alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.

§ 17.37 Witnesses. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, testimony at the hearing shall be given orally by witnesses under oath or affirmation.
( b ) Direct testimony shall be admitted in the form of a written declaration submitted under penalty of perjury. Any such written declaration must be provided to all other parties along with the last known address of the witness. Any prior written statements of witnesses proposed to testify at the hearing shall be exchanged as provided in § 17.25(a).
( c ) The presiding officer shall exercise reasonable control over the manner and order of questioning witnesses and presenting evidence so as to: ( 1 ) Make the examination and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth;
( 2 ) Avoid undue consumption of time; and
( 3 ) Protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.
( d ) The presiding officer shall permit the parties to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full disclosure of the facts.
( e ) At the discretion of the presiding officer, a witness may be cross-examined on relevant matters without regard to the scope of his or her direct examination. To the extent permitted by the presiding officer, a witness may be cross-examined on relevant matters with regard to the scope of his or her direct examination. To the extent permitted by the presiding officer, cross-examination on matters outside the scope of direct examination shall be conducted in the manner of direct examination and may proceed by leading questions only if the witness is a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party.
( f ) Upon motion of any party, the presiding officer may order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of the other witnesses. This rule does not authorize exclusion of: ( 1 ) A party who is an individual;
( 2 ) In the case of a party that is not an individual, an officer or employee of the party designated to be the party's sole representative for purposes of the hearing; or
( 3 ) An individual whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of its case, including an individual employed by a party engaged in assisting counsel for the party.
( g ) If a witness' testimony is submitted in writing prior to cross-examination, the cross-examining party need not subpoena the witness or pay for his or her travel to the hearing. The sponsoring party is responsible for producing the witness at its own expense, and failure to do so shall result in the striking of the witness' testimony.
###### Editorial Note on Part 172

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 172 appear at 61 FR 14482, Apr. 2, 1996; 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001; 68 FR 15355, Mar. 31, 2003; 70 FR 40880, July 15, 2005; 70 FR 67651, Nov. 8, 2005; 70 FR 72074, Dec. 1, 2005; and 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

#### § 172.335 D-Pantothenamide.

The food additive D-pantothenamide as a source of pantothenic acid activity, may be safely used in foods for special dietary use in an amount not in excess of that reasonably required to produce its intended effect.
#### § 2520.137 Who in NSF may grant an exception to let an excluded person participate in a covered transaction?

The NSF Director and the Deputy Director have the authority to grant an exception to let an excluded person participate in a covered transaction.
# m8746.docx

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 24.1.2018 C(2018) 540 final To the Notifying Party Subject : Case M. 8746 - EG GROUP / ESSO GERMANY BUSINESS 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 21 December 2017 , the European Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which EG Group (EG Group, United Kingdom) jointly controlled by TDR Capital LLP (50%), a private equity firm, and two individuals (50%), acquire s within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation , control over parts of ESSO Deutschland GmbH (ESSO Germany Business, Germany), a wholly owned subsidiary of Exxon Mobil Corporation, by way of purchase of shares . 3 2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are: - EG Group is a holding company operating under the "EG" brand, active in the operation of fuel stations with ancillary backcourt convenience retail, car wash, fast food, restaurant and hotel offerings in the UK, Belgium, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands; - ESSO Germany Business is active in the retail sales of motor fuels via a nationwide network of fuel stations located in Germany. 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
(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 004 , 6.1.2018 , p. 15 .
(4)
OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5 .
H. Res. 678 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 8, 2018. 

Resolved, That the Clerk of the House inform the Senate 

that a quorum of the House is present and that the House 

is ready to proceed with business. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
#### § 1318.01 Scope of this part.

Procedures governing the registration of manufacturers seeking to plant, grow, cultivate, or harvest marihuana are set forth by this part.
§ 1401.9 Extension of time. ( a ) In unusual circumstances, ONDCP may extend the time limit prescribed in § 1401.7(a), (b) or § 1401.8 by written notice to the FOIA requester. The notice will state the reasons for the extension.
( b ) The phrase “unusual circumstances” means: ( 1 ) The requested records are located in establishments that are separated from the office processing the request;
( 2 ) A voluminous amount of separate and distinct records are demanded in a single request; or
( 3 ) Another agency or two or more components in the same agency have substantial interest in the determination of the request.
( c ) Whenever ONDCP cannot meet the statutory time limit for processing a request because of “unusual circumstances,” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(b)(B), and ONDCP extends the time limit on that basis, the agency must, before expiration of the 20-day period to respond, notify the requester in writing of the unusual circumstances involved and of the date by which ONDCP estimates processing of the request will be completed. Where the extension exceeds 10 working days, ONDCP must, as described by the FOIA, provide the requester with an opportunity to modify the request or arrange an alternative time period for processing the original or modified request. The Agency must make available its designated FOIA contact or its FOIA Public Liaison for this purpose. The Agency must also alert requesters to the availability of the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) to provide dispute resolution services.
( d ) To satisfy unusual circumstances under the FOIA, ONDCP may aggregate requests in cases where it reasonably appears that multiple requests, submitted either by a requester or by a group of requesters acting in concert, constitute a single request that would otherwise involve unusual circumstances. ONDCP cannot aggregate multiple requests that involve unrelated matters.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

