alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 1310.11 Reinstatement of exemption for drug products distributed under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

(a) The Administrator has reinstated the exemption for the drug products listed in paragraph (e) of this section from application of sections 302, 303, 310, 1007, and 1008 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 822-823, 830, and 957-958), to the extent described in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section.

(b) No reinstated exemption granted pursuant to 1310.10 affects the criminal liability for illegal possession or distribution of listed chemicals contained in the exempt drug product.

(c) Changes in exempt drug product compositions: Any change in the quantitative or qualitative composition, trade name or other designation of an exempt drug product listed in paragraph (d) requires a new application for reinstatement of the exemption.

(d) The following drug products, in the form and quantity listed in the application submitted (indicated as the “date”) are designated as reinstated exempt drug products for the purposes set forth in this section:

| Supplier | Product name | Form | Date |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [Reserved] | | | |

Exempt Drug Products

[60 FR 32462, June 22, 1995]
file:///J|/INITENG/P13%20cases/p130392.eng.txt[6/4/2013 7:59:17 AM]

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0392

Focus Ready Draft 5/2/2013

ENGINEER: Choudhary \ AH

SUBMITTER: DIC International (USA) LLC

MSDS: Yes Label: No

Gen Eqpt: Gloves, face protection, tightly sealed goggles

Respirator: In case of brief exposure or low pollution

use respiratory filter device. In case of intensive or

longer exposure use self-contained respiratory protective

deivi

Health Effects: Flammable; reacts with water forming

carbon dioxide. No irritating effect on the skin/eye.

TLV/PEL:

None established.
file:///J|/INITENG/P13%20cases/p130392.eng.txt[6/4/2013 7:59:17 AM]

Consumer Use: No

SAT (concerns) (04/26/2013):

Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info:

Migration to groundwater: Negligible

PBT rating: P3B1T1 PMN: P1B1T1. Hyd Pdt: P3B1T1.

Health: 1-2 Dermal, Inhalation

Eco: 1 No releases to Water

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 2-3B

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. 

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS:

None.
file:///J|/INITENG/P13%20cases/p130392.eng.txt[6/4/2013 7:59:17 AM]

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: No

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0392

Number of Sites/ Location: 3

unknown site(s)

Days/yr: 250

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below

may coincide with daily releases from the other sources

to the same medium

Air

Output 2: 10.0E-1 kg/site-day over 250 days/yr from 3

sites

RELEASE TOTAL

7.5E+2 kg/yr - all sites
file:///J|/INITENG/P13%20cases/p130392.eng.txt[6/4/2013 7:59:17 AM]
#### BURGER v. AGNEY.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 24, 1914.)

Action by Clarence L. Burger against George B. Agney.

No opinion. Application granted. Order signed. See, also, 150 N. Y. Supp. 1078.
# L_2018126EN.01000101.xml

| 23.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 126/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 126/1

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2018/750

of 22 May 2018

correcting the Polish language version of Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014 on the continuing airworthiness of aircraft and aeronautical products, parts and appliances, and on the approval of organisations and personnel involved in these tasks

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Council Directive 91/670/EEC, Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 and Directive 2004/36/EC (1), and in particular Article 5(5) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | The Polish language version of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014 (2) contains an error in the second indent of point 66.A.20(a)(3)(i) of Annex III as regards the privileges granted to the holder of a category B2 aircraft maintenance licence. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Polish language version of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014 (2) contains an error in the second indent of point 66.A.20(a)(3)(i) of Annex III as regards the privileges granted to the holder of a category B2 aircraft maintenance licence.

| (2) | The Polish language version of Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014 should therefore be corrected accordingly. The other language versions are not affected. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Polish language version of Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014 should therefore be corrected accordingly. The other language versions are not affected.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 65(1) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 65(1) of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

(does not concern the English language)

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

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

Done at Brussels, 22 May 2018.

For the Commission

The President

Jean-Claude JUNCKER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 79, 19.3.2008, p. 1.

