alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 111.465 What requirements apply to holding reserve samples of dietary supplements? ( a ) You must hold reserve samples of dietary supplements in a manner that protects against contamination and deterioration. This includes: ( 1 ) Holding the reserve samples under conditions consistent with product labels or, if no storage conditions are recommended on the label, under ordinary storage conditions; and
( 2 ) Using the same container-closure system in which the packaged and labeled dietary supplement is distributed, or if distributing dietary supplements to be packaged and labeled, using a container-closure system that provides essentially the same characteristics to protect against contamination or deterioration as the one in which you distribute the dietary supplement for packaging and labeling elsewhere.
( b ) You must retain reserve samples for 1 year past the shelf life date (if shelf life dating is used), or for 2 years from the date of distribution of the last batch of dietary supplements associated with the reserve samples, for use in appropriate investigations.
Editorial Note on Part 72
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 72 appear at 80 FR 74981, Dec. 1, 2015, and at 81 FR 86910, Dec. 2, 2016.

§ 72.142 Quality assurance organization. ( a ) The licensee, applicant for a license, certificate holder, and applicant for a CoC shall be responsible for the establishment and execution of the quality assurance program. The licensee and certificate holder may delegate to others, such as contractors, agents, or consultants, the work of establishing and executing the quality assurance program, but the licensee and the certificate holder shall retain responsibility for the program. The licensee, applicant for a license, certificate holder, and applicant for a CoC shall clearly establish and delineate in writing the authority and duties of persons and organizations performing activities affecting the functions of structures, systems, and components which are important to safety. These activities include performing the functions associated with attaining quality objectives and the quality assurance functions.
( b ) The quality assurance functions are— ( 1 ) Assuring that an appropriate quality assurance program is established and effectively executed; and
( 2 ) Verifying, by procedures such as checking, auditing, and inspection, that activities affecting the functions that are important to safety have been correctly performed. The persons and organizations performing quality assurance functions shall have sufficient authority and organizational freedom to identify quality problems; to initiate, recommend, or provide solutions; and to verify implementation of solutions.
( c ) The persons and organizations performing quality assurance functions shall report to a management level that ensures that the required authority and organizational freedom, including sufficient independence from cost and schedule considerations when these considerations are opposed to safety considerations, are provided. Because of the many variables involved, such as the number of personnel, the type of activity being performed, and the location or locations where activities are performed, the organizational structure for executing the quality assurance program may take various forms, provided that the persons and organizations assigned the quality assurance functions have the required authority and organizational freedom. Irrespective of the organizational structure, the individual(s) assigned the responsibility for assuring effective execution of any portion of the quality assurance program, at any location where activities subject to this section are being performed, must have direct access to the levels of management necessary to perform this function.
§ 1132.200 Purpose of PROC Article II. PROC Article II of the general terms and conditions specifies procurement procedures for a recipient of a grant or cooperative agreement other than a State or for-profit entity. It thereby: ( a ) Implements OMB guidance in 2 CFR 200.318 through 200.323, 200.324(a) and (b), and 200.325;
( b ) Partially implements 2 CFR 200.205(d) and 200.213; and
( c ) Implements, in conjunction with PROC Article III, 2 CFR 200.326.
#### A. B. C. Electrotype Company et al., Appellants, v. Schroeder Brothers Company, Appellee.

Gen. No. 41,080.

opinion filed June 19, 1940;

rehearing denied September 10, 1940.

Teller, Levit, Silvertrust & Levi, for appellants; A. F. W. Siebel and Arthur F. Siebel, for appellee.

Opinion by

Presiding Justice Denis E. Sullivan.

“Not to be published in full.”
EXHIBIT 3.5



                               AMENDMENT #1 TO THE
                               AMENDED & RESTATED
                                    BYLAWS

                  OF NATIONAL MEDICAL HEALTH CARD SYSTEMS, INC.

                        Effective as of October 28, 2005

     Article 4 Section 4.05 is hereby  deleted in its entirety and replaced with
the following new Section 4.05.