Sept. 22, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-11670

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 02-00037-CR-001-CAR-5

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

STONEY LESTER,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

_________________________

(September 22, 2009)

Before CARNES, WILSON and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

LaRae Dixon Moore, appointed counsel for Stoney Lester, has filed a
motion to withdraw on appeal, supported by a brief prepared pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent

review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of

the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals

no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the

district court’s order denying Lester’s motion for relief under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) is AFFIRMED.

2
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-10-00369- CR

Rickey P aul Robi nson , Appellan t

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F CO MAL CO UNTY, 207 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. CR2005 -35 5, H ONO RAB LE GARY L. STEEL, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On J uly 18, 2006, appellant Rickey Paul Robinson was p l ac ed on defe rre d adjudication community supervision afte r he pleade d g uilty to burg lary of a building. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02 (West 2003)

. The orig inal term of supervision was 540 day s, but the term was twice extended by the trial cour t
. On May 27, 2010, following a hear ing on the State’s motion
to adjudicate , the court adjudg ed appellant g uilty and assessed punishment at t we n t y months in state jail. Appellant’s court-a ppointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appea l is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the require ments of Anders v. Calif

ornia , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), by prese nting a profe ssional evalua tion of the rec ord demonstrating why t h er e ar e no arg uable g rounds to be advanc ed. See also Penson v. Ohio , 4 8 8 U. S

. 7 5 (1988); High v. State , 573 S.W .2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State ,516 S.W .2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jack son v. State , 485 S.W .2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State , 436 S.W .2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant rec eived a copy of counsel’s brief and was advised of his rig ht t o examine the appellate rec ord and to file a pro se brief. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744. No pro se br ief ha s been f iled. We have revie wed the rec ord and find no reve rsible err or. See Garner v. State , 300 S.W .3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W .3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We ag ree with counsel that t h e appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is gr anted. The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Henson a nd Goodwin Affir med Filed: Mar ch 24, 2011 Do Not Publish

2
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

###### National Institutes of Health

      ( print page 369)    
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Initial Review Group, NST-1 Subcommittee.                    

*Date:*                         January 31-February 1, 2011.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 6 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Embassy Suites Hotel, 1250 22nd Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Raul A. Saavedra, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, NINDS/NIH/DHHS, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Suite 3208, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529. 301-496-9223.                         *saavedrr@ninds.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: December 27, 2010.

Anna P. Snouffer,

Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-33230 Filed 1-3-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHI NG TON , DC 20460



# JUL - 5 2011 OFFICE OF AIR AND R.AD!,t.T IO N

Mr. Byron T. Burrows, P.E. Manager, Air Programs Environmental, Health and Safety Tampa Electric Company Post Office Box III Tampa, Florida 33601-0111
Dear Mr. Burrows:
Thank you for your letter ofJune 2, 2011, requesting an extension of the public comment period for the proposed "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal- and Oilfired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards ofPerformance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-Commercial-Institutional, and Small Industrial-CommercialInstitutional Steam Generating Units" (the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule), which was published in the Federal Register on May 3, 2011. The proposal identified a public comment period of 60 days; that period would have ended on July 5, 2011

. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, however, recently announced an extension ofthe comment period by 30 days to August 4.
While we are extending the comment period, we are not seeking to extend the November 16,2011, deadline for signature ofthe final rule, and remain committed to meeting that deadline.
The 30-day extension will provide the public with a 140-day period to review the proposal. As you know, interested parties were aware of the posting on March 16, 2011, ofthe signed proposal on the EPA's website (http://www.epa.gov/ttniatw/utility/utilitypg.html), along with much ofthe pertinent supporting documentation (including the analyses used in establishing the proposed emission limits and the technical support documents). The proposal was published a little over six weeks later, on May 3, marking the beginning ofthe formal public comment period. This will provide the public with approximately 140 days to review and provide written comments on the proposed rule and supporting documents. 

### It will also provide at least 60 days for other documentation that was not posted on the website until after the proposed rule was signed. Due to the substantive issues specific to this rulemaking, this cominent period is significantly longer than statutorily required.

