alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 106
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 106 appear at 81 FR 49895, July 29, 2016.

§ 106.60 Controls to prevent adulteration during packaging and labeling of infant formula. ( a ) A manufacturer shall examine packaged and labeled infant formula during finishing operations to ensure that all containers and packages in the production aggregate have the correct label, the correct use-by date, and the correct code established under § 106.80.
( b ) Labels shall be designed, printed, and applied so that the labels remain legible and attached during the conditions of processing, storage, handling, distribution, and use.
( c ) Packaging used to hold multiple containers of an infant formula product shall be labeled as follows: ( 1 ) Where all containers are the same infant formula product and all bear the same code established under § 106.80, the packaging label shall include the product name, the name of the manufacturer, distributor, or shipper, and the code established under § 106.80.
( 2 ) Where the containers are not the same infant formula product or do not all bear the same code established under § 106.80, the packaging label shall: ( i ) Include the product name of each product, the name of the manufacturer, distributor, or shipper of each product, the code established under § 106.80 for each product, and a “use by” date that is no later than the “use by” date of the container exhibiting the closest “use by” date applied to satisfy the requirement of § 107.20(c) of this chapter; or
( ii ) Include a unique identification number assigned by the packager, provided that the distributor of the package maintains a record linked to such unique number that identifies the product name of each product, the name of the manufacturer, distributor, or shipper of each product, the code established under § 106.80 for each product, and the “use by” date for each product applied to satisfy the requirement of § 107.20(c) of this chapter.
#### STEWART IRON WORKS CO. v. OCEAN VIEW CEMETERY et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 12, 1914.)

Action by the Stewart Iron-Works Company against the Ocean View Cemetery and others.

W. G. Morse, of New York City, for appellants.

H. H. Gibbs, of New York City, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs, with leave to defendants to withdraw the demurrer and to answer on payment of costs in this court and in the court below. Order filed. See, also, 138 N. Y. Supp. 1144, 153 App. Div. 897.
38462.

#### HAMPTON v. THE STATE. HAMPTON v. THE STATE.

38463.

Frankum, Judge.

The plaintiffs in error are brothers who were jointly indicted for the murder of James Anthony. They were tried together in the Superior Court of Wilkes County and were convicted of the offense of voluntary manslaughter. Motions for a new trial were filed on general grounds and later amended to add one special ground. After the hearing the trial court overruled the motions for a new trial, as amended, to which ruling the defendants except and assign same as error. *Held:*

1. Though the evidence is conflicting, the jury believed the account testified to by the State’s witnesses. There was sufficient evidence to authorize the conviction. *Allen v. State,*20 Ga. App. 184 (92 S. E. 948); *Williams v. State,*17 Ga. App. 724 (88 S. E. 215); *Holifield v. State,*16 Ga. App. 250 (85 S. E. 81). See *Adler v. Adler,*207 Ga. 394, 405 (61 S. E. 2d 824); *Bibb Cigar & Candy Co. v. McSwain,*95 Ga. App. 659 (98 S. E. 2d 128).

2. The defendants complain of the court’s charge as follows: “If you think, gentlemen, that one was protecting the other as his brother and then he came to his rescue to help him, why, gentlemen, I charge you that neither of the defendants would be guilty. A person has a right to help his own brother in his own fight where he is justified in so doing under the evidence. All of those are questions entirely for you to decide, gentlemen, from the evidence in this case.” Tt *512is contended that the charge does not measure up to the rule laid down in *Williams v. State,*70 Ga. App. 10(2) (27 S. E. 2d 109). However, upon reflection, the charge given by the trial court is more favorable to the accused than the one framed within the rule insisted upon by the defendant. Actually, the rule insisted on by the defendants is one applicable to the intervention of a third party not related to the participants. Without ruling on the correctness of the charge, it is obvious that the defendant received the most favorable charge possible. The charge, in effect, directed that if the jury found that one brother was protecting his brother, neither would be guilty. A favorable charge, though incorrect, furnishes an accused no ground for complaint. *Durham v. State,*138 Ga. 817(4) (76 S. E. 351).

Decided October 3, 1960.

*Colley & Orr,*for plaintiffs in error.

*J. Cecil Davis, Solicitor-General,*contra.