1

(2)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014 of 26 November 2014 on the continuing airworthiness of aircraft and aeronautical products, parts and appliances, and on the approval of organisations and personnel involved in these tasks (OJ L 362, 17.12.2014, p. 1).

2

---
Exhibit 99.1

 

Section 906 Certification

 

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned hereby certifies that:

(1) I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Inland's Monthly Income Fund, L.P. (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;

(2) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(3) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Inland's Monthly Income Fund, L.P.

 

 

By: Inland Real Estate Investment Corporation

       General Partner

 

/S/ Brenda G. Gujral_________________________________

Name: Brenda G. Gujral

Title: President of the General Partner and

          Principal Executive Officer of Inland's Monthly Income Fund, L.P

Date: November 12, 2002
Base Salaries for Named Executive Officers, effective August 1, 2006



 Exhibit 10.57 
 Nuvelo, Inc. Base Salaries for Named Executive Officers Effective August 1, 2006. 
  

				
	 Name and Title
	  	Base Salary
	 Ted W. Love, Chairman and CEO
	  	$	650,000
	 Michael D. Levy, Senior Vice President Research and Development
	  	$	410,000
	 Lee Bendekgey, Senior Vice President Legal and General Counsel
	  	$	357,000
	 Gary S. Titus, Vice President of Finance and Chief Accounting Officer
	  	$	258,750
Editorial Note on Part 17
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 17 appear at 68 FR 24879, May 9, 2003, and at 88 FR 45065, July 14, 2023.

§ 17.18 Interlocutory appeal from ruling of presiding officer. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, rulings of the presiding officer may not be appealed before consideration on appeal of the entire record of the hearing.
( b ) A ruling of the presiding officer is subject to interlocutory appeal to the entity deciding the appeal (currently the DAB) if the presiding officer certifies on the record or in writing that immediate review is necessary to prevent exceptional delay, expense, or prejudice to any participant, or substantial harm to the public interest.
( c ) When an interlocutory appeal is made, a participant may file a brief on the appeal only if specifically authorized by the presiding officer or the entity deciding the appeal (currently the DAB), and if such authorization is granted, only within the period allowed by the presiding officer or the entity deciding the appeal. If a participant is authorized to file a brief, any other participant may file a brief in opposition, within the period allowed by the entity deciding the appeal (currently the DAB). The deadline for filing an interlocutory appeal is subject to the discretion of the presiding officer.
EX-24





     March 16, 1999




     Mr. R. G. Reherman

     Mr. T. L. Burke

     Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company

     20 N.W. Fourth Street

     Evansville, Indiana  47741


     J. H. Byington, Jr., Esq.

     Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts

     40 Wall Street

     New York, New York  10005


     Dear Gentlemen:


             SIGCORP, Inc. and Southern Indiana Gas and Electric

     Company will each file an Annual Report on Form 10-K for

     the fiscal year ended December 31, 1998 ("Form 10-K")

     before April 1, 1999 which will be accompanied by certain

     exhibits.


             We hereby authorize you, or any one of you, to

     complete said Forms 10-K and to remedy any deficiencies

     with respect to said Forms 10-K by appropriate amendment or

     amendments; and we hereby make, constitute and appoint each

     of you our true and lawful attorney for each of us and in

     each of our names, places and steads, both in our

     individual capacities as directors and that of officers of

     SIGCORP, Inc. and Southern Indiana Gas and Electric

     Company, to sign and cause to be filed with the Securities

     and Exchange Commission said Forms 10-K, any appropriate

     amendment or amendments thereto, and any exhibits thereto.


             The undersigned, SIGCORP, Inc. and Southern Indiana

     Gas and Electric Company, also authorize you and any one of

     you to sign said Forms 10-K and any amendment or amendments

     thereto on its behalf as attorney-in-fact for its

     respective officers, and to file the same as aforesaid

     together with exhibits.


