alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 385.917 Sanctions (Rule 917).

Whenever it appears to the Commission that a person is engaged or about to engage in any act or practice which constitutes or will constitute a violation of rule, regulation, or order, made or imposed by the Commission or the presiding officer under this subpart, it may bring an action in the proper court of the United States to enjoin that act or practice and to enforce compliance with the order, and upon a proper showing, a permanent or temporary injunction or decree or restraining order will be granted without bond. The Commission may transmit such evidence as may be available concerning that act or practice to the Attorney General, who may institute the necessary criminal proceedings.
###### Editorial Note on Part 0

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 0 appear at 73 FR 73 FR 54947, Sept. 24, 2008.

#### § 0.136 [Reserved]
§ 2.11 Application for parole; notice of hearing. ( a ) A federal prisoner (including a committed youth offender or prisoner sentenced under the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act) desiring to apply for parole shall execute an application form as prescribed by the Commission. Such forms shall be available at each federal institution and shall be provided to each prisoner who is eligible for an initial parole hearing pursuant to § 2.12. Prisoners committed under the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act shall be considered for parole without application and may not waive parole consideration. A prisoner who receives an initial hearing need not apply for subsequent hearings.
( b ) A prisoner may knowingly and intelligently waive any parole consideration on a form provided for that purpose. If a prisoner waives parole consideration, he may later apply for parole and may be heard during the next visit of the Commission to the institution at which he is confined, provided that he has applied at least 60 days prior to the first day of the month in which such visit of the Commission occurs.
( c ) A prisoner who declines either to apply for or waive parole consideration is deemed to have waived parole consideration.
( d ) In addition to the above procedures relating to parole application, all prisoners prior to initial hearing shall be provided with an inmate background statement by the Bureau of Prisons for completion by the prisoner.
( e ) At least sixty days prior to the initial hearing (and prior to any hearing conducted pursuant to § 2.14), the prisoner shall be provided with written notice of the time and place of the hearing and of his right to review the documents to be considered by the Commission, as provided by § 2.55. A prisoner may waive such notice, except that if such notice is not waived, the case shall be continued to the time of the next regularly scheduled proceeding of the Commission at the institution in which the prisoner is confined.
[42 FR 39809, Aug. 5, 1977, as amended at 45 FR 6381, Jan. 28, 1980; 47 FR 21041, May 17, 1982; 49 FR 7228, Feb. 28, 1984]
§ 375.105 Filings. ( a ) *Filings in pending proceedings.* All filings in proceedings referred to in § 375.104 shall be made with the Secretary.
( b ) *Filings in connection with functions transferred to the Commission.* All persons required to file periodic or other reports with any agency or commission whose functions are transferred under such Act to the Commission shall file such reports which relate to those transferred functions with the Secretary. The Commission hereby continues in effect all previously-approved forms for making periodic or other reports.
( c ) *Where to make filings.* All filings of documents with the Commission shall be made with the Secretary. The address for filings to be made with the Secretary is: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426. Where a document to be filed with the Secretary is hand-delivered, it shall be submitted to Room 1A, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426. Documents received after regular business hours are deemed to have been filed on the next regular business day.
[45 FR 21217, Apr. 1, 1980, as amended by Order 647, 69 FR 32439, June 10, 2004]
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Requirements for Approval 

of Medical Review Officer (MRO) Certification: 2011

HHS publishes the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing 

Programs (Mandatory Guidelines) establishing standards for Federal workplace drug 

testing programs. The most recent revisions to the Mandatory Guidelines were 

published on November 25, 2008 (73 FR 71858), which took effect on October 1, 2010. 

The Mandatory Guidelines address the role and qualifications of Medical Review 

Officers (MRO) and HHS approval of entities that certify MROs. Subpart M-Medical 

Review Officer (MRO), Section 13.1(b), “Who may serve as an MRO?” states as 

follows: 

“Nationally recognized entities that certify MROs or subspecialty boards for 

physicians performing a review of Federal employee drug testing results that 

seek approval by the Secretary must submit their qualifications and a sample 

examination. Based on an annual objective review of the qualifications and

content of the examination, the Secretary shall publish a list in the Federal 

Register of those entities and boards that have been approved.”

