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.

§ 106.90 Audits of current good manufacturing practice. ( a ) A manufacturer of an infant formula, or an agent of such manufacturer, shall conduct regularly scheduled audits to determine whether the manufacturer has complied with the current good manufacturing practice regulations in this subpart. Such audits shall be conducted at a frequency that is required to ensure compliance with such regulations.
( b ) The audits required by paragraph (a) of this section shall be performed by an individual or a team of individuals who, as a result of education, training, or experience, is knowledgeable in all aspects of infant formula production and of the Agency's regulations concerning current good manufacturing practice that such individual or team is responsible for auditing. This individual or team of individuals shall have no direct responsibility for the matters that such individual or team is auditing and shall have no direct interest in the outcome of the audit.
#### § 123.16 Process controls.

In order to meet the requirements of subpart A of this part, processors of smoked and smoke-flavored fishery products, except those subject to the requirements of part 113 or 114 of this chapter, shall include in their HACCP plans how they are controlling the food safety hazard associated with the formation of toxin by *Clostridium botulinum* for at least as long as the shelf life of the product under normal and moderate abuse conditions.
#### § 1210.15 Pasteurization; equipment and methods.

All dairy farms and plants at which any milk or cream is pasteurized for shipment or transportation into the United States shall employ adequate pasteurization machinery of a type easily cleaned and of sanitary construction capable of holding every portion of the milk or cream at the required temperature for the required time. Such pasteurizing machinery shall be properly equipped with accurate time and temperature recording devices, which shall be kept at all times in good working order. The temperature at the time of heating and holding must invariably be recorded on thermograph charts, initialed, numbered, and dated by the official having jurisdiction over such farms and plants. All thermograph charts shall be held for a period of 2 years unless within that period they have been examined and released by such authorized agents as are designated by the Secretary.
#### § 860.1 Purpose.

The regulations in this part are issued for the protection and security of facilities, installations and real property subject to the jurisdiction or administration, or in the custody of, the Department of Energy.
#### Ashland Oil & Refining Company, Appellant, v. State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 42843.)

Judgement unanimously affirmed, without costs. (See *Matter of Consolidated Edison Co.*v. *Lindsay,*24 N Y 2d 309.) (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims dismissing ' claim for expense of relocation of pipelines.) Present — Goldman, P. J., Marsh, Witmer, Moule and Bastow, JJ.
#### § 1302.01 Scope of part 1302.

Requirements governing the labeling and packaging of controlled substances pursuant to sections 1305 and 1008(d) of the Act (21 U.S.C. 825 and 958(d)) are set forth generally by those sections and specifically by the sections of this part.

[36 FR 13386, July 21, 1971. Redesignated at 38 FR 26609, Sept. 24, 1973]
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Calgon Carbon Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Leroy M. Ball, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and result of operations of theCompany for the periods presented therein.

| /s/ Leroy M.   Ball     |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
|                         |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |
| December 13,   2006     |   |

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

----
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 Quarterly Report of National Medical Health Card Systems, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending
December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stuart F. Fleischer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

(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 result of operations of the Company.

|/s/STUART F. FLEISCHERStuart F. Fleischer
Chief Financial Officer
February 19, 2004 |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|                                                                                    |  | 

---

QuickLinks
1 

Dismiss and Opinion Filed July 2, 2014 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01612-CV 

MARISSA FULLER AND OTHER OCCUPANTS, Appellant 

V. 

BANK OF AMERICA N.A., Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-06186-B 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Lang-Miers, and Justice Brown 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright 

Before the Court is appellee’s June 9, 2014 second motion to dismiss appeal for want of 

prosecution. In the motion, appellee requests the Court to dismiss the appeal for want of 

prosecution because appellant has failed to timely file her brief. Our records show that, among 

other things, appellant filed a motion to extend time to file her brief on May 9, 2014. By 

postcard dated May 12, 2014, the Court granted appellant an extension of time to file her brief 

until May 27, 2014 and expressly cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in the 

dismissal of her appeal without further notice. On June 9, 2014, appellee filed its motion to 

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. Appellant did not respond to appellee’s motion to 

dismiss, has not filed her brief, and has not otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the 

status of her brief. 
2 

Accordingly, we grant appellee’s motion and dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

42.3(b). 