*Judgments affirmed.*

*Townsend and Carlisle, JJ., concur. Gardner, P. J., not participating.*
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------



                                  CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

                    (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350,
                   CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)


Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of National Datacomputer, Inc., a Delaware Corporation (the
"Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 (the
"Form 10-QSB") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information
contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: August 14, 2003                           /s/  John P. Ward
                                                 ------------------------------
                                                      John P. Ward
                                                      Chief Executive Officer

Dated: August 14, 2003                           /s/  Gerald S. Eilberg
                                                 ------------------------------
                                                      Gerald S. Eilberg
                                                      Chief Financial Officer

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.
# EUR-Lex - 31994D0837 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31994D0837

**94/837/EC: Commission Decision of 16 December 1994 laying down special conditions for the approval of the re-wrapping centres referred to in Council Directive 77/99/EEC and rules for the marketing of the products therefrom **

*
Official Journal L 352 , 31/12/1994 P. 0015 - 0015 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 65 P. 0175 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 65 P. 0175 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 16 December 1994 laying down special conditions for the approval of the rewrapping centres referred to in Council Directive 77/99/EEC and rules for the marketing of the products therefrom (94/837/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 77/99/EEC of 21 December 1976 on health problems affecting the production and marketing of meat products and certain other products of animal origin (1), as last amended by Directive 92/118/EEC (2), and in particular

Article 17

thereof,

Whereas the rewrapping centres may carry out handling operations, in addition to rewrapping and/or reassembling, such as cutting or slicing meat products; whereas this can entail the handling of products unprotected by their wrapping or packaging materials;

Whereas the hygiene conditions under which these operations are to be carried out should be defined;

Whereas rules for the health marking of the products from these rewrapping centres should also be laid down;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

1. Rewrapping centres which only reassemble products without removing the wrapping must fulfil the relevant conditions set out in Annex B, Chapter VII, point 1 to Directive 77/99/EEC.

2. Rewrapping centres carrying out unwrapping and rewrapping operations, must fulfil the relevant conditions set out in Annex A, Chapters I and II to Directive 77/99/EEC and the pertinent conditions set out in Annex B, Chapter I, points 1 (a), (b), (d), (e) and (f) and 2 (a), (c), (i) and (j) to the said Directive.

Article 2

1. Products from the rewrapping centres referred to in Article 1 (1) must keep the health mark of the production establishment of origin.

Products from the rewrapping centres referred to in Article 1 (2) must carry a health mark in accordance with the provisions set out in Annex B, Chapter VI to Directive 77/99/EEC. The health mark shall be issued to the rewrapping centres by the competent authority.

Where products from different sources are reassembled, the health mark of the rewrapping centre must be applied to the last packaging made in the rewrapping centres.

2. Rewrapping centres must set up a special registration system so as to enable the competent authority to trace a rewrapped product back to the establishment of origin.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 16 December 1994.

For the Commission

René STEICHEN

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 26, 31. 1. 1977, p. 85.

(2) OJ No L 62, 15. 3. 1993, p. 49.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

JOSE M. CRUZ-GONZALEZ,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 500 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 26th day of November, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED.
§ 81.53 Review by the Board. ( a ) The Board shall determine the propriety of any decision concerning the grant, denial, interpretation, modification, or revocation of a license according to the policy and criteria of these regulations, including § 81.11, on the record and evidence submitted by an appellant and the Commission to the Board.
( b ) A hearing may be requested by the Commission or an appellant within fifteen (15) days after the notice set forth under § 81.52(c). An appellant and the Commission shall be given a minimum of fifteen (15) days' notice of the time and place of a hearing. The Commission and the appellant shall have an opportunity to make oral arguments before the Board.
( c ) The Board shall make findings of fact and reach a conclusion with respect to the propriety of the decision of the Commission, which conclusion shall constitute the final action of the Commission.
P 

I
 

x
 

8
 1
 

2
 

3
 

chinese · november 2002 
chinese · november 2002
----

 

ATLANTIS BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14 AND 15D-14 OF

THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I Christopher Dubeau, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:

(1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on form 10-QSB of Atlantis BusinessDevelopment Corporation (the "registrant");

(2) Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to sate a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterlyreport;

(3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

(4) The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls andprocedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of thisquarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of theEvaluation Date;

(5) The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committeeof registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):

a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internalcontrols which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for theregistrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls: and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

(6) The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in thisquarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internalcontrols or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controlssubsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any correctiveactions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: May 16, 2005

***/s/ Christopher Dubeau***

Christopher Dubeau

CEO

 

----
#### § 780.30 What policies and procedures must I follow?

The USAID policies and procedures that you must follow are the policies and procedures specified in each applicable section of the OMB guidance in subparts A through I of 2 CFR part 180 and any supplemental policies and procedures set forth in this part.
§ 2429.20 Does this part apply to me? This part, and through this part, pertinent portions of the OMB guidance in subparts A through F of 2 CFR part 182 (see table at 2 CFR 182.115(b)) apply to you if you are a: ( a ) Recipient of a HUD grant or cooperative agreement; or
( b ) HUD awarding official.
Editorial Note on Part 117
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear at 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 117.139 Recall plan. For food with a hazard requiring a preventive control: ( a ) You must establish a written recall plan for the food.
( b ) The written recall plan must include procedures that describe the steps to be taken, and assign responsibility for taking those steps, to perform the following actions as appropriate to the facility: ( 1 ) Directly notify the direct consignees of the food being recalled, including how to return or dispose of the affected food;
( 2 ) Notify the public about any hazard presented by the food when appropriate to protect public health;
( 3 ) Conduct effectiveness checks to verify that the recall is carried out; and
( 4 ) Appropriately dispose of recalled food—*e.g.,* through reprocessing, reworking, diverting to a use that does not present a safety concern, or destroying the food.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 22, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00389

- CV

IN RE R. R. and C

. C

.

