alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 233 (Monday, December 6, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70470-70471]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26736]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application

    Pursuant to section 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on September 20, 2004, Johnson 
Matthey, Inc., Custom Pharmaceuticals Department, 2003 Nolte Drive, 
West Deptford, New Jersey 08066, made application by renewal to the 
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for registration as a bulk 
manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370)................  I
Difenoxin (9168)............................  I
Propiram (9649).............................  I
Amphetamine (1100)..........................  II
Methylphenidate (1724)......................  II

[[Page 70471]]

 
Codeine (9050)..............................  II
Oxycodone (9143)............................  II
Hydromorphone (9150)........................  II
Hydrocodone (9193)..........................  II
Morphine (9300).............................  II
Thebaine (9333).............................  II
Alfentanil (9737)...........................  II
Sufentanil (9740)...........................  II
Fentanyl (9801).............................  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances 
in bulk for distribution to its customers.
    Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered 
with DEA to manufacture such substances may file comments or objections 
to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 
1301.33(a).
    Any such comments or objections may be addressed, in quintuplicate, 
to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, 
Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Department of Justice, 
Washington, DC 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative, 
Office of Liaison and Policy (ODLR) and must be filed no later than 
February 4, 2005.

    Dated: November 22, 2004.
William J. Walker,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-26736 Filed 12-3-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-P
No: III-14-035 October 2, 2014

CONTACT: Viktoria Mitlyng 630-829-9662

Prema Chandrathil 630-829-9663

NRC Proposes $3,500 Fine For a Missouri Cardiology Company

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a $3,500 civil penalty to Metro 

Cardiovascular Diagnostics, a cardiology practice in Florisstant, Mo., for violations of its radiation 

protection procedures and NRC requirements.

The violations were identified during a routine NRC inspection and an investigation looking 

into the handling of radioactive material used for diagnostic medical tests. The NRC staff concluded the 

company violated NRC safety requirements by failing to properly calibrate and test survey instruments 

at required intervals; retain records of required training for an employee; annually review the radiation 

protection program; and ensure radiation safety activities were performed in accordance with the 

company’s procedures and regulatory requirements. The NRC also identified one willful violation for 

using a radiation detection meter that was not properly calibrated. 

“Even though these violations did not result in harm to members of the public, our action

underscores the expectation that NRC license holders will adhere to NRC requirements to make sure 

nuclear material is used safely,” said NRC Region III Administrator Cynthia D. Pederson. “Willful 

violations are of particular concern to the NRC because we expect NRC license holders to act with 

integrity and communicate with candor to ensure public safety.”

Metro Cardiovascular Diagnostics has to pay the fine or submit a letter protesting it by Oct. 3.

The company conducted a wide range of corrective actions to restore compliance and prevent 

recurrence of safety violations.

The NRC will conduct an inspection to verify that the company’s actions to correct the problem 

are thorough and sustainable.

The NRC’s inspection report and the summary of the NRC's investigation are available on the 

NRC's website; and Notice of Violation will be available in the NRC's online document system under 

accession number ML14275A165.
#### Zonum, Inc., Respondent, v Tomas, Also Known as Anthony Aleksandravicius, Individually and as Heir and Successor in Interest to Kvirinas Aleksandravicius, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[821 NYS2d 508]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oswego County (James W. McCarthy, A.J.), entered September 19, 2005. The order denied the motion of defendants Tomas, also known as Anthony Aleksandravicius, individually and as heir and successor in interest to Kvirinas Aleksandravicius, and Vytautas Aleksandravicius, Donatas, also known as Donald Aleksandravicius, individually and as heir and successor in interest to Kvirinas Aleksandravicius, for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint against them.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court. Present — Kehoe, J.P., Gorski, Martoche, Smith and Pine, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Charles Dukszta, Deceased. John Stawiarski, Appellant; Public Administrator of the County of New York, as Administrator of the Estate of Charles Dukszta, Deceased, et al., Respon*916dents.

Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Yan Yoorhis, JJ. [See *post,*p. 1035.]
#### § 300.15 Labeling of containers or packaging of wool products.

When wool products are marketed and delivered in a package which is intended to remain unbroken and intact until after delivery to the ultimate consumer, each wool product in the package, except hosiery, and the package shall be labeled with the required information. If the package is transparent to the extent it allows for a clear reading of the required information on the wool product, the package is not required to be labeled.