131612F.P05 

 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
3 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

MARISSA FULLER AND OTHER 

OCCUPANTS, Appellant 

No. 05-13-01612-CV V. 

BANK OF AMERICA N.A., Appellee 

 On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

No. 2, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-06186-B. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. 

Justices Lang-Miers and Brown 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellee BANK OF AMERICA N.A. recover its costs of this 

appeal from appellant MARISSA FULLER AND OTHER OCCUPANTS. 

Judgment entered July 2, 2014
Exhibit 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


         In connection with the accompanying amended Quarterly Report on Form
10-QSB of Velocity Asset Management, Inc. for the three months ended September
30, 2004, I, James J. Mastriani, Chief Financial Officer of Velocity Asset
Management, Inc., do hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

                  (1) such amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the three
months ended September 30, 2004, 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 such amended Quarterly Report
on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended September 30, 2004, fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Velocity Asset Management, Inc.


                                             /s/ JAMES J. MASTRIANI
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             James J. Mastriani
                                             Chief Financial Officer

                  August 10, 2005


                                       28
# m8830.docx

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 3.4.2018 C(2018) 2106 final PUBLIC VERSION To the notifying party Subject : Case M. 8830 — Strategic Value Partners/Vita Group Commission decision pursuant to Article 6(1 )( b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 1 and Article 57 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area 2 Dear Sir or Madam, 1. On 7 March 2018 , the European Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which Strategic Value Partners, LLC (United States) , through its subsidiary Sunshine Bidco Limited , acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1 )( b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Vita Group (United Kingdom), ultimately controlled by TPG Capital (United States) by way of purchase of shares . 3 2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are: - Strategic Value Partners, LLC is a privately owned investment firm that manages hedge funds and private equity funds and invests in public and private equity markets, debt markets and other alternative investment markets world-wide. - The Vita Group is a pan-European manufacturer and supplier of polyurethane foam, including production of foam and conversion of foam. 3. After examination of the notification, the European Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of the Merger Regulation and of paragraph 5 ( b ) of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 . 4 4. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the European Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the internal market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1 )( b) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement . For the Commission
(S igned)
Johannes LAITENBERGER Director - General
(1)
OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 ( the ' Merger Regulation ' ). With effect from 1 December 2009, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ( ' TFEU ' ) has introduced certain changes, such as the replacement of ' Community ' by ' Union ' and ' common market ' by ' internal market ' . The terminology of the TFEU will be used throughout this decision.
(2) OJ L 1, 3.1.1994, p. 3 ( the ' EEA Agreement ' ).
(3) Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No C 96 , 14.3.2018 , p. 35 .
(4)
OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5 .
38588.

#### WOODS *et al.*v. THE STATE.

Decided November 30, 1960.

*Fullbright & Duffey, Harl C. Duffey, Jr.,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Chastine Parker, Solicitor,*contra.

Carlisle, Judge.

