alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 133.164 Nuworld cheese. ( a ) *Description.* ( 1 ) Nuworld cheese is the food prepared by the procedure set forth in paragraph (a)(2) of this section or by any other procedure which produces a finished cheese having the same physical and chemical properties. It is characterized by the presence of creamy-white mold, a white mutant of *Penicillium roquefortii,* throughout the cheese. The minimum milkfat content is 50 percent by weight of the solids and the maximum moisture content is 46 percent by weight, as determined by the methods described in § 133.5. The dairy ingredients used may be pasteurized. Nuworld cheese is at least 60 days old.
( 2 ) One or more of the dairy ingredients specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section may be warmed and is subjected to the action of a lactic acid-producing bacterial culture. One or more of the clotting enzymes specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section is added to set the dairy ingredients to a semisolid mass. The mass is cut into smaller portions and allowed to stand for a time. The mixed curd and whey is placed into forms permitting further drainage. While being placed in forms, spores of a white mutant of the mold *Penicillium roquefortii* are added. The forms are turned several times during drainage. When sufficiently drained, the shaped curd is removed from the forms and salted with dry salt or brine. Perforations are then made in the shaped curd and it is held at a temperature of approximately 50 °F at 90 to 95 percent relative humidity, until the characteristic mold growth has developed. During storage, the surface of the cheese may be scraped to remove surface growth of undesirable microorganisms. One or more of the other optional ingredients specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section may be added during the procedure.
( b ) *Optional ingredients.* The following safe and suitable ingredients may be used: ( 1 ) *Dairy ingredients.* Milk, nonfat milk, or cream, as defined in § 133.3, used alone or in combination.
( 2 ) *Clotting enzymes.* Rennet and/or other clotting enzymes of animal, plant, or microbial origin.
( 3 ) *Other optional ingredients.* ( i ) Blue or green color in an amount to neutralize the natural yellow color of the curd.
( ii ) Calcium chloride in an amount not more than 0.02 percent (calculated as anhydrous calcium chloride) of the weight of the dairy ingredients, used as a coagulation aid.
( iii ) Enzymes of animal, plant, or microbial origin, used in curing or flavor development.
( c ) *Nomenclature.* The name of the food is “nuworld cheese”.
( d ) *Label declaration.* Each of the ingredients used in the food shall be declared on the label as required by the applicable sections of parts 101 and 130 of this chapter, except that: ( 1 ) Enzymes of animal, plant, or microbial origin may be declared as “enzymes”; and
( 2 ) The dairy ingredients may be declared, in descending order of predominance, by the use of the terms “milkfat and nonfat milk” or “nonfat milk and milkfat”, as appropriate.
[54 FR 32058, Aug. 4, 1989, as amended at 58 FR 2894, Jan. 6, 1993]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                           0000813562
<NAME>                          National Medical Health Card Systems, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      $

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                  JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                           1
<CASH>                            8,133,288
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                    21,292,534
<ALLOWANCES>                      1,030,589
<INVENTORY>                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 36,350,115
<PP&E>                           10,360,012
<DEPRECIATION>                    3,325,367
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   52,984,642
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            35,918,790
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                              7,313
<OTHER-SE>                       14,541,921
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     52,984,642
<SALES>                          57,008,206
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 57,008,206
<CGS>                            52,411,091
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    52,411,091
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   57,072
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     507,330
<INCOME-TAX>                        266,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 241,330
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                        241,330
<EPS-BASIC>                            0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0.03



</TABLE>
38300.

#### OLIVER v. AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY.

Townsend, Judge.

1. “By unanimous decisions this court has held that, in order to recover in a suit for malicious use of civil process, it must be shown that such process caused either (1) an arrest of the person, or (2) seizure of property, or (3) other special injury” over and beyond damages for humiliation and ridicule, or attorney fees and other expenses *90of defending the litigation. *Dixie Broadcasting Corp. v. Rivers,*209 Ga. 98, 108 (70 S. E. 2d 734). The petition here is, as conceded by all parties, subject to general demurrer as the common law is construed in the courts of this State, in that the action allegedly procured to be brought by the Aetna Insurance Company against the plaintiff in the State of New Jersey did not result in any actionable element of damages.