[50 FR 15106, Apr. 17, 1985]
### §1320d–3. Timetables for adoption of standards

#### (a) Initial standards

The Secretary shall carry out section 1320d–2 of this title not later than 18 months after August 21, 1996, except that standards relating to claims attachments shall be adopted not later than 30 months after August 21, 1996.

#### (b) Additions and modifications to standards

#### (1) In general

Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall review the standards adopted under section 1320d–2 of this title, and shall adopt modifications to the standards (including additions to the standards), as determined appropriate, but not more frequently than once every 12 months. Any addition or modification to a standard shall be completed in a manner which minimizes the disruption and cost of compliance.

#### (2) Special rules

#### (A) First 12-month period

Except with respect to additions and modifications to code sets under subparagraph (B), the Secretary may not adopt any modification to a standard adopted under this part during the 12-month period beginning on the date the standard is initially adopted, unless the Secretary determines that the modification is necessary in order to permit compliance with the standard.

#### (B) Additions and modifications to code sets

#### (i) In general

The Secretary shall ensure that procedures exist for the routine maintenance, testing, enhancement, and expansion of code sets.

#### (ii) Additional rules

If a code set is modified under this subsection, the modified code set shall include instructions on how data elements of health information that were encoded prior to the modification may be converted or translated so as to preserve the informational value of the data elements that existed before the modification. Any modification to a code set under this subsection shall be implemented in a manner that minimizes the disruption and cost of complying with such modification.

(Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title XI, §1174, as added Pub. L. 104–191, title II, §262(a), Aug. 21, 1996, 110 Stat. 2026.)
§ 12.25 Filing fees. ( a ) *Fees payable upon filing a complaint.* ( 1 ) A complainant who, in the complaint, has elected the voluntary decisional procedure shall, at the time of filing the complaint, pay a filing fee of $50.00;
( 2 ) A complainant who, in the complaint wherein the amount of damages claimed does not exceed $30,000, exclusive of interest and costs, has not elected the voluntary decisional procedure shall, at the time of filing the complaint, pay a filing fee of $125.00.
( 3 ) A complainant who, in the complaint wherein the amount of damages claimed exceeds $30,000, exclusive of interest and costs, has not elected the voluntary decisional procedure shall, at the time of filing the complaint, pay a filing fee of $250.00.
( b ) *Fees payable upon filing an answer.* ( 1 ) If a complainant, in the complaint, has elected the voluntary decisional procedure, a respondent who, in the answer, elects the summary decisional procedure (available only where the amount of damages claimed in the complaint or as counterclaims does not exceed $30,000) shall, at the time of filing the answer, pay a filing fee of $75.00.
( 2 ) If a complainant, in the complaint, has elected the voluntary decisional procedure, a respondent who, in the answer, elects the formal decisional procedure (available only where the amount of damages claimed in the complaint or as counterclaims exceeds $30,000) shall, at the time of filing the answer, pay a filing fee of $200.00.
( c ) *Fees payable upon filing a reply.* In any case in which a counterclaim has been made, unless a complainant in the complaint, or the respondent in an answer, has elected the summary decisional procedure or the formal decisional procedure a complainant, who in the reply elects either of these procedures, shall, at the time of filing the reply, pay a filing fee of $75.00 or $200.00, respectively, depending whether the procedure elected by complainant is pursuant to subpart D or E of this part.
[49 FR 6621, Feb. 22, 1984; 49 FR 15070, Apr. 17, 1984, as amended at 59 FR 9637, Mar. 1, 1994; 86 FR 64354, Nov. 18, 2021]
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****ERS information [electronicresource].**
 
2002:JanFebMar/AprMayJunJul/AugSepOctNovDec
2003:Jan/Feb | Mar/Apr/May | Jun/Jul | Sep/Oct
 
SuDoc Number:A 93.63:
Item Number:0042-T-11 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000553905
 
February 7, 2020
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADDED BY
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of United Heritage Bankshares of Florida, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Shirley L. Tyler, Executive Vice President and Treasurer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as added by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:  1.
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the
period covered by the report. Date:
    
    May 6, 2005
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Shirley L. TylerShirley L. Tyler, Executive VicePresident and Treasurer
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
### §12835. Citizen participation

The Secretary shall ensure that each participating jurisdiction, and each jurisdiction seeking to become a participating jurisdiction, complies with the requirements of section 12707 of this title.

