alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1310.14 Removal of exemption from definition of regulated transaction. The Administrator finds that the following drugs or groups of drugs are being diverted to obtain a listed chemical for use in the illicit production of a controlled substance and removes the drugs or groups of drugs from exemption under paragraph (1)(iv) of the definition of regulated transaction in § 1300.02 of this chapter pursuant to the criteria listed in § 1310.10 of this part: ( a ) Nonprescription drugs containing ephedrine, its salts, optical isomers, and salts of optical isomers.
( b ) Nonprescription drugs containing phenylpropanolamine, its salts, optical isomers, and salts of optical isomers.
( c ) Nonprescription drugs containing pseudoephedrine, its salts, optical isomers, and salts of optical isomers.
[75 FR 38922, July 7, 2010, as amended at 77 FR 4237, Jan. 27, 2012]
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 1 (Monday, January 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 144]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33080]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank 
holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the 
notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than January 20, 2011.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacqueline G. King, 
Community Affairs Officer) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 
55480-0291:
    1. Richard M. Connor, Jr., Laona, Wisconsin, to acquire and retain 
25 percent or more of the voting shares of Northern Wisconsin Bank 
Holding Company, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire and retain voting 
shares of Laona State Bank, both of Laona, Wisconsin.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 28, 
2010.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2010-33080 Filed 12-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
### 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. 03-12-00438- CR
David Cepeda Jones, App ellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B EXAR COUNTY , 226 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 199 4-CR- 5367 W, TH E H ONO RAB LE SID L. HARLE, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant David Cepeda J ones , ac ting pro se, filed a notice of appea l seeking to appea l an opinion issued by the Four th Court of Appeals. He c omplains about the Four th Court’s dismiss al of his petition for wr it of mandamus.

This Court’s appellate jurisdiction g ener ally is limit ed to ca s es appea led from trial courts in our court of appea ls district, which does not include Be x ar County
. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.201 (West Supp. 2010). We see no basis for jurisdiction over an appea l of matters arising out of ac tions taken by the Fourth Court of Appeals, and nothing in the documents appe llant has filed demonstrates we otherwise have authori t y t o gra nt any relief he seeks. See Olivo v. State , 918 S.W .2d 519, 522-23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (lis t i n g Government Code § 22.201 among examples of laws that establish jurisdiction of cour ts of appea ls).To any ex t ent that appellant’ s pleading s could be rea d as initiating an orig inal

appellate proce eding seeking extraordinary re l i ef, see Tex. R. App. P. 52, we note that our
m an d am us authority also is limit ed. By statute, this Court has the authority to issue a writ o f mandamus aga inst “a judge of a district or county court in the court of ap p ea l s d i s t ri ct” and other writs as nece ssary to enfor ce our appellate jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West Supp. 2010). The Four

th Court of Appea ls is not a p ar t y aga i n s t whom we may issue a writ of mandamus. Nor has appellant demonstrated that the exercise of our writ power is nece ssary to enfor ce our

jurisdiction as we ha ve no appe llate jurisdiction over the F ourth Court of Appea ls. Finding we lac k jurisdiction, we dismiss hi s attempted appe al.

__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Jus tice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Rose and Goodw in Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: Jul y

11, 2012 Do Not Publish

2
38570.

#### SOUTHERN INDEMNITY COMPANY v. YOUNG.

Carlisle, Judge.

1. Insurance is a matter of contract, and where the terms of an insurance policy are plain and unambiguous the courts cannot extend or enlarge the contract by implication but must cany out the true intention of the parties. *Fokes v. Interstate Life &c. Ins. Co.,*59 Ga. App. 680, 681 (2 S. E. 2d 170). Under the foregoing rule, the courts will give effect to the terms of such a contract of insurance and enforce it according to its tenor, in the absence of some overriding provision of law or public policy requiring otherwise.