Decided June 22, 1960

Rehearing denied July 12,1960.

*R. Beverly Irwin, Henry M. Henderson,*for plaintiff in error.

*Woodruff, Latimer & Saveli, Edward L. Saveli,*contra.

2. In determining substantive common-law rights which are contended to be the foundation of the cause of action and which allegedly arose in and are controlled by the law of another State which was, however, one of the original thirteen Colonies, the construction of the common law given by the courts of this State will control, in preference to the construction given to such law by the other State. *Trustees of Jesse Parker Williams Hospital v. Nisbet,*189 Ga. 807, 811 (1a) (7 S. E. 2d 737). Accordingly, the common law as construed by the decisions of the courts of the State of New Jersey will not be examined to determine whether the plaintiff would, in the courts of that State, have a cause of action for malicious use of civil process under the allegations of this petition.

The trial court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer to the petition.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Gardner, P. J., Carlisle and Frankum, JJ., concur.*
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-20-0000445

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

ATC MAKENA N GOLF LLC, ATC MAKENA S GOLF LLC,

ATC MAKENA LAND SF1 LLC, ATC MAKENA LAND MF1 LLC,

ATC MAKENA LAND MF2 LLC, ATC MAKENA LAND MF3 LLC,

ATC MAKENA LAND C1 LLC, ATC MAKENA LAND U1 LLC,

ATC MAKENA LAND B1 LLC, ATC MAKENA LAND MF4 LLC,

ATC MAKENA LAND SF2 LLC and ATC MAKENA LAND AH1 LLC,

Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. AZIZI K. KAIAMA, HEIR TO PIENA,

Defendant-Appellant, and DOES 1–100, Defendants.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT

(CASE NO. 2CCV-20-0000099)

ORDER

GRANTING JULY 21, 2020 MOTION TO DISMISS APPELLATE COURT

CASE NUMBER CAAP-20-0000445 FOR LACK OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION

(By: Chan, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.)

Upon review of (1) Plaintiffs-Appellees ATC Makena N

Golf, LLC, ATC Makena S Golf, LLC, ATC Makena Land SF1, LLC, ATC

Makena Land MF1, LLC, ATC Makena Land MF2 LLC, ATC Makena Land

MF3, LLC, ATC Makena Land C 1, LLC, ATC Makena Land U1, LLC, ATC

Makena Land B1, LLC, ATC Makena Land MF4, LLC, ATC Makena Land

SF2, LLC, and ATC Makena Land AH1, LLC's (the ATC Makena

Appellees) July 21, 2020 "objection" to this appeal by DefendantAppellant Azizi Kaiama (Kaiama), self-represented, based on a

lack of appellate jurisdiction, (2) the lack of any response by

Kaiama to the ATC Makena Appellees' July 21, 2020 "objection,"

and (3) the record, we construe the ATC Makena Appellees'

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-20-0000445

29-JUL-2020

08:57 AM
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

July 21, 2020 "objection" as a non-conforming motion to dismiss

Kaiama's appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

Kaiama is appealing from the Honorable Peter T.

Cahill's July 9, 2020 interlocutory order denying Kaiama's

June 12, 2020 motion to disqualify Judge Cahill from presiding

over circuit court case number 2CCV-20-0000099. However, the

circuit court has neither adjudicated the claims nor entered a

final judgment in circuit court civil case number

2CCV-20-0000099, as Hawaii Revised Statutes § 641-1(a) (2016) and

Rule 58 of the Hawai#i Rules of Civil Procedure require for an

appeal under the holding in Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming &

Wright, 76 Hawai#i 115, 119, 869 P.2d 1334, 1338 (1994). Absent

an appealable final judgment, Kaiama's appeal is premature, and

we lack appellate jurisdiction.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the ATC Makena

Appellees' July 21, 2020 motion to dismiss Kaiama's appeal is

granted, and appellate court case number CAAP-20-0000445 is

dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, July 29, 2020.