If your MRO-certifying entity or board is seeking HHS approval to certify MROs 

performing reviews of Federal employee drug test results, please submit a written 

request including the qualifications of your organization, a sample examination, and 

sample MRO application to:

Jennifer Fan, Pharm.D., J.D.

Division of Workplace Programs, CSAP/SAMHSA

One Choke Cherry Road, Room 2-1031

Rockville, MD 20857

Telephone: (240) 276-1759

Requests must be received by August 19, 2011.
Behavioral Health is Essential to Health • Prevention Works • Treatment is Effective • People Recover

5600 Fishers Lane • Rockville, MD 20857

www.samhsa.gov • 1-877-SAMHSA-7 (1-877-726-4727)

∙

DATE: November 9, 2020

TO: Federal Agency Drug Program Coordinators, Federal Medical Review Officers, 

Federal Partners 

FROM: Ron Flegel, B.S., MT (ASCP), M.S. 

Director, Division of Workplace Programs 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

SUBJECT: 2020 Election and Changes in State Drug Laws 

While several states have made changes to their State drug laws during this year's election, I 

would like to reiterate, that there have been no changes to the drug testing panel under the federal 

Drug-Free Workplace Program (DFWP). The DFWP (as established under Executive Order 

12564, Public Law 100-71 and the Mandatory Guidelines) will continue to test for Schedule I 

and Schedule II controlled substances at the established cut off levels listed in the Mandatory 

Guidelines.
# C_2006281EN.01004501.xml

| 18.11.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 281/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/45

---

Action brought on 24 August 2006 — Lohiniva v Commission

(Case F-98/06)

(2006/C 281/81)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: Risto Lohiniva (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: V. Teperi, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 30 May 2006 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 30 May 2006 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant;

| — | decide that the applicant continues to have the right to transfer to Finland 35 % of his net salary, an amount which is adjusted by the transfer coefficient for that country, from 16 January 2006; |
| --- | --- |

—

decide that the applicant continues to have the right to transfer to Finland 35 % of his net salary, an amount which is adjusted by the transfer coefficient for that country, from 16 January 2006;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant was transferring to Finland, his country of origin, a part of his salary, as multiplied by a coefficient, in accordance with Article 17 of Annex VII to the old Staff Regulations. In the context of a programme of exchange of officials between the Commission and the Member States, he was transferred to Finland during the years 2004 and 2005. During this period, the Commission paid him all of his salary in Finland, increased by the application of the transfer coefficient. In January 2006, upon his return to Brussels, the applicant was refused the right to resume the transfer to Finland of the part of his salary that he had been transferring before his move. In that regard, the administration pointed out that the abovementioned provision had been amended following the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations, and that the applicant did not satisfy the condition laid down in Article 17(2)(a) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations for the preservation of that benefit.

In his application, the applicant submits that, since he benefited from the transfer both during the time of his posting to Finland and before, his case falls within the circumstances envisaged by Article 17(2)(a) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations.

---
-  Home 

# In This Section

                      -  Studies                          -  Economic Impact Study 
                        -  Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway Study 
                        -  Infrastructure Investment Survey 
                        -  Safety Impact Study 
                        -  Social Impact Study 
                      -  Publications                          -  Seaway Compass 
                        -  Seaway System Directory 
                        -  Marketing Materials 
                      -  Reports                          -  Annual Reports 
                        -  Seaway Infrastructure Program 
                      -  Other Resources                          -  Electronic Reading Room 
                        -  National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
                        -  GLS Federal Grants Toolkit 
                        -  Green Shipping Corridor Network (GSCN) 
                        -  GSCN Framework 
                        -  Transportation ROUTES 

## Related Links

                  -                                          Transportation ROUTES                   
                  -                                          Bipartisan Infrastructure Law                   
                  -                                          Grants.Gov                   

# Transportation ROUTES

## Rural Opportunities to Use Transportation for Economic Success (ROUTES)

## ROUTES is the “one-stop shop” for prospective DOT grant applicants from rural areas.

### About ROUTES

Rural Opportunities to Use Transportation for Economic Success (ROUTES) is an initiative to address disparities in rural transportation infrastructure. Specifically, rural transportation infrastructure’s unique challenges need to be considered in order to meet our Nation’s priority transportation goals of safety and economic competitiveness.

