alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 270.303 Natural gas produced from Devonian shale. A person seeking a determination that natural gas is produced from Devonian shale shall file an application with the jurisdictional agency which contains the following items: ( a ) FERC Form No. 121;
( b ) All well completion reports;
( c ) A gamma ray log with superimposed indications of the shale base line and the gamma ray index of 0.7 over the Devonian age stratigraphic section designated pursuant to § 270.101(b)(8);
( d ) A reference to a standard stratigraphic chart or text establishing that the producing interval is a shale of Devonian age; and
( e ) A sworn statement: ( 1 ) Calculating the percentage of footage of the producing interval which is not Devonian shale as indicated by a Gamma ray index of less than 0.7;
( 2 ) Demonstrating that the percentage of potentially disqualifying non-shale footage for the stratigraphic section selected is equal to or less than 5 percent of the Devonian stratigraphic age interval designated pursuant to § 270.101(b)(7);
( 3 ) Attesting that the natural gas is being produced from Devonian shale through: ( i ) A well the surface drilling of which began after December 31, 1979, but before January 1, 1993;
( ii ) A recompletion commenced after January 1, 1993, in a well the surface drilling of which began after December 31, 1979, but before January 1, 1993; or
( iii ) A recompletion that was commenced after December 31, 1979 but before January 1, 1993, where such gas could not have been produced from any completion location in existence in the well bore before January 1, 1980; and
( 4 ) Attesting that the applicant has no knowledge of any information not described in the application which is inconsistent with his conclusion.
### §2735. Coast Guard cross

The President may award a Coast Guard cross of appropriate design, with ribbons and appurtenances, to an individual who, while serving in any capacity with the Coast Guard, when the Coast Guard is not operating under the Department of the Navy, distinguishes himself or herself by extraordinary heroism not justifying the award of a medal of honor—

(1) while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States;

(2) while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force or international terrorist organization; or

(3) while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.

(Added Pub. L. 111–281, title II, §224(a), Oct. 15, 2010, 124 Stat. 2921, §491a; renumbered §2735, Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §116(b), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4226; amended Pub. L. 116–283, div. G, title LVXXXV [LXXXV], §8505(a)(28), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4749.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2021—Pub. L. 116–283 substituted "an individual" for "a person" in introductory provisions.

2018—Pub. L. 115–282 renumbered section 491a of this title as this section.
### Supporting Documents Referenced in Citizen Group Po **sition Statement**

**Submitted to OMB for September 30, 2013, Meeting** 1. **Exhibit 1:** Environmental, Energy Market, and Health Character ization of Wood-fired Hydronic Heater Technologies (June 2012). Brian Gullett, et al. EP A, NYSERDA. Filename: exhibit1-citizengroupGullettEPAreport-1215-Wood-Fired-Hydronic-Heater-Te ch-Report.pdf 2. **Exhibit 2** : Fairbanks North Star Borough Air Quality Division measured peaks up to 1,088.3 μg/m3 on 1/10/2009 at 12:26 pm using DataRAM mobile monitori ng. Filename: exhibit2-citizengroupfairbanksnsb-airmonitoringnotes-2009-1-10.pdf 3. **Exhibit 3:** Minnesota Local Hydronic Heater Ordinances and Regu lations, 2012. Filename: exhibit3- citizengroup-OWB-ordinances-minnesota-2012.pdf 4. **Exhibit 4:** Wisconsin Local Hydronic Heater Ordinances and Regu lations, 2012. Filename: exhibit4- citizengroup-OWBordinances-wisconsin-2012.pdf 5. **Exhibit 5:** ECOS Resolution 12-3, **Regarding New Source Performance Standards for Resi dential**  **Wood Burning Devices** , Approved August 28, 2012, Colorado Springs, Color ado. Filename: exhibit5- citizengroup-ecosstatement.pdf 6. **Exhibit 6** : EPA Letter to Hydronic Heater Program Partners, M ay 9, 2013. Filename: exhibit6- citizengroup-epalettertomfg-efficiency-may2013.pdf 7. **Exhibit 7:** Letter of Notice of Intent to Sue from Attorneys Ge neral from New York, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency to Gina McCarthy, EPA Administrator, August 1, 2013. F ilename: exhibit7-citizengroupstatesNOIlettertoepa.pdf 8. **Exhibit 8** : Letter of Notice of Intent to Sue from American L ung Association, Clean Air Council, Environmental Defense Fund and Environment and Huma n Health Inc, to Gina McCarthy, EPA Administrator, August 1, 2013. Filename: exhibit8-c itizengroup-groupsnoilettertoepa.pdf
### §3767. Severability