     "Section 4.05 Nominating and Corporate Governance  Committee.  The Board of
Directors  shall  designate a nominating and corporate  governance  committee to
carry out the  powers of the Board of  Directors  with  respect  to  identifying
individuals  qualified  to  become  Independent  Directors  (as  defined  in the
Certificate of  Incorporation),  to select the Independent  Director nominees to
stand for election as directors at any meeting of  stockholders  and to fill any
Independent  Director vacancy,  however created,  in the Board of Directors,  to
develop and  recommend to the Board of  Directors a set of corporate  governance
principles  and  to  review  policies  relating  to  meetings  of the  Board  of
Directors.  Such  committee  shall be  comprised  of a majority  of  Independent
Directors."
#### § 902.300 Whom in the DOE does a recipient who is an individual notify about a criminal drug conviction?

A recipient who is an individual and is required under 2 CFR 182.300(b) to notify Federal agencies about a conviction for a criminal drug offense must notify each DOE office from which it currently has an award.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 25 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 25

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       January 5, 2017.
    Resolved, That the following named Member be, and is hereby, elected to the 
following standing committee of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Ethics: Ms. Sanchez.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
[No. 9852.

Department Two.

November 9, 1911.]

#### J. C. Mironski, *Respondent,*v. Thomas Noon *et al., Appellants.**1*

Appeal — Bonds-—Justification—Necessity. An appeal will he dismissed where the bond on appeal contains no justification of any surety thereon, as required by Rem. & Bal. Code, § 1725.

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Gilliam, J., entered May 13, 1911, upon the verdict of a jury rendered in favor of the plaintiff, in an action for damages.

Dismissed.

*Byers & Byers,*for appellants.

*Elias A. Wright,*for respondent.

1

 Reported in 118 Pac. 735.

Per Curiam.

— This action was commenced by J. C. Mironski against Thomas A. Noon, Clara T. Noon, his wife, and other defendants as their bondsmen, to recover damages arising from an unlawful eviction in an action of forcible entry and detainer. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendants have appealed.

The respondent has moved to dismiss the appeal for the want of any legal or sufficient appeal bond. The bond filed herein, which purports to be an appeal and supersedeas bond, has no justification of any surety attached thereto, and respondent insists it is insufficient to sustain the appeal. Rem. & Bal. Code, § 1725, provides that:

> “An appeal bond, whether conditioned so as to effect a stay of proceedings or not, shall be of no force unless accompanied by the affidavit of the surety or sureties therein attached thereto, in which each surety shall state that he is a resident of this state and is worth a certain sum mentioned in such affidavit, over and above all debts and liabilities, in property within this state, exclusive of property exempt from execution, and which sums so sworn to by the surety or sureties, shall be *569at least equal to the penalty named in the bond if there be but one surety, or shall amount in all to at least twice such penalty if there be more than one surety.”

No affidavit is attached to the bond. A blank form appears in the record, but has not been used and is without force or effect. This court has heretofore sustained the objection here interposed. *Northern Counties Inv. Trust v. Hender,*12 Wash. 559, 41 Pac. 913; *McFadden v. Mountain View Min. & Mill Co.,*27 Wash. 729, 67 Pac. 1134.

The appeal is dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 862 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 862

  Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit the 
   consideration of legislation in the House unless the text of the 
 legislation which will be considered has been made publicly available 
       in electronic form for a mandatory minimum review period.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2018

   Mr. Garrett (for himself, Mr. Polis, and Mr. Buck) submitted the 
   following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit the 
   consideration of legislation in the House unless the text of the 
 legislation which will be considered has been made publicly available 
       in electronic form for a mandatory minimum review period.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This resolution may be cited as the ``Review Every Act Diligently 
in Total Resolution'' or the ``READ IT Resolution''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITING CONSIDERATION OF TEXT OF LEGISLATION UNTIL 
              COMPLETION OF MANDATORY MINIMUM REVIEW PERIOD.

    Rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by 
adding at the end the following new clause:
    ``13.(a) It shall not be in order to consider a bill, joint 
resolution, resolution, or conference report unless the text of the 
bill, joint resolution, resolution, or conference report which will be 
considered has been publicly available in electronic form for the 
mandatory minimum review period.
    ``(b) The application of paragraph (a) to a bill, joint resolution, 
resolution, or conference report may not be waived other than by a 
resolution approved by the House which consists solely of the following 
text: `That clause 13(a) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives shall not apply to _____', with the blank space filled 
in with the number of the bill, joint resolution, resolution, or 
conference report involved.
    ``(c) In this clause, the `mandatory minimum review period' with 
respect to a bill, joint resolution, resolution, or conference report 
is the period--
            ``(1) which begins with the first hour beginning after the 
        text of the bill, joint resolution, resolution, or conference 
        report which will be considered is first made publicly 
        available in electronic form; and
            ``(2) which consists of a number of minutes equal to two 
        times the number of pages of the text of the bill, joint 
        resolution, resolution, or conference report which will be 
        considered.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 200.422 Advisory councils.