### About the GLS

The GLS operates and maintains the U.S. infrastructure and waters of the St. Lawrence Seaway, while performing trade development focused on driving economic activity for the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway System. Our mission is to serve the marine transportation industries by providing a safe, secure, reliable, efficient, and competitive deep draft international waterway, in cooperation with the Canadian St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC).

For more information on the Seaway, visit greatlakes-seaway.com/en/.

For more information about ROUTES, visit transportation.gov/rural.

For more information about the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, visit transportation.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law.

For general information on Grant Programs, visit grants.gov.
保持

冷静,

勤 

洗 手

CS243041B
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1247

JING KAI JIANG, Petitioner,

versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A96-289-968) Submitted: October 21, 2005 Decided: November 14, 2005 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Farah Loftus, LAW OFFICE OF FARAH LOFTUS, Los Angeles, California, for Petitioner. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, John W. Stone, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Jiang does not challenge the denial of protection under the Convention Against Torture. Therefore, this claim is waived. See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro , 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Jing Kai Jiang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. *The Board affirmed the ruling of the immigration judge, finding no error in her decision that Jiang did not meet his burden of p roving his eligibility for relief. Jiang contends on appeal that his evidence was, in fact, sufficient. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for asylum, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Jiang fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Nor can Jiang show that he was entitled to withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (2000). “Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even though the facts that must be proved are the same--an applicant who- 3 - is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft , 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review. 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. PETITION DENIED
### SUBCHAPTER XXVIII—CUMBERLAND GAP NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK
46°

86°

4°

aa

—_-

~¥ 7

;
EXPLANATION
I~

Location and value of Devonian CAlmax sample (this report)—
Asterisk indicates sample had a questionable CAI value based on

“conodont pearl” and was not contoured
Location of Middle Devonian to Silurian CAlmax sample—Data

from Harris and others (1978)
Devonian CAI max isograd (this report)—Dashed where inferred;

hachured to indicate isograd depression
Middle Devonian to Silurian CAlmax isograd—Data from Harris

and others (1978)

8,000-ft isopach for Permian to Devonian strata—Data from

Harris and others (1978)

Thrust fault—Sawteeth on upper plate
Fault—Dashed where inferred; BSF, Burning Springs fault; HF,
Highlandtown fault
Structural front—Dashed where inferred
Structural discontinuity—Dashed where inferred
Hinge zone iy
Kimberlite

Mesozoic basins

BOWLING Green |
| FAULT ZONE AND |
GRENVILLE FRONT,

OME,

a
i
I
ae,
ys
aq
x
Baneton bc

GRENVILLE
FRONT

“Bie Ridge province
~ ~~
Great Valley (Ra., Md.) and Shenandoah Valley (Va., W. Va.)
Martinsburg Feat
Hamburg Sequence
Valley and Ridge province
Eocene intrusive rokks
Scranton gravity high
Henderson dome \
Lackawanna syncline \

Rome trough \

1
|

ed
STRUCTURAL.
DISCONTINUITY

an
--T Adirondack
\ Mountains _

100 MILES
J

ose

T T
50 100 150 KILOMETERS

| 36°

L
80° 78°

Figure 8.—Devonian conodont color alteration index (CAlmax) isograds superimposed on selected structural features and provinces.

