alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 28
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 28 appear at 76 FR 76873, Dec. 9, 2011.

§ 28.56 Hearing procedures, conduct and copies of exhibits. ( a ) The Board may designate one or more administrative judges to conduct hearings on appropriate matters.
( b ) The hearing will be conducted as an administrative proceeding and, ordinarily, the rules of evidence will not be strictly followed.
( c ) Parties will be expected to present their cases in a concise manner limiting the testimony of witnesses and submission of documents to relevant matters.
( d ) Any party to a hearing offering exhibits into the record shall submit the original of each such exhibit to the court reporter, two copies to the administrative judge, plus one copy for each opposing party that is separately represented.
( e ) Each party to a proceeding shall be responsible for bringing the proper number of copies of an exhibit to the hearing.
( f ) Multipage exhibits shall be paginated in the lower right hand corner and the first page shall indicate the total number of pages in the exhibit. Multiple exhibits shall be indexed and tabbed.
( g ) No later than the commencement of the hearing, each party shall submit to the administrative judge, to the court reporter, and to the opposing party: ( 1 ) A typed list of the witnesses expected to be called to testify; and
( 2 ) a typed list of the acronyms (with definitions) expected to be used by the witnesses.
[58 FR 61992, Nov. 23, 1993, as amended at 68 FR 69301, Dec. 12, 2003]
### **CHAPTER 47—CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY**

Sec.
2051.
Congressional findings and declaration of purpose.
2052.
Definitions.
2053.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
2053a.
Employee training exchanges.
2054.
Product safety information and research.
2055.
Public disclosure of information.
2055a.
Publicly available consumer product safety information database.
2056.
Consumer product safety standards.
2056a.
Standards and consumer registration of durable nursery products.
2056b.
Mandatory toy safety standards.
2056c.
Sulfur content in drywall standard.
2056d.
Performance standards to protect against portable fuel container explosions near open flames or other ignition sources.
2056e.
Consumer product safety standard for button cell or coin batteries and consumer products containing such batteries.
2056f.
Consumer product safety standard to protect against tip-over of clothing storage units.
2057.
Banned hazardous products.
2057a.
Banning of butyl nitrite.
2057b.
Banning of isopropal nitrite and other nitrites.
2057c.
Prohibition on sale of certain products containing specified phthalates.
2057d.
Banning of inclined sleepers for infants.
2057e.
Banning of crib bumpers.
2058.
Procedure for consumer product safety rules.
2059.
Repealed.
2060.
Judicial review of consumer product safety rules.
2061.
Imminent hazards.
2062.
Repealed.
2063.
Product certification and labeling.
2064.
Substantial product hazards.
2065.
Inspection and recordkeeping.
2066.
Imported products.
2067.
Exemption of exports.
2068.
Prohibited acts.
2069.
Civil penalties.
2070.
Criminal penalties.
2071.
Injunctive enforcement and seizure.
2072.
Suits for damages.
2073.
Additional enforcement of product safety rules and section 2064 orders.
2074.
Private remedies.
2075.
State standards.
2076.
Additional functions of Consumer Product Safety Commission.
2076a.
Report on civil penalties.
2076b.
Inspector General audits and reports.
2077.
Chronic Hazard Advisory Panels.
2078.
Cooperation with States and other Federal agencies.
2079.
Transfers of functions.
2080.
Limitations on jurisdiction of Consumer Product Safety Commission.
2081.
Authorization of appropriations.
2082.
Interim cellulose insulation safety standard.
2083.
Congressional veto of consumer product safety rules.
2084.
Information reporting.
2085.
Low-speed electric bicycles.
2086.
Prohibition on industry-sponsored travel.
2087.
Whistleblower protection.
2088.
Financial responsibility.
2089.
All-terrain vehicles.
2090.
Grant program for carbon monoxide poisoning prevention.
#### § 1318.202 Public notice.

