alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1.1116 What must a recognized accreditation body do to voluntarily relinquish or not renew its recognition? ( a ) *Notice to FDA of intent to relinquish or not to renew recognition.* At least 60 calendar days before voluntarily relinquishing its recognition or before allowing its recognition to expire without seeking renewal, a recognized accreditation body must notify FDA of its intention to leave the program, specifying the date on which the relinquishment or expiration will occur. The recognized accreditation body must provide the name and contact information of the custodian who will maintain and make available to FDA the records required by § 1.1124 after the date of relinquishment or the date recognition expires, as applicable. The contact information must include an email address for the records custodian and the street address where the records required under § 1.1124 will be located.
( b ) *Notice to LAAF-accredited laboratories of intent to relinquish or not to renew recognition.* At least 60 calendar days before voluntarily relinquishing its recognition or before allowing its recognition to expire without seeking renewal, a recognized accreditation body must notify the laboratories it LAAF accredits of its intention to leave the program, specifying the date on which relinquishment or expiration will occur.
( c ) *Public notice of voluntary relinquishment or expiration of recognition.* FDA will provide notice on the website described in § 1.1109 of the voluntary relinquishment or expiration of recognition of an accreditation body.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           9,281
<SECURITIES>                                   473,252
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,043
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,872,761
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,872,761
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          277,102
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,595,659
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,872,761
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                96,455
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   39,462
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 56,993
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             56,993
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    56,993
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.37
        

</TABLE>
§ 835.403 Air monitoring. ( a ) Monitoring of airborne radioactivity shall be performed: ( 1 ) Where an individual is likely to receive an exposure of 40 or more DAC-hours in a year; or
( 2 ) As necessary to characterize the airborne radioactivity hazard where respiratory protective devices for protection against airborne radionuclides have been prescribed.
( b ) Real-time air monitoring shall be performed as necessary to detect and provide warning of airborne radioactivity concentrations that warrant immediate action to terminate inhalation of airborne radioactive material.
[63 FR 59683, Nov. 4, 1998]
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the annual report of MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), we, Nabeel Gareeb, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Kenneth H. Hannah, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of our knowledge, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



Date: August 10, 2006



By:

/s/    Nabeel GareebName:

Nabeel GareebTitle:

President and Chief Executive Officer MEMC
Electronic Materials, Inc.




Date: August 10, 2006



By:

/s/    Kenneth H. HannahName:

Kenneth H. HannahTitle:

Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 866 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 866

   Recognizing Sam Hornish, Jr. for winning the 90th running of the 
                           Indianapolis 500.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 13, 2006

 Mr. Gillmor submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                   the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Recognizing Sam Hornish, Jr. for winning the 90th running of the 
                           Indianapolis 500.