If any part of this chapter shall, for any reason, be adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, or invalid as applied to a class of cases, such judgment shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder thereof, and shall be confined in its operation to the part thereof directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered.

(Pub. L. 103–327, title II, Sept. 28, 1994, 108 Stat. 2316.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section is based on section 818 of title VIII of S. 2281, One Hundred Third Congress, as reported July 13, 1994, which was enacted into law by Pub. L. 103–327.
§ 1301.31 Fees. ( a ) Fees to be charged, if any, to any individual for making copies of his or her record exclude the cost of any search and review of the record. The following fees are applicable: ( 1 ) For reproduction of material consisting of sheets no larger than 81 ⁄ 2 by 14 inches, ten cents per page; and
( 2 ) For reproduction of other materials, the direct cost of photostats or other means necessarily used for duplication.
( b ) [Reserved]
[40 FR 45313, Oct. 1, 1975. Redesignated at 44 FR 30682, May 29, 1979, and further redesignated at 82 FR 51757, Nov. 8, 2017]
### §68i. Application of other laws

The provision of this subchapter shall be held to be in addition to, and not in substitution for or limitation of, the provisions of any other Act of the United States.

(Oct. 14, 1940, ch. 871, §11, 54 Stat. 1133.)
§ 88.5 Requirements at a slaughtering facility. ( a ) Upon arrival at a slaughtering facility, the owner/shipper must: ( 1 ) Ensure that each equine has access to appropriate food and potable water after being offloaded;
( 2 ) Present the owner-shipper certificates to a USDA representative;
( 3 ) Allow a USDA representative access to the equines for the purpose of examination; and
( 4 ) Allow a USDA representative access to the animal cargo area of the conveyance for the purpose of inspection.
( b ) If the owner/shipper arrives during normal business hours, the owner/shipper must not leave the premises of a slaughtering facility until the equines have been examined by a USDA representative. However, if the owner/shipper arrives outside of normal business hours, the owner/shipper may leave the premises but must return to the premises of the slaughtering facility to meet the USDA representative upon his or her arrival.
( c ) Any owner/shipper transporting equines to slaughtering facilities outside of the United States must present the owner-shipper certificates to USDA representatives at the border.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 2111** 

DOUGLAS KERR, M.D., PhD , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY , Defendant

- Appell ee .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Benson Everett Legg , District Judge. ( 1:10

- cv
- 03294

- BEL )

Submitted : May 1, 2012 Decided: May 14, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Donald C. Holmes, DONALD C. HOLMES & ASSOCIATES, P.A., Greensboro, Maryland, for Appellant. James L. Shea, Dino S. Sangiamo, Viktoriya M. Shpigelman, VENABLE LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit

.2 PER CURIAM:
Douglas Kerr, M.D., Ph.D., appeals the district

court ’ s order dismissing his complaint for failure to state a

claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district

court. Kerr v. Johns Hopkins Univ. , No. 1:10

- cv
- 03294

- BEL (D.
Md. Sept. 12, 2011) We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately present ed in the

materials before the C ourt and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

AF FIRMED
* Pursuant to 5 TH 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 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-60268 Summary Calendar
NAAL HAMIDEH-HAMIDEH Petitioner
v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U S ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A97-909-770 Before DAVIS, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Naal Hamideh-H amideh, a native of Jordan and a citizen of Brazil, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming without opinion an immigration judge’s decision ordering removal and denial of voluntary departure. Hamideh-Hamideh has failed to surrender as ordered. He is now a fugitive. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D February 4, 2009 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 08-60268