/s/ Derrick H.M. Chan

Presiding Judge

/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka

Associate Judge

/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth

Associate Judge

2
38537.

#### TERRY v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY *et al.*

Frankum, Judge.

An agreement between George Terry, a claimant under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and the insurer was approved by the board, and compensation began as of September 7, 1956. The claimant was awarded compensation computed on the basis of a 50% disability for partial loss of the use of his right hand. Later the board approved a lump sum settlement. Thereafter, the claimant requested a hearing on the ground that a change in condition had occurred since the settlement and agreement. At the hearing two physicians and the claimant testified. One physician testified, in substance, that the claimant’s disability had increased to a total loss of use of his right hand since the prior award. The *813other physician testified that no appreciable change had occurred in the claimant’s condition when he last examined the claimant in March, 1959. The claimant testified that he had suffered additional loss of use of his right hand. The Director of the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation, who heard the case, found that the claimant was suffering a 60% loss of use of his right hand and awarded the claimant an additional amount to compensate for the increased loss of use of the claimant’s right hand. An appeal by the claimant was made to the superior court, and the award was affirmed.

Decided November 18, 1960

Rehearing denied December 6, 1960.

*Wade H. Leonard,*for plaintiff in error.

*Hardin, McC'amy & Minor, Carlton McCamy,*contra.

In setting out the facts the director stated: “The undersigned director had an opportunity to observe and examine the claimant’s hand at the time of the hearing.” The director, in passing on the claim, was authorized to consider his own observation and examination of the claimant’s hand, as well as the testimony of the witness. *Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Wilbanks,*68 Ga. App. 631 (23 S. E. 2d 519); *London Guarantee &c. Co. v. Pittman,*69 Ga. App. 146 (25 S. E. 2d 60).

The evidence and facts, as shown by the record, support the award made by the Director, and the judge of the superior court did not err in affirming the award. *Reeves v. Royal Indem. Co.,*73 Ga. App. 2 (35 S. E. 2d 473).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Townsend, P. J., Carlisle and Jordan, JJ., concur.*
# m8794.docx