L
74"
EXHIBIT 21
                                                 ----------

                                           LISTING OF SUBSIDIARIES


There are six active subsidiaries of the Company:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                       Name Under which
      Name of Subsidiary      Jurisdiction of Incorporation        Subsidiary Does Business
      ------------------      -----------------------------        ------------------------
<S>                           <C>                                  <C>
Bontex S.A.                             Belgium                                Same

Bontex Italia s.r.l.                     Italy                                 Same

Bontex, Inc.                        Virgin Islands                             Same

Bontex de Mexico                        Mexico                                 Same

Bontex Canada                           Canada                                 Same

Bontex Sdn Bhd                         Malaysia                                Same
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6290

ANTONIO GANTT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

SOUTH CAROLINA, STATE OF; WARDEN MCCORMICK CORRECTIONAL

INSTITUTION,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (2:07-cv-04154-CMC)

Submitted: April 17, 2008 Decided: April 24, 2008

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antonio Gantt, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Antonio Gantt seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing

without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gantt has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
SYSTEMS AND POWERPLANT PROGRAM

32 − LANDING GEAR

MRB TASK

NUMBER

MODEL

EFFECTIVITY

DESCRIPTION INTERVAL TASK

TYPE

FEC ZONAL

TASK REF.

320100−221 ALL Detailed Inspection of the MLG Side−Stay Spring

Assemblies

DET 800 FH 8

320100−222 ALL Restoration of the MLG Retract Actuator RST 20000 FC 5320100−223 ALL Restoration of the NLG Retract Actuator RST 20000 FC 5320100−224 ALL Restoration of the Steering Actuator RST 20000 FC 8320100−225 700/705/900 Restoration of the NLG Manual Release Actuator RST 20000 FC 8320100−226 ALL Restoration of the NLG Drag Brace RST 20000 FC 5,6320100−227 ALL Restoration of the MLG Sidestay RST 20000 FC 5,6324000−201 ALL Visual Check of the MLG and NLG Wheel/Tire Assembly for

Damage

VCK 50 FH 9

324000−202 ALL Functional Check of MLG and NLG Tire Pressure FNC 72 HR

Note: Elapsed Time

9

324000−203 ALL Lubrication of the Brake Control Valve LUB 1200 FH 5324000−204 ALL General Visual Inspection of Brake Wear Indicator Pin GVI 50 FH 6324000−205 ALL Functional Check of the Brake Hydraulic Fuses FNC 6000 FH 8324000−206 ALL Operational Check of the Brake Accumulator Pre−Charge

Pressure and Verification of Freedom of Movement of theAccumulator PistonNOTE: Reference CMR 32−40−00−101

OPC 100 FH 8,9

F

MAINTENANCE REVIEW BOARD REPORT

 CSP B−053 − Maintenance Requirements Manual − Part 1

1 −32 Page 3 Jul 10/2013

 EFFECTIVITY: Model CL−600−2C10 Model CL−600−2D15 Model CL−600−2D24 Model CL−600−2E25

CRJ700/900/1000

PAGE PRINTED ON 3-17-2014
# C_2013336EN.01001701.xml

| 16.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 336/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Avery Dennison v OHIM (AVERY DENNISON)

(Case T-200/10) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark AVERY DENNISON - Earlier national word mark DENNISON - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Subject-matter of the dispute before the Board of Appeal)

2013/C 336/33

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Avery Dennison Corp. (Pasadena, California, United States) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, A. Castán Pérez-Gómez and A. Sanz Cerralbo, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Dennison-Hesperia, SA (Torrejón de Ardoz, Spain) (represented by: L. Broschat García, lawyer)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 February 2010 (Case R 798/2009-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Dennison-Hesperia, SA and Avery Dennison Corp.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Avery Dennison Corp. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Avery Dennison Corp. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.

1

---
BEFORE DROPPING HER OFF

AT THE PARTY...

Create an “exit plan” to help her make good choices.

Talk with your child about what to do when faced with a difficult decision about 

alcohol. Come up with a plan together to avoid drinking, such as texting a 

code word to a family member or practicing how to say “no thanks” in a safe 

environment. For tips on how—and when—to begin the conversation, visit 

www.underagedrinking.samhsa.gov

#TalkTheyHearYou PEP20-03-01-019