TVA may consider providing public notice before a categorical exclusion is used if TVA determines that the public may have relevant and important information relating to the proposal that will assist TVA in its decisionmaking.
§ 78.7 Brucellosis reactor cattle. ( a ) *Destination.* Brucellosis reactor cattle may be moved interstate only for immediate slaughter as follows: ( 1 ) Directly to a recognized slaughtering establishment;
( 2 ) Directly to an approved intermediate handling facility and then directly to a recognized slaughtering establishment; or
( 3 ) From a farm of origin directly to a specifically approved stockyard approved to receive brucellosis reactors and then ( i ) Directly to a recognized slaughtering establishment; or
( ii ) Directly to an approved intermediate handling facility and then directly to a recognized slaughtering establishment.
( b ) *Identification.* Brucellosis reactor cattle must be individually identified prior to moving interstate by attaching to the left ear a metal tag bearing a serial number and the inscription “U.S. Reactor,” or a metal tag bearing a serial number designated by the State animal health official for identifying brucellosis reactors, and must be: ( 1 ) “B” branded (as defined in § 78.1); or
( 2 ) Accompanied directly to slaughter by an APHIS or State representative; or
( 3 ) Moved in vehicles closed with official seals applied and removed by an APHIS representative, State representative, accredited veterinarian, or an individual authorized for this purpose by an APHIS representative. The official seal numbers must be recorded on the accompanying permit.
( c ) *Permit.* Brucellosis reactor cattle moving interstate shall be accompanied to destination by a permit.
( d ) *Marking of records.* Each person moving brucellosis reactor cattle interstate shall, in the course of interstate movement, plainly write or stamp the words “Brucellosis Reactor” upon the face of any document that person prepares in connection with such movement.
( e ) *Segregation en route.* Brucellosis reactor cattle shall not be moved interstate in any means of conveyance containing animals which are not brucellosis reactors unless all the animals are for immediate slaughter or unless the brucellosis reactor cattle are kept separate from the other animals by a partition securely affixed to the sides of the means of conveyance.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0051) [51 FR 32580, Sept. 12, 1986, as amended at 59 FR 67133, Dec. 29, 1994; 60 FR 48367, Sept. 19, 1995]
### §6153. Federal Communications Commission do-not-call regulations

Not later than 180 days after March 11, 2003, the Federal Communications Commission shall issue a final rule pursuant to the rulemaking proceeding that it began on September 18, 2002, under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. 227 et seq.). In issuing such rule, the Federal Communications Commission shall consult and coordinate with the Federal Trade Commission to maximize consistency with the rule promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission (16 CFR 310.4(b)).

(Pub. L. 108–10, §3, Mar. 11, 2003, 117 Stat. 557.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act, referred to in text, probably means the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Pub. L. 102–243, Dec. 20, 1991, 105 Stat. 2394, which enacted section 227 of Title 47, Telecommunications, amended sections 152 and 331 of Title 47, and enacted provisions set out as notes under sections 227 and 609 of Title 47. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 1991 Amendment note set out under section 609 of Title 47 and Tables.
### §6781. Standard of regulation for motor vehicle rentals

#### (a) Protection against retroactive application of regulatory and legal action

Except as provided in subsection (b), during the 3-year period beginning on November 12, 1999, it shall be a presumption that no State law imposes any licensing, appointment, or education requirements on any person who solicits the purchase of or sells insurance connected with, and incidental to, the lease or rental of a motor vehicle.

#### (b) Preeminence of State insurance law

No provision of this section shall be construed as altering the validity, interpretation, construction, or effect of—

(1) any State statute;

(2) the prospective application of any court judgment interpreting or applying any State statute; or

(3) the prospective application of any final State regulation, order, bulletin, or other statutorily authorized interpretation or action,

which, by its specific terms, expressly regulates or exempts from regulation any person who solicits the purchase of or sells insurance connected with, and incidental to, the short-term lease or rental of a motor vehicle.

#### (c) Scope of application

This section shall apply with respect to—

(1) the lease or rental of a motor vehicle for a total period of 90 consecutive days or less; and

(2) insurance which is provided in connection with, and incidentally to, such lease or rental for a period of consecutive days not exceeding the lease or rental period.

#### (d) Motor vehicle defined

For purposes of this section, the term "motor vehicle" has the same meaning as in section 13102 of title 49.