2. A city ordinance regulating taxicabs required a licensed taxicab operator to give, as a condition precedent to obtaining a license, a good and sufficient liability bond “payable to the city . . . for the benefit of the passengers transported by him and such persons as might be injured by the operation of said business,” or, in lieu thereof, “shall carry a liability insurance [policy] of not less than five thousand ($5,000) dollars on said motor vehicle for such purposes,” and that “the applicant shall also carry public liability and property damage insurance policies.” The provisions of that ordinance did not render an insurance company insuring a taxicab operator subject to direct action by an injured party prior to determination of the legal liability of the taxicab operator in a separate proceeding, where the policy contained the provision that “No action shall lie against the company unless, as a condition precedent thereto, the insured shall have fully complied with all the terms of this policy, nor until the amount of the insured’s obligation to pay shall have been finally determined either by judgment against the insured after actual trial or by written agreement of the insured, the claimant and the company.” *Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Keefe,*215 Ga. 830 (113 S. E. 2d 774).

3. Accordingly, where the plaintiff’s amended petition, the same being an action against the insurer of a taxicab licensed by the City of Cartersville under an ordinance containing the provisions above indicated, set forth a copy of the insurance policy sued upon containing the provisions quoted in the foregoing headnote, such petition as amended failed to set forth a cause of action, and the trial court erred in overruling the *915renewed general demurrers to the petition. This error rendered all that occurred thereafter nugatory, and it is unnecessary to pass upon the other assignments of error complaining of the overruling of the various pleas in bar, pleas in abatement and the overruling of the general grounds of the motion for a new trial, all of which substantially raised the same questions presented by the general demurrer.

Decided December 5, 1960

Rehearing denied December 20, 1960.

*J. B. Cullens,*for plaintiff in error.

*Wm. A. Ingram, Henry A. Keever,*contra.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Townsend, P. J., Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur.*
§ 1134.1 Purpose of this part. ( a ) This part specifies standard wording of general terms and conditions concerning recipients' reporting requirements.
( b ) It thereby implements OMB guidance on reporting in 2 CFR part 170 and the following portions of 2 CFR part 200, as they relate to general terms and conditions of grants and cooperative agreements: ( 1 ) 2 CFR 200.301 and 200.327 through 200.329; and
( 2 ) 2 CFR 200.300(b) as it relates to subaward reporting, 200.312(a) as it relates to inventories of federally owned property, and 200.343(a) as it relates to financial and performance reporting.
#### § 135.3 Definitions.

For the purposes of this part, a pasteurized mix is one in which every particle of the mix has been heated in properly operated equipment to one of the temperatures specified in the table in this section and held continuously at or above that temperature for the specified time (or other time/temperature relationship which has been demonstrated to be equivalent thereto in microbial destruction):

| Temperature | Time |
| --- | --- |
| 155 °F | 30 min. |
| 175 °F | 25 sec. |

[42 FR 19132, Apr. 12, 1977]
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2018323DE.01003702.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 19.12.2018 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 323/37 |

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EU) 2018/1119 der Kommission vom 31. Juli 2018 zur Änderung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1178/2011 im Hinblick auf erklärte Ausbildungsorganisationen

(
[Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 204 vom 13. August 2018](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2018_204_R_TOC)
)

Seite 16, Anhang I Nummer 2 Buchstabe a zur Änderung von Anhang I Punkt FCL.025 Buchstabe a der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1178/2011:

Anstatt:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| „(2) | Bewerber dürfen die Prüfung der Theoriekenntnisse nur ablegen, wenn die erklärte Ausbildungsorganisation (DTO), die für ihre Ausbildung verantwortlich ist, eine Empfehlung ausspricht, nachdem sie die entsprechenden Teile des Theorieunterrichts auf einem zufrieden stellenden Niveau abgeschlossen haben.“ |

muss es heißen:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| „(2) | Bewerber dürfen die Prüfung der Theoriekenntnisse nur ablegen, wenn die erklärte Ausbildungsorganisation (DTO) oder die zugelassene Ausbildungsorganisation (ATO), die für ihre Ausbildung verantwortlich ist, eine Empfehlung ausspricht, nachdem sie die entsprechenden Teile des Theorieunterrichts auf einem zufriedenstellenden Niveau abgeschlossen haben.“ |

---
38535.