Where, in a case on appeal to this court, assigning error on the denial of the motion for a new trial, based on the general grounds and on 10 special grounds, all of which depend upon and require a consideration of the evidence, the purported “brief of evidence” includes motions to rule out evidence, objections to evidence, argument on such motions and objections, colloquies between the court and counsel and between counsel, and other such immaterial matters, consuming almost one-third as much space as the evidence itself, which, if pertinent at all for consideration by this court are properly to be confined to appropriate grounds of the motion for a new trial, this court has no alternative but to affirm the judgment of the trial court overruling the motion for a new trial, since no bona fide effort has been made to comply with the requirements of *Code Ann.*§§ 70-312 and 6-813. *Anderson v. State,*211 Ga. 768 (88 S. E. 2d 149); *Hester Bennett Lumber Co. v. Alexander,*211 Ga. 402 (1) (86 S. E. 2d 222); *Williamson v. Yakupian,*211 Ga. 61 (84 S. E. 2d 15); *Reese v. Wilder,*94 Ga. App. 49 (93 S. E. 2d 416); *Lotson v. Housing Authority of Savannah,*99 Ga. App. 622 (109 S. E. 2d 64).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Townsend, P. J., Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur.*
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# TRISO-Coated Particle Fuel Phenomenon Identification and Ranking Tables (PIRTs) for Fission Product Transport Due to Manufacturing, Operations, and Accidents (NUREG/CR-6844)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
Editorial Note on Part 180
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 180 appear at 79 FR 75879, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 180.800 What are the causes for debarment? A Federal agency may debar a person for— ( a ) Conviction of or civil judgment for— ( 1 ) Commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public or private agreement or transaction;
( 2 ) Violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes, including those proscribing price fixing between competitors, allocation of customers between competitors, and bid rigging;
( 3 ) Commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, tax evasion, receiving stolen property, making false claims, or obstruction of justice; or
( 4 ) Commission of any other offense indicating a lack of business integrity or business honesty that seriously and directly affects your present responsibility;
( b ) Violation of the terms of a public agreement or transaction so serious as to affect the integrity of an agency program, such as— ( 1 ) A willful failure to perform in accordance with the terms of one or more public agreements or transactions;
( 2 ) A history of failure to perform or of unsatisfactory performance of one or more public agreements or transactions; or
( 3 ) A willful violation of a statutory or regulatory provision or requirement applicable to a public agreement or transaction;
( c ) Any of the following causes: ( 1 ) A nonprocurement debarment by any Federal agency taken before October 1, 1988, or a procurement debarment by any Federal agency taken pursuant to 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, before August 25, 1995;
( 2 ) Knowingly doing business with an ineligible person, except as permitted under § 180.135;
( 3 ) Failure to pay a single substantial debt, or a number of outstanding debts (including disallowed costs and overpayments, but not including sums owed the Federal Government under the Internal Revenue Code) owed to any Federal agency or instrumentality, provided the debt is uncontested by the debtor or, if contested, provided that the debtor's legal and administrative remedies have been exhausted;
( 4 ) Violation of a material provision of a voluntary exclusion agreement entered into under § 180.640 or of any settlement of a debarment or suspension action; or
( 5 ) Violation of the provisions of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (41 U.S.C. 701); or
( d ) Any other cause of so serious or compelling a nature that it affects your present responsibility.
38286.

#### JORDAN *et al.*v. FOWLER.

Decided June 23, 1960

Rehearing denied July 13,1960.

*Joseph S. Skelton, Erwin, Birchmore & Epting,*for plaintiffs in error.

*William 0. Carter,*contra.

Nichols, Judge.

Mrs. Addie Cole Fowler sued Walter Jordan and Max Jordan to recover the full value of the life of Jerry Lawrence Fowler, the plaintiff’s son, who allegedly died as the result of injuries received when an automobile in which he was a guest passenger left the road and struck a tree. Walter Jordan, according to the allegations of the petition, owned the automobile as a “family-purpose” vehicle and at the time of the collision it was being driven by his sixteen-year-old son Max Jordan. When the case was tried the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff and the defendants filed a motion for new trial which as amended was overruled by the trial court, and it is to this judgment that the defendants now except. *Held:*

The purported brief of evidence in this case is a stenographic report of the trial of the case and apparently some immaterial portions thereof have been omitted, yet numerous instances appear where the immaterial portions have not been omitted for throughout the record there appear colloquies between the court and counsel or between counsel, or aside remarks of counsel, as well as recesses and other orders of the court which are routine to the operation of the court, all of which is not properly a part of the brief of evidence, and under the decisions of the Supreme Court this did not show a bona fide attempt to brief such evidence as required by *Code Ann.*§ 70-305. See *Calhoun v. State,*211 Ga. 819 (89 S. E. 2d 197); *Keith v. State,*213 Ga. 743 (101 S. E. 2d 705), and citations. Accordingly, neither the usual general grounds, nor the grounds added by amendment, of the motion for new trial can be intelligently considered by this court since the purported brief of evidence will not be considered, and it necessarily follows that no question is presented for determination by this court.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton, C. J., Gardner, P. J., Townsend, Carlisle, Bell and Frankum, JJ., concur.*
# EUR-Lex - 31994D0318 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31994D0318

**94/318/EC: Council Decision of 2 June 1994 authorizing the Portuguese Republic to extend until 7 March 1995 the Agreement on mutual fishery relations with the Republic of South Africa **

*
Official Journal L 142 , 07/06/1994 P. 0031 - 0031 Finnish special edition: Chapter 4 Volume 6 P. 0072 Swedish special edition: Chapter 4 Volume 6 P. 0072 *