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 9.2.2018 C(2018) 918 final To the notifying parties: Subject : Case M.8794 - EULER HERMES / MAPFRE / SOLUNION 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 18 January 2018 , the European Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which the undertakings Mapfre S.A. (‘ Mapfre ’, Spain) and Allianz Group (‘Allianz’, Germany) , through its affiliate Euler Hermes Group SA (‘Euler Hermes’, France) , enlarge the scope of the activities of the ir full-function joint venture Solunion Seguros , Compañía Internacional de Seguros y Reaseguros , SA (‘ Solunion ’, Spain) , following the transfer of intangible assets from Mapfre . 3 In light of the circumstances of the case, this gives rise to a concentration within the meaning of Article 3(1 )( b) and Article 3(4) of the Merger Regulation . 4 2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are: - for Mapfre : an international business group, active in insurance and reinsurance activities worldwide, - for Euler Hermes: an international business group, mainly active in the commercialisation of trade credit insurance, bonding, guarantees and collections worldwide, - for Allianz: an international business group, active in the insurance, banking and asset management sectors worldwide, - for Solunion : a joint-venture currently active in the provision of del credere insurance in Spain and certain countries in Latin America. 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 ( c ) of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 . 5 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 (Signed)
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 29, 26.1.2018, p. 7.
(4)
See paragraph 107 of Commission Consolidated Jurisdictional Notice under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ C 95, 16.4.2008, p. 1).
(5)
OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5 .
§ 1250.42 Water systems; constant temperature bottles. ( a ) The water system, whether of the pressure or gravity type, shall be complete and closed from the filling ends to the discharge taps, except for protected vent openings. The water system shall be protected against backflow.
( b ) Filling pipes or connections through which water tanks are supplied shall be provided on both sides of all new railway conveyances and on existing conveyances when they undergo heavy repairs. All filling connections shall be easily cleanable and so located and protected as to minimize the hazard of contamination of the water supply.
( c ) On all new or reconstructed conveyances, water coolers shall be an integral part of the closed system.
( d ) Water filters if used on dining cars and other conveyances will be permitted only if they are so operated and maintained at all times as to prevent contamination of the water.
( e ) Constant temperature bottles and other containers used for storing or dispensing potable water shall be kept clean at all times and shall be subjected to effective bactericidal treatment as often as may be necessary to prevent the contamination of water so stored and dispensed.
§ 16.95 Administrative decision and record for decision. ( a ) With respect to a regulatory hearing at the Commissioner's initiative under § 16.1(a), the Commissioner shall consider the administrative record of the hearing specified in § 16.80(a) together with all other relevant information and views available to FDA in determining whether regulatory action should be taken and, if so, in what form.
( b ) With respect to a regulatory hearing required by the act or a regulation under § 16.1(b)— ( 1 ) The administrative record of the hearing specified in § 16.80(a) constitutes the exclusive record for decision;
( 2 ) On the basis of the administrative record of the hearing, the Commissioner shall issue a written decision stating the reasons for the Commissioner's administrative action and the basis in the record; and
( 3 ) For purposes of judicial review under § 10.45, the record of the administrative proceeding consists of the record of the hearing and the Commissioner's decision.
### BMP-like documents from Delaware Mosquito Control

Meredith William H. (DNREC)

to:

Jack Faulk, Susan Lewis

07/13/2009 11:29 AM

Show Details

History: This message has been replied to and forwarded.

JACK/SUSAN

– as some follow

‐ up to last Thursday’s EPA/State Workgroup conference call, attached above are

some documents from Delaware Mosquito Control that might be of some help to EPA or the Workgroup, in the

manner of some “BMP

‐ like” documents that you were inquiring about for mosquito control insecticide spraying.

“ BMP

‐ like ” documents

1) Department

‐ level (DNREC) “ Mosquito Control Spray Policy ” (13 pp.)

2) Delaware Mosquito Control’s “ Spray Threshold Criteria ” (8 pp.)

Frequently

‐ asked questions (FAQs)

– while not exactly “BMPs”, these FAQs contain a lot of information one

might find in BMPs for our work.

3) Delaware Mosquito Control’s “ A Dozen (12) Frequently

‐ asked Questions (FAQs) ” (32 pp.)

Cheers, BILL 

### Page 1 of 1

5/12/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\ j faulk\Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web8210.htm
§ 1230.34 Analysis. ( a ) The methods of examination or analysis employed shall be those prescribed by the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, when applicable, provided, however, that any method of analysis or examination satisfactory to the Food and Drug Administration may be employed.
( b ) All percentages stated in the definitions in section 2(a) of the Federal Caustic Poison Act shall be determined by weight.
# m8761.docx

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 19.2.2018 C(2018) 1113 final To the notifying party: Subject : Case M.8761 - REASSURE / ACTAEON 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 26 January 2018 , the European Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which ReAssure Limited, controlled by Swiss Re Ltd (" Swiss Re", Switzerland ) acquire s within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Actaeon (" Actaeon ", UK) by way of purchase of shares . 3 2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are: - Swiss Re : wholesale provider of reinsurance, insurance and other insurance-based forms of risk transfer for both life and non-life products including for retail customers ; - Actaeon : provision of traditional life insurance based pensions, savings and investments products mainly to retail customers and to a limited number of corporate (group) schemes. Actaeon’s products are predominantly closed to new business and in run-off, both at an individual and a group level . 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 ( c ) 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 (Signed) 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 37 , 1.2.2018 , p. 30 .
(4)
OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5 .