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On June 12, 2018, r elator s filed a petition for writ of mandamus. After considering the

petition, this court concludes relator s are not entitled to the relief sou ght. Accordingly, the

petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a). The relief requested in

relators’ “Informa Pauper ’ s Affidavit Statement” is DENIED. The court’s opinion will issue at a

later date.

It is so ORDERED on June 22, 2018

.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 22nd day of June, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2018PA00816, pending in the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County,

Texas, the Hon orable Charles E. Montemayor presiding.
#### § 2900.17 Adjustment of negotiated IDC rates.

In the DOL, in addition to the requirements under 2 CFR 200.411(a)(2), adjustments to indirect cost rates resulting from a determination of unallowable costs being included in the rate proposal may result in the reissuance of negotiated rate agreement.
§ 111.60 What are the design requirements for the production and process control system? ( a ) Your production and in-process control system must be designed to ensure that the dietary supplement is manufactured, packaged, labeled, and held in a manner that will ensure the quality of the dietary supplement and that the dietary supplement is packaged and labeled as specified in the master manufacturing record; and
( b ) The production and in-process control system must include all requirements of subparts E through L of this part and must be reviewed and approved by quality control personnel.
Editorial Note on Part 117
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear at 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 117.4 Qualifications of individuals who manufacture, process, pack, or hold food. ( a ) *Applicability.* ( 1 ) The management of an establishment must ensure that all individuals who manufacture, process, pack, or hold food subject to subparts B and F of this part are qualified to perform their assigned duties.
( 2 ) The owner, operator, or agent in charge of a facility must ensure that all individuals who manufacture, process, pack, or hold food subject to subpart C, D, E, F, or G of this part are qualified to perform their assigned duties.
( b ) *Qualifications of all individuals engaged in manufacturing, processing, packing, or holding food.* Each individual engaged in manufacturing, processing, packing, or holding food (including temporary and seasonal personnel) or in the supervision thereof must: ( 1 ) Be a qualified individual as that term is defined in § 117.3—*i.e.,* have the education, training, or experience (or a combination thereof) necessary to manufacture, process, pack, or hold clean and safe food as appropriate to the individual's assigned duties; and
( 2 ) Receive training in the principles of food hygiene and food safety, including the importance of employee health and personal hygiene, as appropriate to the food, the facility and the individual's assigned duties.
( c ) *Additional qualifications of supervisory personnel.* Responsibility for ensuring compliance by individuals with the requirements of this part must be clearly assigned to supervisory personnel who have the education, training, or experience (or a combination thereof) necessary to supervise the production of clean and safe food.
( d ) *Records.* Records that document training required by paragraph (b)(2) of this section must be established and maintained.
```

[108th Congress Public Law 241]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ241.108]

[[Page 118 STAT. 675]]

Public Law 108-241
108th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 115 West Pine Street in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, as the ``Major Henry 
A. Commiskey, Sr. Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: June 25, 2004 -  [H.R. 
                                2438]>> 

    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 115 West 
Pine Street in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, shall be known and designated 
as the ``Major Henry A. Commiskey, Sr. 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 ``Major Henry A. Commiskey, Sr. 
Post Office Building''.

    Approved June 25, 2004.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 2438:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 149 (2003):
                                    Nov. 4, considered and passed House.
                                                        Vol. 150 (2004):
                                    June 9, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.

                                  <all>
```
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

# AGENCY:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting; meeting time correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        A notice was published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on January 29, 2010, Volume 75, Number 19, Pages 4830-4831, announcing a meeting of the Advisory Committee to the Director on February 18, 2010. The time published for the aforementioned meeting is incorrect and has been changed to 1 p.m.-5 p.m.                    

# DATES:

The time of the February 18, 2010, meeting published at 75 FR 4830, January 29, 2010, is 1 p.m.-5 p.m.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Drue Barrett, PhD, Designated Federal Officer, ACD, CDC-ES, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., M/S D-50, Atlanta, Georgia 30333. Telephone: (404) 639-4690. E-mail:                         *dbarrett@cdc.gov.*

                        The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                         **Federal Register**                         notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                    

Dated: February 16, 2010.

Andre Tyler,

Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. 2010-3324 Filed 2-17-10; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P