alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1.76 Medical devices. In addition to the data required to be submitted in § 1.72, an ACE filer must submit the following information at the time of filing entry in ACE for medical devices regulated by the FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health. ( a ) *Registration and listing.* For a medical device, the Registration Number for Foreign Manufacturers, Foreign Exporters, and/or Domestic Manufacturers, and the Device Listing Number, required under section 510 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and part 807 of this chapter.
( b ) *Investigational devices.* For an investigational medical device that has an investigational device exemption granted under section 520(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Investigational Device Exemption Number. For an investigational medical device being imported or offered for import for use in a nonsignificant risk or exempt study, “NSR” to be entered in the Affirmation of Compliance for the “investigational device exemption” that identifies the device as being used in a nonsignificant risk or exempt study.
( c ) *Premarket number.* For a medical device that has one, the Premarket Number. This is the Premarket Approval Number for those medical devices that have received premarket approval under section 515 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; the Product Development Protocol Number for those medical devices for which FDA has declared the product development protocol complete under section 515(f) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; the De Novo number for those medical devices granted marketing authorization under section 513(f)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; the Premarket Notification Number for those medical devices that received premarket clearance under section 510(k) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; or the Humanitarian Device Exemption Number for those medical devices for which an exemption has been granted under section 520(m) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
( d ) *Component.* If applicable for a medical device, an affirmation identifying that the article being imported or offered for import is a component that requires further processing or inclusion into a finished medical device.
( e ) *Lead wire/patient cable.* For electrode lead wires and patient cables intended for use with a medical device, an Affirmation of Compliance with the applicable performance standard under § 898.12 of this chapter.
( f ) *Impact resistant lens.* For impact resistant lenses in eyeglasses and sunglasses, an Affirmation of Compliance with the applicable requirements of § 801.410 of this chapter.
( g ) *Convenience kit.* If applicable for a medical device, an Affirmation of Compliance that the article imported or offered for import is a convenience kit or part of a convenience kit.
Sequa Corporation


Exhibit 10.4




Sequa Corporation




200 Park Avenue

New York,  NY  10166

212-956-5500










May 10, 2006










Mr. Gerard M. Dombek

13539 Sunset Ridge Lane

St. Louis,   MO   63128




Re:

Employment Agreement Extension




Dear Jerry:




Reference is hereby made to that certain Employment Agreement dated as of May 31, 2005 by and between Sequa Corporation and you (the “Employment Agreement”).  Terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Employment Agreement. 




This letter shall confirm that the Employment Term as set forth in Section 3 of the Employment Agreement shall be extended for an additional two (2) years from and after May 31, 2006 through May 31, 2008.




All other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and are hereby ratified by Executive and Company.  




If the foregoing confirms your agreement and understanding, please so indicate by signing in the space provided below and returning one (1) original of this letter to me.










Very truly yours,




Sequa Corporation




/s/ Martin Weinstein

Martin Weinstein

Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer




Acknowledged and Agreed 

this    16        day of    May   , 2006




	
	/s/ Gerard M. Dombek




Gerard M. Dombek
Editorial Note on Part 180
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 180 appear at 79 FR 75879, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 180.725 How much time do I have to contest a suspension? ( a ) As a respondent you or your representative must either send, or make arrangements to appear and present, the information and argument to the suspending official within 30 days after you receive the Notice of Suspension.
( b ) The Federal agency taking the action considers the notice to be received by you— ( 1 ) When delivered, if the agency mails the notice to the last known street address, or five days after the agency sends it if the letter is undeliverable;
( 2 ) When sent, if the agency sends the notice by facsimile or five days after the agency sends it if the facsimile is undeliverable; or
( 3 ) When delivered, if the agency sends the notice by e-mail or five days after the agency sends it if the e-mail is undeliverable.
`[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 946 Reported in House (RH)]







                                                 House Calendar No. 218
109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 946

                          [Report No. 109-598]

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
  bill (S. 250) to amend the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical 
               Education Act of 1998 to improve the Act.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 25, 2006

Mr. Bishop of Utah, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
  bill (S. 250) to amend the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical 
               Education Act of 1998 to improve the Act.