#### COLEMAN *et al.*v. MAYOR &c. OF SAVANNAH.

Carlisle, Judge.

1. “Where a writ of certiorari is sought, to correct a judgment of a recorder’s court or other police court of a town or city, by whatever name known, the petitioner for certiorari (unless from his poverty he is unable to give bond) must file a bond ‘conditioned for the personal ap*665pearance of the defendant to abide the final order, judgment, or sentence of said court, or of the superior court in said case.’ (Acts 1902, p. 105.) Such bond should be payable to the municipal corporation under which such municipal court exists, and be in an amount and with surety acceptable to and approved by the clerk of that court, or, if no clerk, by the officer of said town or city who may have rendered the judgment of which complaint is made.” *McDonald v. Town of Ludowici,*3 Ga. App. 654 (3) (60 S. E. 337). *Code*§ 19-214.

Decided October 27, 1960.

*B. Clarence Mayfield,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Oliver, Davis & Maner, Edwin Maner, Jr.,*contra.

2. Where, as in this case, the record shows that the bonds filed by the defendants had named therein as obligee the Governor of the State of Georgia and his successor in office, under the authority cited in the foregoing headnote, such bond was not a legal bond as is contemplated under the provisions of *Code*§ 19-214, and the failure of the petitioners to give the proper bond rendered their petition for certiorari void.

3. “A void petition for certiorari 'is an absolute nullity. It is so much waste paper, and the court has no authority to' decide any question which is sought to be raised therein, and can only strike the petition from its files.’ *Citizens Banking Co. v. Paris,*119 Ga. 517, 518 (46 S. E. 638); *Hill v. State,*115 Ga. 833 (42 S. E. 286); *Dukes v. Twiggs County,*115 Ga. 698 (42 S. E. 36); *Hamilton v. Phenix Ins. Co.,*107 Ga. 728 (33 S. E. *705)." Nilsen v. City of LaGrange,*55 Ga. App. 676 (2) (191 S. E. 175). The judge of the superior court in this case did not err in refusing to sanction the writ of certiorari.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Townsend, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

        We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
Nos. 333-57441, 333-39898, 333-46140, 333-46144 on Form S-8 and Nos. 333-55662
and 333-58362 on Form S-3 of Com21, Inc. and its subsidiaries of our reports
dated March 26, 2001 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Com21,
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2000.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

San Jose, California
August 22, 2001
Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCAD-14-0000799 

24-AUG-2015 

02:26 PM 

SCAD-14-0000799
 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
 

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,


Petitioner,
 

vs.
 

KHALED S. MUJTABAA,


Respondent.
 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
 

(ODC 12-042-9058, 13-036-9106)
 

ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT
 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson JJ.)
 

Upon consideration of the July 14, 2015 affidavit 

submitted by Respondent Khaled S. Mujtabaa and the exhibits 

attached thereto, as well as this court’s July 1, 2015 order of 

clarification and the record, it appears Respondent Mujtabaa has 

complied with all of the conditions of his 180-day period of 

suspension imposed by this court in its June 24, 2014 order that 

are required for reinstatement, and that his July 24, 2015 

affidavit complies with Rule 2.17(b)(2) of the Rules of the 

Supreme Court of the State of Hawai'i (RSCH). We note Respondent 

Mujtabaa must still file with this court, by January 4, 2016, a 
report regarding an audit of his practice and evidence of his
 

compliance with its recommendations, but that his reinstatement
 

in the interim is not contingent upon the filing of that report.
 