(Pub. L. 101–625, title II, §285, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4126.)
#### Messmore Kendall et al., Suing on Their Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated Former Members of Oakland Golf Club Holding Certificates of Indebtedness of Said Club, Appellants, v. Oakland Golf Club et al., Respondents.

In a representative action by holders of certificates of indebtedness of defendant Oakland Golf Club who have resigned their membership in the club or who are representatives of deceased persons, the complaint contained five causes of action. This appeal is by plaintiffs from so much of an order on reargument as adhered to the original determination dismissing the first and third causes of action, and from the judgment entered thereon. Order and judgment, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The first cause of action is to reform the certificates of indebtedness, delivered twenty-five years prior to the commencement of this action, on the ground of mutual mistake. The cause of action was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by the ten-year Statute of Limitations. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 53.) Plaintiffs contend that the statute began to run, not from the time of the delivery of the instruments, but from the time of the discovery of the mistake. Plaintiffs are not entitled to the benefit of that exception to the general rule because they were not in possession of any property under the instrument sought to be reformed. *(Hart*v. *Blabey,*287 N. Y. 257, 262-263.) The third cause of action seeks a declaratory judgment that plaintiffs, upon the dissolution of defendant club or liquidation and sale of its property, are entitled to have its governors declare interest on the face amount of the certificates. The basis for the action is the certificate, a copy of which is annexed to the complaint. Since such certificate is before the court and since it is clear and unambiguous, “the rights and duties of the parties must be determined by ” its “ terms and not by plaintiff’s characterization or construction thereof in its pleading” *(Bed Bobin Stores*v. *Bose,*274 App. Div. 462, 465). In our opinion, the allegations of the third cause of action, read in the light of the *1058explicit provisions of the certificate, do not state a cause of action. Wenzel, MacCrate, Schmidt and Beldoek, JJ., concur; Nolan, P. J., concurs as to the first cause of action but dissents as to the third cause of action and votes to reverse the order and to deny the motion and to vacate the judgment as to that cause of action, with the following memorandum: As a matter of pleading the third cause of action is sufficient. *(Rockland Light & Power Co.*v. *City of New York,*289 N. Y. 45.)
#### In the Matter of City of Syracuse Industrial Development Agency, Respondent, Relative to Acquiring Certain Interests in the Carousel Center Site for the Phased Public Project Known as DestiNY USA. Lord & Taylor Carousel, Inc., Appellant; Carousel Center Company, L.P., Respondent.

(Appeal No. 12.)

[821 NYS2d 502]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (John V Centra, J.), entered May 17, 2006 in a proceeding pursuant to EDPL article 4. The order, among other things, denied the motion of respondent Lord & Taylor Carousel, Inc. to dismiss the petition, granted the petition and authorized petitioner to acquire by condemnation certain Carousel Center interests of that respondent.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is affirmed without costs.

Same memorandum as in *Matter of City of Syracuse Indus. Dev. Agency (J.C. Penney Corp., Inc.*— Carousel *Ctr. Co.,*L.P.) (32 AD3d 1332 [2006]).

All concur except Hurlbutt, J.P., who dissents and votes to reverse in accordance with the same dissenting memorandum as in *Matter of City of Syracuse Indus. Dev. Agency (J.C. Penney Corp., Inc.*— Carousel *Ctr. Co., L.P.)*(32 AD3d 1332 [2006]). Present — Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Gorski and Green, JJ.
§ 80.2 Rules pertaining to records of the living. ( a ) An individual who has attained age 18 may request his or her own Census information.
( b ) A parent may request Census information for and in behalf of a child who has not reached age 18. The request must be signed by one of the parents.
( c ) A legal guardian may obtain Census information relating to a ward by submitting a certified copy of the order of guardianship appointment.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0607-0117) [40 FR 53232, Nov. 17, 1975, as amended at 48 FR 56744, Dec. 23, 1983]
FORM 13F COVER PAGE

Report for the Calendar Year or Quarter Ended: September 30, 2002

Check here if Amendment [   ]; Amendment Number:
This Amendment (Check only one.):  [   ] is a restatement.
                                   [   ] adds new holdings entries.

Institutional Investment Manager Filing this Report:

Name:    The Continental Corporation
Address: CNA Plaza
         Chicago, Il 60685


13F File Number:  28-172

The institutional investment manager filing this report and the
person by whom it is signed hereby represent that the person
signing the report is authorized to submit it, that all
information contained herein is true, correct, and complete, and
that it is understood that all required items, statements,
schedules, lists, and tables, are considered integral parts of
this form.