Whereas Sam Hornish, Jr. was born in Defiance, Ohio, and currently resides in 
        Napoleon, Ohio, both in Ohio's 5th Congressional District;
Whereas Sam Hornish, Jr. competes in the Indy Racing League with Team Penske and 
        has twice won the championship of that league; and
Whereas Sam Hornish, Jr. won the 90th running of the Indianapolis 500 on May 28, 
        2006: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That the House of Representatives recognizes Sam 
Hornish, Jr. for his victory in the Indianapolis 500.
                                 <all>
```
# L_2023240EN.01009001.xml

| 28.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 240/90 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 240/90

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 220/2020

of 11 December 2020

amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement [2023/2022]

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (“the EEA Agreement”), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Delegated Directive (EU) 2020/12 of 2 August 2019 supplementing Directive (EU) 2017/2397 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the standards for competences and corresponding knowledge and skills, for the practical examinations, for the approval of simulators and for medical fitness (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Delegated Directive (EU) 2020/12 of 2 August 2019 supplementing Directive (EU) 2017/2397 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the standards for competences and corresponding knowledge and skills, for the practical examinations, for the approval of simulators and for medical fitness (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following point is inserted after point 46c (Directive (EU) 2017/2397 of the European Parliament and of the Council) of Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘46d. | 32020 L 0012: Commission Delegated Directive (EU) 2020/12 of 2 August 2019 supplementing Directive (EU) 2017/2397 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the standards for competences and corresponding knowledge and skills, for the practical examinations, for the approval of simulators and for medical fitness (OJ L 6, 10.1.2020, p. 15).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘46d.

32020 L 0012: Commission Delegated Directive (EU) 2020/12 of 2 August 2019 supplementing Directive (EU) 2017/2397 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the standards for competences and corresponding knowledge and skills, for the practical examinations, for the approval of simulators and for medical fitness (OJ L 6, 10.1.2020, p. 15).’

Article 2

The text of Delegated Directive (EU) 2020/12 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 12 December 2020, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 11 December 2020.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Sabine MONAUNI

---

(1)  
  OJ L 6, 10.1.2020, p. 15.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

11 a.m., Friday, January 7, 2011.

# PLACE:

1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.

# STATUS:

Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Surveillance and Enforcement Matters.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,

Assistant Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2010-32780 Filed 12-23-10; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
## United States Court of Appeals
**For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________

No. 21

- 1885

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Jerome Davis Kent

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Southern

____________

Submitted: September 1 4 , 2021 Filed: September 17, 2021 [Unpublished]

____________ Before ERICKSON, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Jerome Davis Kent appeals a 16

- month sentence he received for violating the conditions of supervised release. Although the sentence was reduced to 7 months
after the district court 1 credited him with time served, h e still says it is too long

.

1 The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.-2- We conclude that the sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States
v. Miller , 557 F.3d 910, 917 (8th Cir. 2 009) (reviewing the reasonableness of a revocation sentence for an abuse of discretion); United States v. Perkins , 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (stating that a within

- Guidelines

- range sentence is presumptively reasonable). The record establishes th at the district court sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e)(3), and did not rely on an improper factor or commit a clear error of judgment. See United
States v. Larison , 432 F.3d 921, 923

- 24 (8th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and grant counsel permission to withdraw.

______________________________
226 So.2d 922

#### Neal BOX v. TOWN OF GONZALES et al.

No. 50030.

Oct. 14, 1969.

In re: Neal Box applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 224 So.2d 127.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there is no error in the judgment.
#### § 3186.400 What method do I use as an agency awarding official to obtain a recipient's agreement to comply with the OMB guidance?

To obtain a recipient's agreement to comply with applicable requirements in the OMB guidance at 2 CFR part 182, you must include the following term or condition in the award:

Drug-free workplace. You as the recipient must comply with drug-free workplace requirements in Subpart B (or Subpart C, if the recipient is an individual) of 2 CFR part 3186, which adopts the Governmentwide implementation (2 CFR part 182) of sec. 5152-5158 of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-690, Title V, Subtitle D; 41 U.S.C. 701-707).
* The Honorable Richard Mills, United States District J udge for the Central District of Illinois, sitting by designation. NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 05a0260n.06 Filed: April 6, 2005 No. 02-4086

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. ERIK BOWKER, Defendant-Appellant. / ON REMAND FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ORDER

BEFORE: MARTIN and CLAY, Circuit Judges; MILLS, District Judge. * On June 11, 2004, this Court issued an opinion affirming Defendant Erik Bowker’s convictions and sentence. United States v. Bowker , 372 F.3d 365 (6th Cir. 2004). On February 28, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court granted Bowker’s petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated the judgment of this Court, and remanded to this Court for further consideration in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. __, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Bowker v. United States , __ U.S. __, 125 S. Ct. 1420 (2005). For the reasons that follow, we reinst ate our opinion of June 11, 2004, with the exception of Part IX, and remand to the district court for resentencing in accordance with Booker

. After a jury convicted Bowker of one count of interstate stalking, in violation of 18 U.S.C.No. 02-4086

