alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
REMOVING YOUR TATTOO

Permanent tattoos can be hard and painful to remove. It may take several 

treatments that cost a lot of money. Talk to your doctor about your 

options. Remember:

•

•

You may not be able to completely remove your tattoo. 

You could get a scar when you remove your tattoo.

Laser Removal

The FDA approves certain laser devices 

to remove tattoos. Lighter colors such as 

yellow, green, and red are more difficult 

to remove than darker colors such as 

dark blue and black. It may take 6-10 

treatments to remove a tattoo. Some side 

effects may include bleeding, redness 

or soreness.

Surgery

Tattoos can sometimes be removed by 

cutting out the tattooed skin then sewing 

the skin back together. Other times, the 

skin can be sanded down to remove 

the tattoo.

Ointments and Creams

The FDA does not approve tattoo removal 

ointments and creams or do-it-yourself 

tattoo removal kits. These products may 

cause skin rashes, burns or scars. 

TAKE TIME TO CARE... For yourself, for those who need you.

To get other women’s health materials, go to: 

www.fda.gov/womens

TATTOOS and

PERMANENT 

MAKE-UP
Some women get tattoos for beauty, selfexpression, or cultural events. Whatever 

your reason, know the facts before and 

after you get a tattoo. Permanent tattoos 

last a lifetime. Temporary tattoos may last 

up to 3-4 weeks. Sticker tattoos last hours 

to days.

TYPES OF TATTOOS

Permanent Tattoo

A needle inserts colored ink into your skin.

Permanent Make-Up

A needle inserts colored ink into your skin 

to look like eyeliner, lip liner, eyebrows 

or other make-up.

Henna

Plant dye called henna or mehndi is used 

to stain your skin.

Black Henna

Developed from henna, may contain hair 

dye or other dye to darken the stain and 

make it last longer.

‘Sticker’ Temporary Tattoo

A tattoo design is on a coated paper. 

It is put on your skin with water. 

TATTOO RISKS 

Problems can happen.

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Infections and serious illness, like HIV or hepatitis, from unclean tattoo tools, 

practices, or products

Allergic reactions to the inks or stains can cause skin problems, such as rashes 

Other skin problems like increased chance of sunburn, bumps, redness, or scarring 

Swelling and burning of the tattoo when you get an MRI test 

Pain and high costs if you want to remove a permanent tattoo

Contact your state or local health department for tattoo safety information to reduce your 

risk. Tell your doctor about any tattoos you have before any medical procedure. 

FDA’S ROLE

FDA—

•

•

•

 •

has not approved any inks for injecting into your skin.

has not approved henna or hair dye for use on your skin. Some people have 

reported serious skin problems after using henna or black henna. 

does not regulate tattoo parlors. 

does monitor problems from tattoos and permanent make-up. 

Report problems at: www.fda.gov/medwatch or 1-800-332-1088
#### Washbridge Housing Corp., Respondent-Appellant, v. Tax Commisson of the City of New York, Appellant-Respondent.

Judgment unani-

mously affirmed, on the opinion at 'Special Term, without costs and without disbursements. No opinion. Concur—■ Stevens, P. J., Eager, Capozzoli, Nunez and Steuer, JJ. [60 Misc 2d 296.]
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T Sept. 22, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [ D O N O T P U B L I S H ]

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ N o

. 0 9

- 1 1 6 7 0 N o n - A r g u m e n t C a l e n d a r

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D

. C

. D o c k e t N o

. 0 2

- 0 0 0 3 7

- C R

- 0 0 1

- C A R

- 5

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A ,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e ,

v e r s u s
S T O N E Y L E S T E R ,
D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A p p e a l f r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e M i d d l e D i s t r i c t o f G e o r g i a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ( S e p t e m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 9 )

B e f o r e C A R N E S , W I L S O N a n d H I L L , C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.
P E R C U R I A M :

L a R a e D i x o n M o o r e , a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l f o r S t o n e y L e s t e r , h a s f

i l e d am o t i o n t o w i t h d r a w o n a p p e a l , s u p p o r t e d b y a b r i e f p r e p a r e d p u r s u a n t t o A n d e r s v
.