    Resolved,  That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (S. 250) 
to amend the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 
1998 to improve the Act. All points of order against the conference 
report and against its consideration are waived. The conference report 
shall be considered as read.
                                                 House Calendar No. 218

109th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 946

                          [Report No. 109-598]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
  bill (S. 250) to amend the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical 
               Education Act of 1998 to improve the Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 25, 2006

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed`
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 20-0264 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiffand Appellee, v. JEREMY CORD WOODS,

Defendant and Appellant. Appellant Jeremy Cord Woods has filed within which to file his opening brief. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that motion filed on or before October 15,2020. DATED this day ofJune,2020. a Motion for a is GRANTED.
For the Court, By 

# FILED

JUN 29 2020 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Suprerne Court Ststp of Montana ORDER

90-day Extension ofTime Appellant's briefshall be 06/29/2020
Case Number: DA 20-0264
# PPCR Publication Product Condition Report (To validate warranty or commercial assistance, all information MUST be filled out.) 

### SECTION I: Customer information (Completed by End User) Name: Date of Report: Tel: Company Name: E-mail: Address: Aircraft Mfg: Time in Service: Model: S/N: Engine 

### SECTION II: Product or Component Information (Completed by End User) Nomenclature: T urbocharger or T-wheel (part) Part Number: (circle one) (Write in) Ser ial Number : Batch/Date Code: Part Time in Service: New: YES 

### o Rebuilt: YES 

### o **SECTION III: Compliance Information: (Completed by Repair Facility)** Compliance with ASB 048: YES o Turbocharger returned to HET: YES o NO o T-wheel returned to HET: YES o NO o
Comments on compliance with ASB 048:

**Eligibility:** To be eligible for any commercial assistance, this form must be completed as instructed above and will serve as a claim for m. NO reimb ursement will be made without completing this f or m and return of affected T-wheel or turbocharger

. **All commer cial**  **assistance shall end three (3) calendar months fr om the original pub**  **lished date of ASB 048.**  F

or further information contact Har tz ell Engine Technologies LLC at: 2900 Selma Highw ay, Montgomery, AL 36108 USA or FAX to HET Customer Service, 334-386-5450. The complete service bulletin is available to you online via our website at http://www.HartzellEngineTech.com. (as ma y be applicable) 

### ATTACHMENT A - ASB 048
#### THE UNITED STATES v. LEWIS E. BROWN. LEWIS E. BROWN v. THE UNITED STATES.

[41 C. Cls. R., 275; 206 U. S. R., 240.]

*On both parties' Appeals.*

An officer on duty in Cuba during the Spanish war is court-martialed upon the charge of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman and found not guilty. The commanding officer remands the record for further consideration. The court immediately reverses its former action and, without additional evidence of any kind, -finds the officer guilty and sentences him to be dishonorably dismissed. The court is composed of five members (the minimum number), one of whom is an officer in the Regular Army, though serving as lieu*535tenant-colonel of volunteers, and the officer on trial is in the volunteer service.

The court below decides:

1. The Articles of War (77) provide that *“officers of the Regular Army shall not he competent to sit on courts-martial to try the officers or soldiers of other forces.’’*The language is too imperative to admit of evasion. Such an officer is incompetent notwithstanding he may be serving temporarily as an officer in the volunteer service.

2. Where the court is of the minimum number, the incompeteney of one member renders the proceedings void *ah initio.*

S. Where an officer of volunteers was illegally dismissed from the Army on the sentence of a court-martial which was absolutely void, he was not legally removed from his office and can recover his pay, including two months’ extra pay on muster out of his regiment. But if the office was that of lieutenant in a volunteer regiment, it did not exist after the muster out of the regiment.

The decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.

May 13, 1907.

Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court
Editorial Note on Part 112
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 112 appear at 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 112.162 Where must I store records? ( a ) Offsite storage of records is permitted if such records can be retrieved and provided onsite within 24 hours of request for official review.
( b ) Electronic records are considered to be onsite at your farm if they are accessible from an onsite location at your farm.
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/gpo117542 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
## NOTICE

##### Air University Press will no longer publish the *Journal of European, Middle Eastern, & African Affairs*. Those interested in submitting articles similar to what we have published here should instead submit their work to the *Journal of Indo-Pacific Affairs*, *Air & Space Power Journal*, or the *Journal of the Americas*.