Inte rnet Address (URL) • http://www epa gov Rec yc led/Re cycl ab le· Pn Ie wi th Vegetable 0, 1Based In ks on 100% Pastconsume r. Process Chl Orine Free Recycled PaperAgain, thank you for your letter. We look forward to the timely receipt of your comments.

ina McCarthy Assistant Administrator
§ 1271.85 What donor testing is required for different types of cells and tissues? ( a ) *All donors.* To adequately and appropriately reduce the risk of transmission of relevant communicable diseases, and except as provided under § 1271.90, you must test a specimen from the donor of cells or tissue, whether viable or nonviable, for evidence of infection due to relevant communicable disease agents, including: ( 1 ) Human immunodeficiency virus, type 1;
( 2 ) Human immunodeficiency virus, type 2;
( 3 ) Hepatitis B virus;
( 4 ) Hepatitis C virus; and
( 5 ) *Treponema pallidum.*
( b ) *Donors of viable, leukocyte-rich cells or tissue.* In addition to the relevant communicable disease agents for which testing is required under paragraph (a) of this section, and except as provided under § 1271.90, ( 1 ) You must test a specimen from the donor of viable, leukocyte-rich cells or tissue to adequately and appropriately reduce the risk of transmission of relevant cell-associated communicable diseases, including: ( i ) Human T-lymphotropic virus, type I; and
( ii ) Human T-lymphotropic virus, type II.
( 2 ) You must test a specimen from the donor of viable, leukocyte-rich cells or tissue for evidence of infection due to cytomegalovirus (CMV), to adequately and appropriately reduce the risk of transmission. You must establish and maintain a standard operating procedure governing the release of an HCT/P from a donor whose specimen tests reactive for CMV.
( c ) *Donors of reproductive cells or tissue.* In addition to the communicable disease agents for which testing is required under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, as applicable, and except as provided under § 1271.90, you must test a specimen from the donor of reproductive cells or tissue to adequately and appropriately reduce the risk of transmission of relevant communicable disease agents of the genitourinary tract. Such testing must include testing for the communicable disease agents listed in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section. However, if the reproductive cells or tissues are recovered by a method that ensures freedom from contamination of the cells or tissue by infectious disease organisms that may be present in the genitourinary tract, then testing for the communicable disease agents listed in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section is not required. Communicable disease agents of the genitourinary tract for which you must test include: ( 1 ) *Chlamydia trachomatis* ; and
( 2 ) *Neisseria gonorrhea.*
( d ) *Retesting anonymous semen donors.* Except as provided under § 1271.90 and except for directed reproductive donors as defined in § 1271.3(l), at least 6 months after the date of donation of semen from anonymous donors, you must collect a new specimen from the donor and test it for evidence of infection due to the communicable disease agents for which testing is required under paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section.
( e ) *Dura mater.* For donors of dura mater, you must perform an adequate assessment designed to detect evidence of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy.
§ 111.83 What are the requirements for reserve samples? ( a ) You must collect and hold reserve samples of each lot of packaged and labeled dietary supplements that you distribute.
( b ) The reserve samples must: ( 1 ) Be held using the same container-closure system in which the packaged and labeled dietary supplement is distributed, or if distributing dietary supplements to be packaged and labeled, using a container-closure system that provides essentially the same characteristics to protect against contamination or deterioration as the one in which it is distributed for packaging and labeling elsewhere;
( 2 ) Be identified with the batch, lot, or control number;
( 3 ) Be retained for 1 year past the shelf life date (if shelf life dating is used), or for 2 years from the date of distribution of the last batch of dietary supplements associated with the reserve sample, for use in appropriate investigations; and
( 4 ) Consist of at least twice the quantity necessary for all tests or examinations to determine whether or not the dietary supplement meets product specifications.
CC Filed by Filing Services Canada Inc. 403-717-3898


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO

NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT




This Amendment No. 1 to Nonqualified Stock Option Agreement (“Amendment”) is entered into as of this 24th day of May 2006 by and between Micron Enviro Systems, Inc., a Nevada corporation, and Bernard McDougall.




RECITALS:




WHEREAS, the parties entered into the Nonqualified Stock Option Agreement, dated as of January 3, 2006 (“Option Agreement”). Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Option Agreement; and




WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Option Agreement as set forth herein.




AGREEMENT:




NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties intending to be legally bound, agree as follows:




1.  In exchange for Grantee’s promise of continued service in his capacity as an officer and director of the Corporation, Sections 1 and 4 of the Option Agreement shall be amended to extend the Option termination and expiration date until January 2, 2007.




2.  This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original, and all such counterparts together shall constitute one and the same document.




3.

Except as so expressly amended, the Option Agreement is ratified and confirmed by the parties and, as hereby amended, shall be deemed and construed as a single instrument in full force and effect; provided, however, in the case of any conflict or inconsistency between the terms of this Amendment and the terms of the prior Option Agreement, the terms of this Amendment shall control.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment No. 1 to Option Agreement as of the date set forth above.




Micron Enviro Systems, Inc.

Bernard McDougall




By: /s/ Negar Towfigh

/s/ Bernard McDougall




Name: 

Negar Towfigh




Title: CFO, Secretary