C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 , 8 7 S

. C t

. 1 3 9 6 , 1 8 L

. E d

. 2 d 4 9 3 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. O u r i n d e p e n d e n t

r e v i e w o f t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t c o u n s e l ’ s a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e r e l a t i v e m e r i t o f

t h e a p p e a l i s c o r r e c t

. B e c a u s e i n d e p e n d e n t e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d r e v e a l s

n o a r g u a b l e i s s u e s o f m e r i t , c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n t o w i t h d r a w i s G R A N T E D , a n d t h e
d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s o r d e r d e n y i n g L e s t e r ’ s m o t i o n f o r r e l i e f u n d e r 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) i s A F F I R M E D

.

2
EXHIBIT 11

                    COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (Loss)

                           National Datacomputer, Inc.
          Statement recomputation of net income (loss) per common share


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                       March 31,     March 31,
                                                                         1999          1998
                                                                     -----------    -----------
<S>                                                                  <C>            <C>        
Net loss, as reported                                                $ (199,626)    $ (381,844)

Preferred stock preference items:

Warrant                                                                             $ (214,000)

Discount inherent in conversion terms of Series C
        convertible preferred stock upon issuance                                   $  (25,958)

Discount inherent in conversion terms of Series D
        convertible preferred stock upon issuance                                   $  (20,644)

Discount inherent in conversion terms of Series F                                          
        convertible preferred stock upon issuance                    $  (18,750)           -

Interest on Series B, C, D and F convertible preferred stock         $ (104,500)    $ (102,750)
                                                                     -----------    -----------

Total preferred stock preference item                                $ (123,250)    $ (363,352)

Net loss attributable to common stockholders                         $ (322,876)    $ (745,196)

Weighted average shares outstanding:

A. Shares attributable to common stock outstanding                    2,537,859      1,628,332
B. Shares attributable to convertible preferred stock outstanding           -              -
C. Shares attributable to common stock options and warrants
        pursuant to APB 15, paragraph 38 (a)                                -              -
                                                                     -----------    -----------

Weighted average shares outstanding                                   2,537,859      1,628,332
                                                                     ===========    ===========

Net loss  per share                                                  $    (0.13)    $    (0.46)
                                                                     ===========    ===========

Note:   Due to the Company's net loss, no exercises of options or conversions of
        preferred stock have been assumed, all such items would be
        anti-dilutive.
</TABLE>
#### § 60.137 General requirements for performance confirmation.

The geologic repository operations area shall be designed so as to permit implementation of a performance confirmation program that meets the requirements of subpart F of this part.
§ 1120.315 Availability of general terms and conditions. ( a ) A DoD Component that issues a funding opportunity announcement under which grants or cooperative agreements may be awarded must maintain on the internet the general terms and conditions for those awards if: ( 1 ) The distribution of the funding opportunity announcement is unlimited; and
( 2 ) The DoD Component anticipates making 10 or more awards per year using those general terms and conditions.
( b ) Each DoD Component that maintains a set of general terms and conditions on the internet must also maintain an archive of previous versions of that set at the same internet location, for use by recipients, post-award administrators, auditors, and others. Each version must be labeled with its effective dates.
( c ) If a DoD Component has a set of general terms and conditions that is not subject to the requirement in paragraph (a) of this section and the DoD Component chooses not to maintain that set on the internet: ( 1 ) It must tell potential applicants or proposers in the funding opportunity announcement, if there is one, how they may view or obtain a copy of the general terms and conditions; or
( 2 ) If there is no funding opportunity announcement (*e.g.,* if it is a noncompetitive program for which all recipients are known in advance), the DoD Component must provide the general terms and conditions to each recipient no later than the time of award.
H. Res. 692

In the House of Representatives, U.S., 

April 5, 2006.