Person Signing this Report on Behalf of Reporting Manager:

Name:  Lynne Gugenheim
Title: Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel
Phone: (312) 822 4921
Signature, Place, and Date of Signing:
November 8,2002
Chicago, Illinois,60685
I AM SIGNING THIS REPORT AS REQUIRED BY THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE
ACT OF 1934

Report Type (Check only one.):

 [    ]              13F HOLDINGS REPORT.

 [  x ]              13F NOTICE.

 [    ]              13F COMBINATION REPORT.

List of Other Managers Reporting for this Manager:

The securities on which The Continental Corporation exercises
shared investment discretion have been reported upon by CNA Financial
Corporation on behalf of The Continental Corporation.
<Page>
#### Edward M. O. Pratt, Respondent, v. Eugene R. Hurley et al., Individually and as Copartners in the Practice of Law, under the Name of Eugene R. Hurley, Appellants.

In an action to recover the reasonable value of legal services, defendants appeal from an order of the County Court, Nassau County, made on reargument, insofar as said order modifies defendants’ demand for a bill of particulars. Order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Wenzel, Acting P. J., MacCrate, Schmidt, Beldock and Murphy, JJ., concur.
No: IV-15-018 June 22, 2015

CONTACT: Victor Dricks (817) 200-1128

 Lara Uselding (817) 200-1519

NRC to Discuss Performance Assessment for Waterford 3 Nuclear Plant

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a public meeting with representatives from 

Entergy Operations on July 7 to discuss the agency’s assessment of safety performance at the 

Waterford 3 nuclear plant. The plant is located in Killona, La.

 The meeting will begin at 5 p.m. at the Saint Charles Parish Emergency Operations Center, 

15026 River Road, Hahnville, La.

 “The NRC continually reviews the performance of Waterford 3 and each of the nation’s 

commercial nuclear power plants,” said Region IV Administrator Marc Dapas. “This meeting will 

provide an opportunity for a discussion of our assessment of safety performance with the company and 

with local officials and residents who live near the plant.”

 A letter sent from the NRC Region IV office to plant officials will serve as the basis for the 

meeting discussion. It is available on the NRC web site .The NRC evaluates performance at 

commercial nuclear plants with a color-coded process that classifies inspection findings as green, white, 

yellow or red in order of increasing safety significance, as well as performance indicators, which are 

statistical measurements of plant performance that can trigger additional oversight if exceeded. 

 Waterford 3 operated safely during 2014. However, NRC issued a white finding in

connection with the failure of an emergency diesel generator room fan. On April 9, the NRC closed the

white finding following successful completion of a supplemental inspection.

 Waterford 3 will receive the very detailed inspection regime during 2015 used by the NRC 

for plants that are operating well. These inspections are performed by resident inspectors stationed at 

the plant and by inspection specialists from the NRC’s Region IV office in Arlington, Texas. 

 Current performance information for Waterford 3 is available on the NRC web site.
| EXHIBIT      32.1                                                                    |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                 |
| CERTIFICATE      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER                                          |
| PURSUANT      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C.      1350) |

|   | 1. | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                     |   |   |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ Timothy J.      Olphie                                          |   |   |   |
| Timothy      J. OlphieChief      Executive OfficerFebruary      19, 2009 |   |   |   |
#### § 14.9 Duty to file information concerning adverse judicial or administrative action.

Any person appearing or practicing before the Commission who has been the subject of a conviction, suspension, disbarment, revocation, injunction or finding of the kind described in §§ 14.5 through 14.7, unless based on action instituted by the Commission, shall promptly file a copy of the relevant order, judgment or decree with the Secretariat of the Commission at the Commission's Washington, DC headquarters, together with any related opinion or statement of the agency or tribunal involved. Any person who has been the subject of administrative or judicial action of the kind described in §§ 14.5 through 14.7 and who has not filed a copy of the order, judgment or decree within thirty days after its entry shall for that reason alone be disqualified from appearing or practicing before the Commission until such time as the appropriate filing shall be made, but neither the filing of these documents nor the failure of a person to file them shall in any way affect the operations of any other provision of this part.

[41 FR 28472, July 12, 1976, as amended at 60 FR 49335, Sept. 25, 1995; 89 FR 71809, Sept. 4, 2024]