2 Under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, a fugitive is not entitled tothe review for which he petitioned the court. G iri v. Keisler, 507 F.3d 833, 835-36 (5th Cir. 2007). As Hamideh-Hamideh is a fugitive, his petition for review is DISMISSED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Timothy Lewis, Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 685]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), rendered October 16, 2002, convicting him of rape in the first degree, rape in the second degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s allegations of improper bolstering are unpreserved for appellate review as the defense counsel either failed to make specific and timely objections to the testimony at trial *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Wilson,*295 AD2d 545 [2002]) or failed to seek further ameliorative action after certain objections were sustained *(see People v Medina,*53 NY2d 951 [1981]; *People v Powell,*4 AD3d 489 [2004]; *People v Joseph,*298 AD2d 601 [2002]). In any event, any error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt *(see People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230 [1975]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Schmidt, J.E, Santucci, Mastro and Fisher, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 11

                            WEST ESSEX BANCORP, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                        ---------------------------------

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                             Three Months Ended
                                                                                                  March 31,
                                                                                          ------------------------
                                                                                             2003          2002
                                                                                          ----------    ----------

<S>                                                                                       <C>           <C>
Net income                                                                                $ 487,034     $ 804,443
                                                                                          =========     =========

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding                                      4,769,075     4,749,825

Common stock equivalents due to dilutive effect
  of potential common shares                                                                 125,910      124,398
                                                                                            --------      -------

Total weighted average number of common shares
  and common share equivalents outstanding                                                 4,894,985    4,874,223
                                                                                           ==========   =========

Basic earnings per common share                                                               $ 0.10       $ 0.17

Diluted earnings per common share                                                             $ 0.10       $ 0.17

</TABLE>
#### § 166.6 Swine feeding area standards.

Untreated garbage shall not be allowed into swine feeding areas. Any equipment or material associated with untreated garbage, except for containers holding treated garbage which was treated in such containers, shall not be allowed into swine feeding areas at treatment premises until properly cleaned and disinfected as set forth in § 166.14(b) of this part.

[47 FR 49945, Nov. 3, 1982, as amended at 52 FR 4890, Feb. 18, 1987]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
EXHIBIT 27.3:  RESTATED FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's August 31, 1998 Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<CIK> 0000016918
<NAME> CANANDAIGUA BRANDS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,473
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  154,550
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    364,117
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               557,690
<PP&E>                                         370,797
<DEPRECIATION>                                 124,640
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,065,851
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          283,311
<BONDS>                                        297,407
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           217
<OTHER-SE>                                     420,234
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,065,851
<SALES>                                        662,314
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               662,314
<CGS>                                          467,017
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  467,017
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,952
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 50,559
<INCOME-TAX>                                    20,729
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             29,830
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    29,830
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.56



</TABLE>
# C_2010161EN.01005001.xml

| 19.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/50

---

Action brought on 15 April 2010 — Milux v OHIM (FERTILITYINVIVO)

(Case T-175/10)

(2010/C 161/79)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant(s): Milux Holding SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J. Bojs, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 February 2010 in case R 1116/2009-4; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 February 2010 in case R 1116/2009-4; and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘FERTILITYINVIVO’ for goods and services in classes 9, 10 and 44

Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in its conclusion that the trade mark applied for is not eligible for registration as a Community trade mark because it does not possess sufficient inherent distinctiveness.

---
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1
 
                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
 
SANGSTAT MEDICAL CORPORATION:
 
We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-77300 and 33-80155 on Forms S-8 and Nos. 33-91994, 33-96766 and 333-20301 on
Forms S-3 of SangStat Medical Corporation of our report dated January 29, 1997,
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of SangStat Medical Corporation for
the year ended December 31, 1996.
 
