, when such personnel or employees are engaged in the performance of official duties requiring the use of such bridge, together with the conveyances being used by them in the performance of such duties, shall have the use of such bridge free of toll.

(Mar. 14, 1944, ch. 92, §1, 58 Stat. 116.)

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

#### Effective Date

Act Mar. 14, 1944, ch. 92, §4, 58 Stat. 116, provided: "The provisions of this Act [sections 1002 to 1004 of this title] shall take effect thirty days after the date of its enactment."
§ 86.3 Recordkeeping requirements. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 39564 , May 9, 2024.
( a ) *Official identification device distribution records.* Any State, Tribe, accredited veterinarian, or other person or entity who distributes official identification devices must maintain for 5 years a record of the names and addresses of anyone to whom the devices were distributed.
( b ) *Interstate movement records.* Approved livestock facilities must keep any ICVIs or alternate documentation that is required by this part for the interstate movement of covered livestock that enter the facility on or after March 11, 2013. For poultry and swine, such documents must be kept for at least 2 years, and for cattle and bison, sheep and goats, cervids, and equines, 5 years.
#### §§ 78.35-78.39 [Reserved]
#### § 25.14 Weapons and explosives.

No person while entering or in the GAO Building or on its grounds shall carry or possess firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, explosives or items intended to be used to fabricate an explosive or incendiary device, either openly or concealed, except for official purposes.
EXHIBIT 31

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
SEC RULE 13a-14







I, Deborah D. Mosier, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of TMS, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The small business issuers other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the small business issuer and have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The small business issuers other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.





Date: June 30, 2004



/s/ Deborah D. Mosier

Deborah D. Mosier

President and Chief Financial Officer,

Principal Executive and Financial Officer
# C_2012184EN.01001102.xml

| 23.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/11

---

Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 May 2012 — Yoshida Metal Industry v OHIM — Pi-Design and Others (Representation of a surface with black dots)

(Case T-416/10) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Figurative Community trade mark representing a surface with black dots - Shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 184/19

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd (Tsubame-shi, Japan) (represented by: S. Verea, K. Muraro and M. Balestriero, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Pi-Design AG (Triengen, Switzerland), Bodum France (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) and Bodum Logistics A/S (Billund, Denmark) (represented by H. Pernez, lawyer)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 May 2010 (Case R 1237/2008-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Pi-Design AG, Bodum France and Bodum Logistics A/S, on the one hand, and Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd, on the other hand

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court (Fourth Chamber):

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 20 May 2010 (Case R 1237/2008-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 20 May 2010 (Case R 1237/2008-1);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd;

| 3. | Orders Pi-Design AG, Bodum France and Bodum Logistics A/S to bear their own respective costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Pi-Design AG, Bodum France and Bodum Logistics A/S to bear their own respective costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.

1

---
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*Victor Dal Santo, Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 74-74;

Fifth District

January 6, 1975.

Robert E. Farrell, of Mt. Vernon, and Martin Carlson, of Chicago, both of State AppeUate Defender’s Office, for appellant.

Loren P. Lewis, State’s Attorney, of Benton, for the People.

Mr. JUSTICE GEORGE J. MORAN

dehvered the opinion of the court:

The defendant, Victor Dal Santo, pled guilty to two charges of unlawful delivery of a controlled substance and was sentenced to serve from 2 to 6 years on one charge and 1 to 3 on the other, the sentences to run concurrently. The defendant’s only contention on appeal is that the former sentence is excessive and should be reduced to a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 3 years.

For 2 years prior to the commission of the offenses to which he pled guilty, defendant had sold various controHed substances. He had a prior record of two disorderly conduct convictions, a conviction for illegal purchase of alcohol, and a conviction for possession of cannabis under 25 grams in quantity.

Under the circumstances of this case, we see no substantial reason for reducing the sentence imposed by the trial court.

Judgment affirmed.

EBERSPACHER and CARTER, JJ., concur.
# C_2007069EN.01001302.xml

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/13

---

Action brought on 8 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

(Case C-64/07)

(2007/C 69/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Ireland

Defendant:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain paints and varnishes and vehicle refinishing products and amending Directive 1999/13/EC (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14 of that Directive. |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain paints and varnishes and vehicle refinishing products and amending Directive 1999/13/EC (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14 of that Directive.

1

| — | order Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 30 October 2005.

---

(1)  OJ L 143, p. 87.

1

---