Therefore,
 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is granted.
 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to RSCH Rule
 

2.17(b)(2), Respondent Mujtabaa is reinstated to the practice of
 

law in this jurisdiction, effective upon entry of this order.
 

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Respondent Mujtabaa is
 

hereby notified that failure to timely file the required report
 

by the January 4, 2016 deadline, or to establish good cause
 

justifying an extension, may result in an additional period of
 

suspension, upon a review of the record. 


DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, August 24, 2015. 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald 

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama 

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack 

/s/ Michael D. Wilson 

2
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 903 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 903

   Repealing rule XXVII of the Rules of the House of Representatives 
          relating to the statutory limit on the public debt.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 29, 2006

 Mr. Chocola (for himself, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Akin, Mr. Barrett of South 
  Carolina, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Carter, Mr. 
Case, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Chandler, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Culberson, 
   Mr. Davis of Tennessee, Ms. Foxx, Mr. Garrett of New Jersey, Mr. 
Gingrey, Mr. Goode, Mr. Gutknecht, Ms. Hart, Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Hefley, 
Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Herger, Mr. Jones of North Carolina, Mr. Kline, Mr. 
 Kuhl of New York, Mrs. Musgrave, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Pence, 
  Mr. Scott of Georgia, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Tancredo, Mr. Wamp, and Mr. 
Westmoreland) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                         the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Repealing rule XXVII of the Rules of the House of Representatives 
          relating to the statutory limit on the public debt.

    Resolved, That rule XXVII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives (relating to the statutory limit on the public debt) is 
repealed and rule XXVIII is redesignated as rule XXVII.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                           9,488
<SECURITIES>                                    36,658
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,544
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (515)
<INVENTORY>                                        411
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                62,524
<PP&E>                                           8,408
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,473)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  71,855
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,585
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            23
<OTHER-SE>                                      52,831
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    71,855
<SALES>                                         13,877
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,877
<CGS>                                            6,772
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,772
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,754
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 126
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    803
<INCOME-TAX>                                       544
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                259
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       259
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
        

</TABLE>
P.O. BOX 3086 OSHKOSH, WI 54903-3086 • Tel 920.426.6522 • Fax 920.426.6560 • WWW.EAA.ORG

June 11, 2013

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Operations

West Building – ground floor

Room W12-140

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sirs:

Reference: FAA Exemption No. 10356, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0656

EAA (the Experimental Aircraft Association) is the world leader in recreational aviation. With 

an international membership of more than 177,000 people in more than 110 nations, EAA brings 

together aviation enthusiasts, pilots and aircraft owners who are dedicated to sharing the Spirit of 

Aviation by promoting the continued growth of aviation, the preservation of its history and a 

commitment to aviation’s future.

The conditions and reasons regarding public interest and safety, presented in the original petition dated 

June 17, 2011 and recognized as Exemption 10356, remain unchanged.

EAA requests FAA Exemption No. 10356 be renewed for a 2-year period. 

The Experimental Aircraft Association, Inc. (EAA) is a non-stock Wisconsin corporation, which has been 

granted 501(c)(3) status by the Internal Revenue Service.

For questions concerning this renewal, contact the undersigned at 920-426-6103.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Harger

Government Advocacy Specialist
Editorial Note on Part 112
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 112 appear at 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 112.171 Who may request a variance from the requirements of this part? A State, Federally-recognized tribe (or “tribe”), or a foreign country from which food is imported into the United States may request a variance from one or more requirements of this part, where the State, tribe, or foreign country determines that: ( a ) The variance is necessary in light of local growing conditions; and
( b ) The procedures, processes, and practices to be followed under the variance are reasonably likely to ensure that the produce is not adulterated under section 402 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and to provide the same level of public health protection as the requirements of this part.
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 Calgon Carbon Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed 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 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that **** to
      the
      best of 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 for the periods
      presented therein.





/s/
                Leroy M. BallChief
                Financial Officer


May
      8,
      2008







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.