     Very truly yours,


     SIGCORP, INC. and

     SOUTHERN INDIANA GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY<PAGE>




              R. G. Reherman
     By      R. G. Reherman, Chairman, President

     and Chief Executive Officer, SIGCORP, Inc.

     Chairman, Southern Indiana Gas and

     Electric Company




     John N. Dunn               Ronald G. Reherman

     John M. Dunn               Ronald G. Reherman


     John D. Engelbrecht        Richard W. Shymanski

     John D. Engelbrecht        Richard W. Shymanski


     Andrew E. Goebel            Donald E. Smith

     Andrew E. Goebel            Donald E. Smith

     Robert L. Koch II           James S. Vinson

     Robert L. Koch II           James S. Vinson
    
     Donald A. Rausch            T. L. Burke

     Donald A. Rausch            T. L. Burke
                          
                                 S. M. Kerney

                                 S. M. Kerney
 <PAGE>
Editorial Note on Part 117
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear at 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 117.315 Requirements for record retention. ( a ) ( 1 ) All records required by this part must be retained at the plant or facility for at least 2 years after the date they were prepared.
( 2 ) Records that a facility relies on during the 3-year period preceding the applicable calendar year to support its status as a qualified facility must be retained at the facility as long as necessary to support the status of a facility as a qualified facility during the applicable calendar year.
( b ) Records that relate to the general adequacy of the equipment or processes being used by a facility, including the results of scientific studies and evaluations, must be retained by the facility for at least 2 years after their use is discontinued (*e.g.,* because the facility has updated the written food safety plan (§ 117.126) or records that document validation of the written food safety plan (§ 117.155(b)));
( c ) Except for the food safety plan, offsite storage of records is permitted if such records can be retrieved and provided onsite within 24 hours of request for official review. The food safety plan must remain onsite. Electronic records are considered to be onsite if they are accessible from an onsite location.
( d ) If the plant or facility is closed for a prolonged period, the food safety plan may be transferred to some other reasonably accessible location but must be returned to the plant or facility within 24 hours for official review upon request.
§ 1122.2 Definition of “national policy requirement.” For the purposes of this chapter, a national policy requirement is a requirement: ( a ) That is prescribed by a statute, Executive order, policy guidance issued by the Executive Office of the President, or regulation that specifically refers to grants, cooperative agreements, or financial assistance in general;
( b ) With which a recipient of a grant or cooperative agreement must comply during the period of performance; and
( c ) That is outside subject matter areas covered by administrative requirements in subchapters D or E of this chapter.
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 61 

Supporting the goals and ideals of a Juan Pablo Duarte Day. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 24, 2017 

Mr. ESPAILLAT submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the goals and ideals of a Juan Pablo Duarte 

Day. 

Whereas the people of the Dominican Republic acquired autonomy and sovereignty on the 27th day of February 

1844; 

Whereas the Island of Quisqueya, the indigenous name for 

what later became the island of Hispaniola, was the cradle of thinking and achievement in the western hemisphere, establishing the first university and cathedral of 

the New World; 

Whereas on the 26th day of January 1813, Juan Pablo 

Duarte, the founding father of the Dominican Republic, 

was born; 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 61 IH 

Whereas, during the month of January 2017, Dominicans 

will celebrate the 204th Anniversary of Juan Pablo 

Duarte’s birth; 

Whereas Juan Pablo Duarte, along with Francisco Del 

Rosario Sanchez and Ramon Matias Melia, formed La 

Trinitaria, a secret organization that initiated the movement for the independence of the Dominican Republic; 

and 

Whereas, during the month of February 2017, Dominican 

Nationals and Dominican Americans from throughout the 

Dominican Republic and the United States will celebrate 

the independence of the Dominican Republic: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the goals and ideals of a Juan 

3 Pablo Duarte Day; 

4 (2) supports the establishment of a national day 

5 of recognition for Juan Pablo Duarte to honor the 

6 founding father of the Dominican Republic; and 

7 (3) urges the people of the United States to ob8 serve a national day of recognition for Dominican9 Americans with appropriate ceremonies, programs, 