2 § 2261A(1); one count of cyberstalking, in violati on of 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2); one count of theft of mail, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708; and one c ount of telephone harassment, in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 223(a)(1)(C), the district court determined that the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range, given Bowker’s criminal history and an offense level of 19, was between 57 and 71 months. After making independent findings of fact , the district court granted the government’s motion for a three level upward departure in Bowker’s offense level based on Guidelines § 5K2.3 (extreme psychological injury to the victim), and imposed a 96 month sentence. Bowker’s sentence was imposed in violation of the Sixth Amendment because the 96 month term exceeds the maximum sentence that the Guidelines authorized based solely on the facts found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Booker , 125 S. Ct. at 756. Accordingly, Bowker’s sentence must be vacated. On remand, the district court must impose a reasonable sentence within the applicable statutory maximums for the crimes of conviction. Although the district court will not be bound by the Guidelines, the court nonetheless must “take account of the Guidelines together with other sentencing goals.” Id. at 764 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (Supp. 2004)). Because the decision in Booker does not implicate any other issues concerning Bowker’s conviction or sentence, we hereby reinstate the Court’s opinion of June 11, 2004, with the exception of Part IX (Upward Departure for Extreme Psychological Harm to the Victim). IT IS SO ORDERED.
#### James J. Kelly, Appellant, v. Bank of Buffalo, Respondent.

Order unanimously reversed, with costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: The motion to dismiss this complaint was made pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd. [a], par. 7) upon the ground that it failed to state a cause of action. Although the court might have treated the motion as one for summary judgment (CPLR 3211, subd. [c]), there is nothing in the record to indicate that the court did in fact choose to treat it as such. On the contrary, both the order appealed from and the decision of the court state that the complaint is dismissed for failure to state a cause of action and the notice of appeal describes the appeal as taken “from an order dismissing the complaint for failure to state a cause of action against the defendant”. We recognize, however, that on such a motion the court is no longer limited to a consideration of the pleading itself but may consider extrinsic matter submitted by the parties in disposing of the motion. (4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 3211.43; *Hamilton Print Co.*v. *Payne Corp.,*26 A D 2d 876.) The inquiry is whether the pleader has a cause of action rather than whether he has properly stated one. (6 Carmody-Wait 2d, New-York Practice, § 38:19.) Tested by this standard, we think it was error to dismiss the complaint. Factual issues were presented by the affidavits and other evidence submitted by the parties on the motion which precluded a determination before trial that defendant had fully performed the contract sued on by plaintiff. Among others, one of the critical issues was the amount which defendant would have received if the property had been sold under the original contract executed by plaintiff. At this stage of the litigation defendant was not entitled to a dismissal of the complaint, nor would it have been entitled to summary judgment if the motion had been regarded as a request for that relief. *(1136 Tenants’ Corp.*v. *Rothenberg & Co.,*27 A D 2d 830, affd. 21 N Y 2d 995; *Falk*v. *Goodman,*7 N Y 2d 87, 91.) (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term dismissing complaint in contract action.) Present — Del Vecchio, J. P., Witmer, 'Gabrielli, Bastow and Henry, JJ.
Skip header and go to main content

About usJobsContact us

Classification Resources

            -   Classification  
            -  Revision & Reclassification                 -  CPC                   -   Consolidate Revision Concordance List (RCL)  
                -   List of Deleted Symbols 
                -   Notice of Changes 
                -   Notice of Editorial Corrections 
                -   Active CPC Revision Projects  
                -   CPC Revision Pre-releases 
                -   Published Revision Projects 
              -  IPC                   -   Revision & Reclassification Project Status 
              -  Locarno                    -   Revision & Reclassification Project Status 
              -  USPC                   -    Orders 
            -   General Training                 -  CPC                   -   CPC Training  
                -   Guide to CPC 
              -   IPC                   -   Guide to IPC 
                -   FAQ 
                -   Strasbourg Agreement 
              -   Locarno                   -    About Locarno Classification 
                -   FAQ 
                -   Locarno Agreement 
              -   USPC                   -   Examiner Handbook  
                -   Handbook of Classification 
            -   Additional Resources                 -  CPC                   -   Scheme 
              -  IPC                   -   Scheme 
              -  Locarno                   -    Locarno Classification 
              -  USPC                   -   Class Titles  
                -   Index to USPC 
              -  Other                   -   Espacenet Patent Search   
                -   JPO Classification system – File Index (FI) and F-terms  
                -   Nice Agreement 
                -   Vienna Agreement  
                -   WIPO Standards on Industrial Property Information and Documentation 
            -   Contacts                 -   Classification Standards and Development 
              -   Contacts 

### Classification Symbol Lookup

### Classification Text Search

Enter one or more keywords in the field to search the Classification Scheme (Schedule) and Definitions. Tip: Use quotes to search for exact phrases (e.g. "fuel cells")

Skip footer and go to main content

United States Patent and Trademark Office

United States Patent and Trademark Office

## Browse By Topic

            - Patents
            - Trademarks
            - Learning & Resources
            - About the USPTO
            - Glossary
            - Jobs
            - Contact Us

## About This Site

            - Accessibility
            - Privacy Policy
            - Terms of Use
            - Security
            - Systems Status
            - Site Map

## USPTO Background

            - Federal Activity Inventory Reform Act (FAIR)
            - Performance and Planning
            - Freedom of Information Act
            - Information Quality Guidelines

## Federal Government

            - Regulations.gov
            - StopFakes.gov
            - USA.gov
            - Department of Commerce
            - Strategy Targeting Organized Piracy