(Pub. L. 106–102, title III, §341, Nov. 12, 1999, 113 Stat. 1434.)
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-40300 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. P E D RO CAMPOS-CONTRERAS, also known a s Pedro Mauricio Campo s Contreras, Defendant-Appellant

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:11-CR-1011-1

Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Defendant-Appe l l a nt Pedro Campos-Contreras appeals the s entence imposed following h is guilty-plea conviction for being found in the U n ited States after a previous deportation. He claims that the district court plainly erred in imposing a 16-level enhancement for committing a crime of violence, pursuant to U .S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), based on Campos-Contreras’s Texas convictions for burglary of a habitation with i ntent t o commit theft. He contends that U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D February22, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-40300 Document: 00512152119 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/22/2013No. 12-40300

because his convictions f all under Texas’s unique “grea t e r r ight to possession” theor y , they do not constitute generic burglary convictions under Taylor v. U nited States , 495 U.S. 575 (1990), and therefore were not convictions f o r burglary of a dwelling under § 2L1.2. As Campos-Contreras did not r aise this objection in the district court, our review is limited to plain error. See United States v. Chavez-Hernandez , 671 F. 3 d 494, 497-99 ( 5th C ir. 2012); see also Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). We recently rejected th i s same contention in United States v. Morales-Mota , ___ F.3 d

_ __, 2013 WL 104935 (5th Cir. Jan. 9, 2 013) (No. 1 2

- 4 0 4 9 1 ) ( a f

f i r m i n g a 1 6

- l e v e l s e n t e n c i n g e n h a n c e m e n t under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) based on a Texas c onviction for burglary of a habitation under § 30.02(a)). A ccordingly, t he district court’s 16-level e nh ancement in this case was not error, plain or otherwise. AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 12-40300 Document: 00512152119 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/22/2013
# C_2010317EN.01004401.xml

| 20.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 317/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 317/44

---

Action brought on 28 September 2010 — ESGE v OHIM — Kenwood Appliances Luxembourg (KMIX)

(Case T-444/10)

()

2010/C 317/78

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ESGE AG (Bussnang, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Klink, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Kenwood Appliances Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

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

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 July 2010 in Case R 1249/2009-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 July 2010 in Case R 1249/2009-2;

| — | Amend the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 July 2010 in Case R 1249/2009-2 so that the Opposition Division’s decision of 21 August 2008 in Case B 1252958 is annulled; |
| --- | --- |

—

Amend the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 July 2010 in Case R 1249/2009-2 so that the Opposition Division’s decision of 21 August 2008 in Case B 1252958 is annulled;

| — | Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Kenwood Appliances Luxembourg SA

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘KMIX’ for goods in Classes 7 and 11

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘BAMIX’ for goods in Classes 7 and 40

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) as there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

1

---
# C_2012133EN.01002003.xml

| 5.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 133/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 133/20

---

Order of the President of the Court of 30 January 2012 — Alder Capital Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Gimv Nederland BV

(Case C-328/11 P) (1)

1

2012/C 133/38

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.

1

---
U.S. Department Assistant Secretary 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 of Transportation Office·of the Secretary May 11,·**~OlO** ofTransportation

The Honorable Tom Martin Mayor ofLubbock Lubbock, TX 79457 Dear Mayor Martin: Thank you for your letter ofApril 12 supportingthe application for**ant~trust** immunityfiled by American Airlines and Japan Airlines. I am responding on behalfofSecretary LaHood. As youmay know, the applicants-members ofthe oneworld Alliance-are seeking antitrust
. immunity to closely coordinate flights between the United States and Asia. According to the application, the alliance partners plan to launch ajoint venture for conveyance oftranspacific 

### traffic. The application is administered in a public docket, which ensures that interestedparties have the opportunity to comment. TheU.S. Department ofTransportation (DOT) will evaluate the application according to rigorous statutory stmdards, beginning with a review ofthe record to determine ifit is substantially complete. Decisions on the application are made in consultation with theU.S. Departmentof Justice's Antitrust Division following a thorough analysis of competitive factors. As this matter is now pending, I hope you understmd that I cannot comment on the merits ofthe application. I canassure you, however, that DOT will give full and fair consideration to the application as well as any comments filed inthe docket. As is our normal practice, I am placing a copy ofyour letter and this response inDocket DOT-OST-2010-0059 as a contact outside the record inthis matter. I appreciate your interest in this proceeding.

for

### S I0- ]0041 9-008



### Tom Martin

# * Mayor April 12,2010

The Honorable Raymond H. LaHood Secretary U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE Washington, DC 20590 DocketDOT-OST-201 0-
__