COUNCIL DECISION of 2 June 1994 authorizing the Portuguese Republic to extend until 7 March 1995 the Agreement on mutual fishery relations with the Republic of South Africa (94/318/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal, and in particular Article 354 (3) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas the Agreement on mutual fishery relations between the Government of the Portuguese Republic and the Government of the Republic of South Africa, signed on 9 April 1979, entered into force on that day for an initial period of 10 years; whereas the Agreement remains in force for an indeterminate period if it is not denounced by the giving of 12 months' notice;

Whereas Article 354 (2) of the Act of Accession laying down that the rights and obligations flowing, for the Portuguese Republic, from fisheries agreements concluded with third countries, shall not be affected during the period for which the provisions of such agreements are provisionally maintained;

Whereas, pursuant to Article 354 (3) of the said Act, the Council is to adopt, before the expiry of the fisheries agreements concluded by the Portuguese Republic with third countries, decisions appropriate for the continuation of fishing activities resulting therefrom, including the possibility of prolonging for periods not exceeding one year; whereas the abovementioned Agreement has been extended until 7 March 1994 (1);

Whereas, in order to avoid fishing by the Community vessels concerned being interrupted, it apears appropriate to authorize the Portuguese Republic to renew the Agreement in question until 7 March 1995,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Portuguese Republic is hereby authorized to extend until 7 March 1995 the Agreement on mutual fishery relations with the Republic of South Africa which entered into force on 9 April 1979.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Portuguese Republic.

Done at Luxembourg, 2 June 1994.

For the Council

The President

D. KREMASTINOS

(1) OJ No L 88, 8. 4. 1993, p. 46.
Editorial Note on Part 117
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear at 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 117.140 Preventive control management components. ( a ) Except as provided by paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, the preventive controls required under § 117.135 are subject to the following preventive control management components as appropriate to ensure the effectiveness of the preventive controls, taking into account the nature of the preventive control and its role in the facility's food safety system: ( 1 ) Monitoring in accordance with § 117.145;
( 2 ) Corrective actions and corrections in accordance with § 117.150; and
( 3 ) Verification in accordance with § 117.155.
( b ) The supply-chain program established in subpart G of this part is subject to the following preventive control management components as appropriate to ensure the effectiveness of the supply-chain program, taking into account the nature of the hazard controlled before receipt of the raw material or other ingredient: ( 1 ) Corrective actions and corrections in accordance with § 117.150, taking into account the nature of any supplier non-conformance;
( 2 ) Review of records in accordance with § 117.165(a)(4); and
( 3 ) Reanalysis in accordance with § 117.170.
( c ) The recall plan established in § 117.139 is not subject to the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section.
§ 903.1 Purpose and scope; application. ( a ) Except as otherwise provided herein, these regulations establish procedures for the development of power and transmission rates by the Administrators of the Alaska, Southeastern, Southwestern, and Western Area Power Administrations; for the providing of opportunities for interested members of the public to participate in the development of such rates; for the confirmation, approval, and placement in effect on an interim basis by the Secretary or his or her designee of such rates; and for the submission of such rates to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with or without prior interim approval. These regulations supplement Delegation Order No. 0204-108 of the Secretary of Energy, which was published in the Federal Register and became effective on December 14, 1983 (48 FR 55664), with respect to the activities of the Secretary or his or her designee and the Administrators.
( b ) These procedures shall apply to all power and transmission rate adjustment proceedings for the Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs) which are commenced after these regulations become effective or were in process on the effective date of these regulations, but for which the FERC had not issued any substantive orders on or before December 14, 1983. These procedures supersede “Procedures for Public Participation in Power and Transmission Rate Adjustments and Extensions for the Alaska, Southeastern, Southwestern, and Western Area Power Administrations” published in 45 FR 86983 (December 31, 1980) and amended at 46 FR 6864 (January 22, 1981) and 46 FR 25427 (May 7, 1981).
( c ) Except to the extent deemed appropriate by the Administrator in accordance with applicable law, these procedures do not apply to rates for short term sales of capacity, energy, or transmission service.
[50 FR 37837, Sept. 18, 1985; 50 FR 48075, Nov. 21, 1985; 84 FR 5349, Feb. 21, 2019]