Costs incurred by advisory councils or committees are unallowable unless authorized by statute, the Federal awarding agency or as an indirect cost where allocable to Federal awards. See § 200.444, applicable to States, local governments, and Indian tribes.

[85 FR 49564, Aug. 13, 2020]
#### STATE BANK v. KESHIN BLITSTEIN & CO. et al.

(No. 6526.)

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 4, 1914.)

1. Pleading (§ 238*)—Amendments—Motion fob- Leave.

Where an amended answer is not obviously frivolous, the question whether the defense presented is sufficient in law will not be determined on a motion for leave to serve, for the defendant, who proposes to rely upon the answer, is entitled to an opportunity to present its sufficiency in such a manner that the question can be reviewed on appeal.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent Dig. §§ 602, 620-625; Dec. Dig. § 238.*]

2. Pleading (§ 238*)—Amendments—Allowance.

Where plaintiff will not be injured by the service of an amended answer, except by a slight delay, which can be reduced to a minimum by the terms of the order granting the motion, defendant should be given leave; the defense not appearing frivolous.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent Dig. §§ 602, 620-625 ; Dec. Dig. § 238.*]

Appeal from Special Term, New York County.

Action by the State Bank against Keshin Blitstein & Co. and others. From an order denying leave to serve an amended answer, defendants appeal. Order reversed, and "leave granted.

Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and LAUGHLIN, SCOTT, DOWLING, and HOTCHKISS, JJ.

J. A. Seidman, of New York City, for appellants.

W. T. Kohn, of New York-City, for respondent.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

SCOTT, J.

This action was commenced on July 8, 1914, and is to recover against appellant as an indorser upon a note executed by Jacob Cohen & Co. The defendant has already answered, and once amended its answer by consent, and the cause is now on the short cause calendar for trial.

*158[1, 2]

The motion was opposed on the ground that it was not timely made, was not made in good faith, and that the defenses sought to be added are not sufficient in law. The last objection we have frequently refused to entertain, unless the defenses sought to be pleaded were obviously sham or frivolous, as the defenses now submitted clearly are not. Whether they are good in law we do not decide on this motion. The defendant, who proposes to refy upon them, is entitled to an opportunity to present them in such a manner that their validity may be tested on appeal. It does not appear that the plaintiff will be in. any way prejudiced, except by some delay. That can be reduced to a minimum by the terms of the order granting the motion.

The order appealed from will be reversed, and the motion granted, upon condition that, if plaintiff so elects, the cause shall retain its present place upon the calendar, and upon the further condition that the appellant within five days serves the amended answer and pays to the plaintiff the costs and disbursements of the action to date. All concur.
H. Res. 868

In the House of Representatives, U.S., 

June 15, 2006.

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 

shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 

to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 861) declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on 

Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary. The resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except: (1) ten 

hours of debate equally divided and controlled among the 

chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 

International Relations, the chairman and ranking minority 

member of the Committee on Armed Services, the chairman 

and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the chairman and ranking minority member of the 

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; and (2) one motion to recommit which may not include instructions. 
2

•HRES 868 EH 

SEC. 2. During consideration of House Resolution 861 

pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 

the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the resolution to a time designated by the Speaker.

Attest: 

Clerk.
118 STAT. 680 PUBLIC LAW 108–246—JUNE 25, 2004

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3300:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

Vol. 149 (2003): Nov. 18, considered and passed House.

Vol. 150 (2004): June 9, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 108–246

108th Congress

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 15500

Pearl Road in Strongsville, Ohio, as the ‘‘Walter F. Ehrnfelt, Jr. Post Office Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

15500 Pearl Road in Strongsville, Ohio, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Walter F. Ehrnfelt, Jr. Post Office Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Walter

F. Ehrnfelt, Jr. Post Office Building’’.

Approved June 25, 2004.