Whereas between 1946 and 1958, the United States conducted 67 nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands, 66 of 

which resulted in atmospheric fallout; 

Whereas the most powerful of these tests was the hydrogen 

weapons test codenamed Bravo, a 15-megaton device detonated on March 1, 1954, at Bikini atoll; 

Whereas the Bravo detonation alone was the equivalent to 

1,000 Hiroshima-sized bombs; 

Whereas 17 other tests in the Marshall Islands were in the 

megaton range, and the total yield of the 67 tests was 

108 megatons, the equivalent yield of more than 7,000 

Hiroshima bombs and 93 times the total of Nevada atmospheric tests; 

Whereas in July 1998, the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention estimated that 6.3 billion curies of radioactive 

iodine-131 were released to the atmosphere as a result of 

the testing in the Marshall Islands; 

Whereas the 12-year nuclear testing program has been the 

defining experience of the modern era for the people of 

the Marshall Islands, and these momentous events created a common bond between the people of the Marshall 

Islands and the United States military and civilian per-
2

•HRES 692 EH 

sonnel who shared hardships and suffering with the people of the Marshall Islands during the testing program; 

Whereas as a Member State of the United Nations, the world 

body that once had oversight of United States stewardship of the trusteeship for the people of the Marshall Islands and their island homelands, the Republic of the 

Marshall Islands has an unmatched record of working in 

conjunction with the leadership of the United States in 

the pursuit of international peace and security, the rights 

and well-being of the peoples of the world, and in the 

War on Terrorism: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) commends the people of the Republic of the 

Marshall Islands for the contributions and sacrifices they 

made to the United States nuclear testing program in 

the Marshall Islands; 

(2) solemnly acknowledges the first detonation of a 

hydrogen bomb by the United States on March 1, 1954, 

on the Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands; and 

(3) remembers that 60 years ago the United States 

began its nuclear testing program in the Marshall Islands.

Attest: 

Clerk.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7308

RAHEEM JABBAR HUNT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID ROBINSON, Warden, Nottoway Correctional Center, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-802-3) Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: November 15, 2002 Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Clay Chrisman, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Raheem Jabbar Hunt seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state court 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 for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). As to claims dismissed by a district court solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee , 252 F. 3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Hunt has not satisfied either standard. SeeHunt v. Robinson , No. CA-01- 802-3 (E.D. Va. Aug. 6, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eddie Rush, Appellant.

[815 NYS2d 127]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Brown, J.), rendered May 20, 2003, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree, criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, criminal use of a firearm in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, grand larceny in the third degree, and grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]) in which he moves to be relieved of the assignment to prosecute the appeal.

Ordered that the motion is granted, and Martin Geoffrey Goldberg, Esq., is relieved as the attorney for the defendant and is directed to turn over all papers in his possession to new counsel assigned herein; and it is further,

Ordered that Steven Feldman, Esq., 626 EAB Plaza, West Tower-6th Floor, Uniondale, N.Y., 11556, is assigned as counsel to perfect the appeal; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is directed to furnish a copy of the stenographic minutes to the new assigned counsel; and it is further,

Ordered that new counsel shall serve and file a brief on behalf of the defendant within 90 days of the date of this decision and order and the respondent shall serve and file its brief within 120 days of the date of this decision and order; by prior decision and order on motion of this Court, the defendant was granted leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person, with the appeal to be heard on the original papers (including the typewritten *608stenographic minutes) and on the typewritten briefs of the parties, who were directed to file nine copies of their respective briefs and to serve one copy on each other.

Upon this Court’s independent review of the record, we conclude that potentially nonfrivolous issues exist with respect to, inter alia, whether an out-of-court statement was admitted in violation of *Crawford v Washington*(541 US 36 [2004]) and whether there was a reasonable basis articulated on the record for physically restraining the defendant before the jury *(see People v Goldstein,*6 NY3d 119 [2005], *petition for cert filed*74 USLW 3544 [No. 05-1193, Mar. 16, 2006]; *People v Hardy, 4*NY3d 192 [2005]; *People v Rouse,*79 NY2d 934 [1992]). Accordingly, assignment of new counsel is warranted *(see Anders v California, supra; People v Stokes,*95 NY2d 633 [2001]; *People v Vasquez,*70 NY2d 1 [1987]). Ritter, J.P., Mastro, Lunn and Covello, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 772 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 772

   Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require the 
 Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to provide regular ethics 
    training for Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 25, 2006

   Mr. Davis of Kentucky (for himself and Mr. Sodrel) submitted the 
   following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require the 
 Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to provide regular ethics 
    training for Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner.