10 and activities. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
§ 3485.1016 Title IV, HEA participant. A title IV, HEA participant is— ( a ) An institution described in 34 CFR 600.4, 600.5, or 600.6 that provides postsecondary education; or
( b ) A lender, third-party servicer, or guaranty agency, as those terms are defined in 34 CFR 668.2 or 682.200.
(Authority: E.O. 12549 (3 CFR 1986 Comp., p.189); E.O. 12689 (3 CFR 1989 Comp., p.235); sec. 2455, Pub. L. 103-355, 108 Stat. 3327 (31 U.S.C. 6101 note); 20 U.S.C. 1082, 1094, 1221e-3, and 3474)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6623

CHRISTOPHER L. GRATE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JOSEPH MCFADDEN, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District 

Judge. (4:13-cv-00215-JFA)

Submitted: September 23, 2014 Decided: September 25, 2014

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher L. Grate, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher L. Grate seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Grate has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our
reports (and to all references to our Firm), as it relates to Northland Cable
Television, Inc. and subsidiary included in or made a part of this registration
statement.



/s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



Seattle, Washington
February 3, 1998
AAM-11-470-E 

October 26, 2011 

 Exemption No. 10378 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-1055 

Ms. Judith A. Griffith 

Horizon Helicopters, Inc. 

2035 Sunset Lake Road 

Newark, DE 19702 

Dear Ms. Griffith: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated September 29, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) on behalf of Horizon Helicopters, Inc. (Horizon) for an exemption from part 120 of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow Horizon to 

cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program while operating under separate 

parts of the regulation. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because this is not a precedent-setting petition, and any delay in acting 

on this petition would be detrimental to Horizon. 

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one 

would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that 

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden 

the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs. 
2 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 9703; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 

also apply to the situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Horizon Helicopters, Inc. an exemption from 14 CFR part 

120 to the extent necessary to allow Horizon to cover its safety-sensitive employees under 

one testing program while operating under separate parts of the regulation, subject to the 

conditions and limitations described below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Horizon Helicopters, Inc. are subject to the drug and alcohol 

regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

2. The drug and alcohol program must be implemented under the same auspices of 

the Horizon Helicopters, Inc. part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

This exemption terminates on November 30, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Frederick E. Tilton, M.D. 

Federal Air Surgeon 

Enclosure
p.1 

OAR Box 1490 

Prepped hy Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

5) IV-B-5 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 8/4/2008 11:51:46 AM Sheet 5 of 273 
P.2 

\v-8-S 

Meardon, Kenneth 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Susan Cassidy [Mail Hub #3.RTP Post Office.STCassidy] 

Tuesday, January 29, 2002 1:26 PM 

Kenneth Meardon 

hours of operation 

Keith called with some hours of operation. For ARE, the hours are in the unclassified trip report and they are 6100 for Massillon and Mount Eaton. For 

Aker and American Standard, the information in the trip reports was never declassified, but Keith said the 6000 figure we have been using is pretty good 

for those facilities. 

TEXT.htm(810B) 

•FEB 2 7 l-Vjb 

EPA AIR DOCKET
Editorial Note on Part 14
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 14 appear at 88 FR 45065, July 14, 2023.

§ 14.145 Procedures of a color additive advisory committee. ( a ) A color additive advisory committee is subject to all the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and this part.
( b ) All interested persons have a right to consult with the color additive advisory committee reviewing a matter and to submit information and views to a color additive advisory committee, in accordance with the procedures in this part.
This page intentionally left blank.

































































































































































This page intentionally left blank.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 20

- 00167

- CV

RICHARD URIBE v. BRIAR

- RIDGE, LLC
On Appeal from the 197th District Court of Cameron County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017

- DCL

- 04845

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant.
We further order this decision certified below for observanc e. November 18, 2021