June 25, 2004

[H.R. 3300]
223 So.2d 872

#### Eddie DAVENPORT v. The LEMON TREE OF RUSTON, INC., et al.

No. 49955.

June 27, 1969.

In re: The Lemon Tree of Ruston, Inc. applying for writ of certiorari.

Writ refused. The Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, being vested with appellate jurisdiction, is likewise vested with supervisory jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 29 of Article *7*of the Constitution, as amended, and application or appeal should first be made to that Court and all remedies exhausted there before invoking our supervisory jurisdiction.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 164 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 164

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that there should 
 be established a National School-Based Health Centers Month to raise 
    awareness of health services provided by school health centers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 16, 2005

  Mr. Davis of Illinois submitted the following resolution; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that there should 
 be established a National School-Based Health Centers Month to raise 
    awareness of health services provided by school health centers.

Whereas physical and mental health care is of vital importance to ensuring the 
        well-being of the youth in the United States;
Whereas all youth deserve access to comprehensive health care, yet youth are 
        less likely than other age groups to have medical insurance and have the 
        lowest rate of utilization of health care;
Whereas health centers are found in more than 1500 schools across the United 
        States;
Whereas enrollment rates at school health centers of 65 to 85 percent are 
        important evidence of overwhelming parental support for these centers;
Whereas school-based health centers improve the lives of the Nation's youth and 
        their families by offering affordable and accessible high-quality health 
        care and health education;
Whereas high-quality physical and mental health care is necessary for the 
        Nation's students to attain high levels of academic achievement;
Whereas school-based health centers offer this necessary combination by 
        providing medical care in addition to preventive and mental services;
Whereas school-based health centers are supported by a diverse range of members 
        of the community, including parents, teachers, school administrators, 
        and other concerned citizens; and
Whereas school-based health centers serve as a vital link in the Nation's health 
        care network: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That it is the sense of the House of Representatives 
that--
            (1) there should be established a ``School-Based Health 
        Center Awareness Month'' to raise awareness of the health 
        services provided by schools and the extent to which these 
        services improve the health and well-being of the Nation's 
        youth; and
            (2) the President should issue a proclamation calling on 
        the people of the United States and interested organizations to 
        observe such a month with appropriate programs and activities.
                                 <all>
```
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-14-00154-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF A.A.E., A CHILD 

 

 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 

Potter County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 847782, Honorable Pamela Cook Sirmon, Presiding 

 

April 28, 2014 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. 

Appellant, Jessica, attempts to appeal the order signed on April 15, 2014, by an 

associate judge in a family law matter involving conservatorship of and child support for 

her son, A.A.E.1 Concluding that we do not have jurisdiction over this matter, we will 

dismiss the cause for want of jurisdiction.

We have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a “final order” rendered under 

Title 5 of the Texas Family Code. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(b) (West 2014); 

 

1

To protect the parent’s and child’s privacy, we will refer to the mother by the alias, “Jessica,” 

and refer to the child by his initials. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(d) (West 2014); TEX. R. APP. P.

9.8(b). 
2

Graham v. Graham, 414 S.W.3d 800, 801 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no 

pet.); see also Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (observing 

that “the general rule, with a few mostly statutory exceptions, is that an appeal may be 

taken only from a final judgment”).

An order of an associate judge presiding over a Title IV-D case may become an 

order of the referring court by operation of law without need for ratification by the 

referring court. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 201.1041(a) (West 2014). However, the 

order automatically becomes final only if a request for a de novo hearing is not filed in 

the referring court within three days of the associate judge’s ruling. See id. §§ 

201.015(a) (West 2014), 201.1041(a); In re the Office of the Att’y Gen. of Tex., 215 

S.W.3d 913, 916 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, orig. proceeding).

Here, it has come to the attention to the Clerk of this Court that a request for a de 

novo hearing has been timely filed in the County Court at Law No. 2 of Potter County 

under trial court cause number 847782, and that case is currently on that court’s active 

docket. That being so, the associate judge’s order signed April 15, 2014, is not a final 

order from which an appeal may be taken to this Court.

We lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal of an associate judge’s order that is 

not final. See Graham, 414 S.W.3d at 802. Accordingly, we dismiss this case for want 

of jurisdiction. TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f).

Mackey K. Hancock

 Justice