### ,DearMr. Secretary:

Thank you for the opportunity to express my for the application for antitrust, immunity and proposed joint business agreement filed by American Airlines and Japan Airlines. The proposed alliance between these two airlinesTsVitarfor oneworld to compete effectively with the Star and SkyTeam alliance. This increased interalliance competition will in tum enhance the benefits ofthe Department's Open 

### Skies policyfirst by solidifying U.S.-Japan Open 

### Skies, then by serving as a foundation for further liberalization across Asia. After a thorough review, I 

### encourage the Deparnnent ofTransportation to approve this application as it would enable these oneworld alliance airlines to work closely together to deliver highly competitive air transportation services. Approval for AAlJAL 

### alliance will 

### have a positive impact on air travel by offering customers more service, scheduling and pricing options and will help to ensure that customers continue to benefit from having three 

### competitive air alliances tochoose from. I 

### urge you to quickly approve this_lWplication. Sincerely,

# ~~ Tom.Martin Mayor 

# l tyHall * 162513t1'rStreet * P.O. Box 2000 * Lubbock. Texas 194,57 * (806)775-2010* Fax (806)775-3335 Email: tmartin@mylubbock.us , .'
Editorial Note on Part 12
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 12 appear at 69 FR 32438, June 10, 2004.

§ 12.42 Preliminary reports. At least 30 days prior to the performance of a periodic inspection or comprehensive assessment, a preliminary report prepared by the independent consultant team must be filed by the licensee with the Regional Engineer to document the initial findings, understanding, and preparation of the independent consultant team. ( a ) For any periodic inspection, the 30-day period is measured from the scheduled date of the physical field inspection.
( b ) For any comprehensive assessment, the 30-day period is measured from the scheduled date of the physical field inspection, potential failure mode analysis, or risk analysis, whichever occurs first.
( c ) If the Regional Engineer determines that the preliminary report does not clearly demonstrate that the independent consultant team is adequately prepared for the inspection, the Regional Engineer may require the inspection to be postponed. Any such postponement shall not constitute good cause for an extension of time under § 12.40(d).
( d ) If any required supporting team member information was not provided with the independent consultant team proposal required by § 12.34(b), it must be provided with the preliminary report.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, 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

June 23, 2009 

0615 

Order 

 

June 23, 2009 

138683 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138683 

 COA: 283487 

Cass CC: 07-010290-FC 

JACK LARUE BLACKAMORE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 26, 2009 

judgment 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.
### §1719a. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–66, title I, §1071(c), Dec. 21, 1995, 109 Stat. 720

Section, Pub. L. 90–448, title XIV, §1421, as added Pub. L. 96–153, title IV, §409, Dec. 21, 1979, 93 Stat. 1132, directed Secretary to submit to Congress biennial reports on administration of this chapter and its impact upon land development industry and purchasers and lessees of undeveloped land.
Ernst & Young L.L.P.
                           Fairfax Square, Tower II
                              8075 Leesburg Pike
                            Vienna, Virginia  22187





February 9, 1996



Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549

Gentlemen:

We have read Part II, Item 4 on Form 10-Q dated February 9, 1996 of 
The Smithfield Companies, Inc. and are in agreement with the statements 
contained on Page 8 therein.  We have no basis to agree or disagree with 
other statements of the registrant contained therein or elsewhere in the 
Form 10-Q.





			                         		/s/  Ernst & Young, L.L.P.
#### § 1311.4 [Reserved]
# C_2012133EN.01001201.xml

| 5.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 133/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 133/12

---

Order of the Court of 7 February 2012 — Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA v European Commission

(Case C-421/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Competition - Cartel - Market for methacrylates - Concept of ‘undertaking’ - Presumption of decisive influence - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of sound administration - Extension of the authority of a final decision - Deterrent multiplying factor - Indivisible nature of the fine - Unlimited jurisdiction)

2012/C 133/21

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA (represented by: E. Morgan de Rivery and A. Noël-Baron, lawyers)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and B. Gencarelli, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 June 2011 in Case T-206/06 Total and Elf Aquitaine v Commission, in which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.645 — Methacrylates) — Competition — Cartel — Infringement of the principles of conferral of powers and proportionality — Manifestly erroneous interpretation — Infringement of the rights of the defence, the principle of fairness and the principle of equality of arms — Obligation to state reasons — Infringement of the principle of sound administration

Total and Elf Aquitaine

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Total SA and Elf Aquitaine SA shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.

1

---