/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
-------------------------------
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
 
San Jose, California
March 11, 1997
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed August 14, 2024

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23

- 1940

Lower Tribunal No. F00

- 15843

________________



### Taronn Brown

, Appellant,

vs.



### The State of Florida

, Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from

the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Mavel Ruiz , Judge.

W. Charles Fletcher (Jacksonville), for appellant

.

Ashley Moody , Attorney General, and Richard L. Polin, Chief Assistant

A ttorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, LINDSEY, and MILLER , JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
§ 1311.9 How does TVA receive and respond to comments? ( a ) TVA follows the procedures in § 1311.10 if: ( 1 ) A state office or official is designated to act as a single point of contact between a state process and all federal agencies, and
( 2 ) That office or official transmits a state process recommendation for a program selected under § 1311.6.
( b ) ( 1 ) The single point of contact is not obligated to transmit comments from state, areawide, regional, or local officials and entities where there is no state process recommendation; however, these officials or entities may submit comments directly to TVA for TVA's consideration.
( 2 ) If a state process recommendation is transmitted by a single point of contact, all comments from state, areawide, regional, and local officials and entities that differ from it must also be transmitted.
( c ) If a state has not established a process, or is unable to submit a state process recommendation, state, areawide, regional, and local officials and entities may submit comments to TVA.
( d ) If a program or activity is not selected for a state process, state, areawide, regional, and local officials and entities may submit comments to TVA. In addition, if a state process recommendation for a nonselected program or activity is transmitted to TVA by the single point of contact, TVA follows the procedures of § 1311.10 of this part.
( e ) TVA considers comments which do not constitute a state process recommendation submitted under these regulations and for which TVA is not required to apply the procedures of § 1311.10 of this part, when such comments are provided by a single point of contact or directly to TVA by a state, areawide, regional, or local government.
### §7264. Code of ethics for senior financial officers

#### (a) Code of ethics disclosure

The Commission shall issue rules to require each issuer, together with periodic reports required pursuant to section 78m(a) or 78o(d) of this title, to disclose whether or not, and if not, the reason therefor, such issuer has adopted a code of ethics for senior financial officers, applicable to its principal financial officer and comptroller or principal accounting officer, or persons performing similar functions.

#### (b) Changes in codes of ethics

The Commission shall revise its regulations concerning matters requiring prompt disclosure on Form 8–K (or any successor thereto) to require the immediate disclosure, by means of the filing of such form, dissemination by the Internet or by other electronic means, by any issuer of any change in or waiver of the code of ethics for senior financial officers.

#### (c) Definition

In this section, the term "code of ethics" means such standards as are reasonably necessary to promote—

(1) honest and ethical conduct, including the ethical handling of actual or apparent conflicts of interest between personal and professional relationships;

(2) full, fair, accurate, timely, and understandable disclosure in the periodic reports required to be filed by the issuer; and

(3) compliance with applicable governmental rules and regulations.

#### (d) Deadline for rulemaking

The Commission shall—

(1) propose rules to implement this section, not later than 90 days after July 30, 2002; and

(2) issue final rules to implement this section, not later than 180 days after July 30, 2002.

(Pub. L. 107–204, title IV, §406, July 30, 2002, 116 Stat. 789.)
### §687k. Guaranteed obligations not eligible for purchase by Federal Financing Bank

Nothing in any provision of law shall be construed to authorize the Federal Financing Bank to acquire after September 30, 1985—

(1) any obligation the payment of principal or interest on which has at any time been guaranteed in whole or in part under this subchapter,

(2) any obligation which is an interest in any obligation described in paragraph (1), or

(3) any obligation which is secured by, or substantially all of the value of which is attributable to, any obligation described in paragraph (1) or (2).

(Pub. L. 85–699, title III, §318, formerly §320, as added Pub. L. 99–272, title XVIII, §18004(a), Apr. 7, 1986, 100 Stat. 364; renumbered §318, Pub. L. 104–208, div. D, title II, §208(h)(1)(E), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–747.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 318 of Pub. L. 85–699 was classified to section 687j of this title, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 104–208.