    Resolved,  That clause 3 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is amended by inserting at the end:
    ``(r)(1) The committee shall establish a program of regular ethics 
training for Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner.
    ``(2) The committee shall publish a list of Members who have and 
have not completed such ethics training within the first one hundred 
calendar days after being sworn-in during each Congress. The committee 
shall update this list with the names of Members who complete the 
training after the deadline with the date on which the training was 
completed.
    ``(3) Publication of the list of Members who have and have not 
completed the ethics training shall be made available on the official 
website of the committee and published in the Congressional Record.''.
                                 <all>
```
§ 960.5-2-8 Surface characteristics. ( a ) *Qualifying condition.* The site shall be located such that, considering the surface characteristics and conditions of the site and surrounding area, including surface-water systems and the terrain, the requirements specified in § 960.5-1(a)(3) can be met during repository siting, construction, operation, and closure.
( b ) *Favorable conditions.* ( 1 ) Generally flat terrain.
( 2 ) Generally well-drained terrain.
( c ) *Potentially adverse condition.* Surface characteristics that could lead to the flooding of surface or underground facilities by the occupancy and modification of flood plains, the failure of existing or planned man-made surface-water impoundments, or the failure of engineered components of the repository.
###### Editorial Note on Part 25

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 25 appear at 79 FR 75879, Dec. 19, 2014.

#### § 25.465 Successor.

*Successor* means a non-Federal entity that has replaced a predecessor by acquiring the assets and carrying out the affairs of the predecessor under a new name (often through acquisition or merger). The term “successor” does not include new offices or divisions of the same company or a company that only changes its name.
# EUR-Lex - 31982R3402 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31982R3402

**Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3402/82 of 17 December 1982 on the classification of goods under subheading 38.19 X of the Common Customs Tariff **

*
Official Journal L 357 , 18/12/1982 P. 0016 - 0016 Finnish special edition: Chapter 2 Volume 3 P. 0140 Spanish special edition: Chapter 02 Volume 9 P. 0139 Swedish special edition: Chapter 2 Volume 3 P. 0140 Portuguese special edition Chapter 02 Volume 9 P. 0139 *

*****

COMMISSION REGULATION (EEC) No 3402/82

of 17 December 1982

on the classification of goods under subheading 38.19 X of the Common Customs Tariff

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN

COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 97/69 of 16 January 1969 on measures to be taken for the uniform application of the nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff (1), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Greece, and in particular Article 3 thereof,

Whereas to ensure uniform application of the nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff, provision should be made for the tariff classification of a base preparation for chewing gum, in the form of cylindrical pieces consisting (by weight) of 34 % butyl rubber, 15 % polyethylene, 13 % poly(vinyl acetate), 28 % vegetable resin and 10 % calcium carbonate;

Whereas heading No 38.19 of the Common Customs Tariff, annexed to Council Regulation (EEC) No 950/68 (2), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3000/82 (3) includes inter alia preparations of the chemical and allied industries not elsewhere specified or included;

Whereas the product in question has the characteristics of a preparation of the chemical or allied industries;

Whereas, in the absence of a more specific heading, it must be classified in heading No 38.19; whereas, within that heading, subheading 38.19 X is appropriate;

Whereas the provisions of this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Common Customs Tariff Nomenclature,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Base preparations for chewing gum, in the form of cylindrical pieces consisting (by weight) of 34 % butyl rubber, 15 % polyethylene, 13 % poly(vinyl acetate), 28 % vegetable resin and 10 % calcium carbonate shall be classified in the Common Customs Tariff under subheading:

38.19 Chemical products and preparations of the chemical or allied industries (including those consisting of mixtures of natural products), not elsewhere specified or included; residual products of the chemical or allied industries, not elsewhere specified or included:

X. Other.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 21st day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 17 December 1982.

For the Commission

Karl-Heinz NARJES

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 14, 21. 1. 1969, p. 1.

(2) OJ No L 172, 22. 7. 1968, p. 1.

(3) OJ No L 318, 15. 11. 1982, p. 1.