                    -  Lassoing the Haboob: Countering Jama'at Nasr al-Islam wal Muslimin in MaliLassoing the Haboob: Countering Jama'at Nasr al-Islam wal Muslimin in Mali
Dr. Ernest Rockwell
 
                    -  The Use of Helicopters against Guerrillas: The Israeli ModelThe Use of Helicopters against Guerrillas: The Israeli Model
Dr. Ernest Rockwell
 
                    -  The Revolution in Drone Warfare: The Lessons from the Idlib De-Escalation ZoneThe Revolution in Drone Warfare: The Lessons from the Idlib De-Escalation Zone
Dr. Ernest Rockwell
 
                    -  It Is Time to Embrace the European Union’s Strategic Autonomy in SpaceIt Is Time to Embrace the European Union’s Strategic Autonomy in Space
Dr. Ernest Rockwell
 
                    -  Islamic Radicalization in BelgiumReuters)"                        data-byline="Dr. Ernest Rockwell"                        data-isvideo=""                        data-showplayicon="">                        Islamic Radicalization in Belgium
Dr. Ernest Rockwell
 
                    -  Book Review: A Concise History of Sunnis & Shi’isBook Review: A Concise History of Sunnis & Shi’is
Dr. Ernest Rockwell
ANNUAL REPORT
Chevy Chase Auto Receivables Trust 1995-1
$ 252,234,680 6.00% Auto Receivables Backed Certificates
For the Year Ended December 31, 1997




         PRINCIPAL    INTEREST      NET       NET        30 +      DELQ.
            DIST        DIST       LOSSES    LOSS %     DELQ.        %
        ____________ ___________ ___________ ________ ____________ _______
 Jan-97   5,352,619     909,019     123,430    1.34%    3,630,611    3.29%
 Feb-97   6,000,249     947,290     119,388    1.37%    2,995,677    2.87%
 Mar-97   5,185,533     808,584     231,039    2.79%    3,108,655    3.12%
 Apr-97   5,891,083     778,633     180,811    2.32%    2,382,708    2.55%
 May-97   5,254,371     732,901     101,001    1.37%    1,888,524    2.14%
 Jun-97   4,939,127     713,775     108,371    1.56%    1,977,312    2.38%
 Jul-97   5,046,992     642,238      34,136    0.52%    2,069,441    2.65%
 Aug-97   4,949,137     668,489      94,662    1.55%    1,916,321    2.62%
 Sep-97   4,421,545     570,113      36,986    0.65%    2,011,110    2.93%
 Oct-97   4,554,170     562,715     101,343    1.90%    1,996,839    3.11%
 Nov-97   4,348,227     528,762      20,027    0.40%    1,624,709    2.72%
 Dec-97   3,537,320     449,047      40,320    0.86%    1,850,174    3.29%
        ____________ ___________ ___________
 Totals  59,480,375   8,311,565   1,191,515

  **  The date represents the month of the Distribution date, the informat
      is from activity of the previous month.
#### In the Matter of Joseph Bacik, Petitioner, v Great Neck Water Pollution Control District et al., Respondents.

[815 NYS2d 118]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Great Neck Water Pollution Control District dated April 20, 2004, which, after a hearing, adopted a Hearing Officer’s recommendation that the petitioner’s employment be terminated.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, with costs, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.

“It is well settled that judicial review of a determination rendered by an administrative body after a hearing is limited to whether that determination is supported by substantial evidence upon the entire record” *(Matter of Liuzzo v State of N.Y. Dept. of Motor Vehs. Appeals Bd.,*209 AD2d 618 [1994]; *see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]). “Substantial evidence ‘means such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact’ ” *(Matter of Boyd v Constantine,*81 NY2d 189, 196 [1993], quoting *300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc, v State Div. of Human Rights, supra*at 180). In addition, the decision of a Hearing Officer to credit the testimony of witnesses is “largely unreviewable by the courts, who are disadvantaged in such matters because their review is confined to a lifeless record” *(Matter of Berenhaus v Ward,*70 NY2d 436, 443 [1987]; *Matter of Hall v Del Castillo,*174 AD2d 743 [1991]).

The determination under review is supported by substantial evidence. The imposed penalty of dismissal is not so dispropor*574tionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness *(see Matter of Boyd v Constantine, supra*at 196; *Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County,*34 NY2d 222, 233 [1974]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.P., Santucci, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 4 (Thursday, January 6, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 709]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33354]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Parts 40 and 301

[TD 9507]
RIN 1545-BJ13


Electronic Funds Transfer of Depository Taxes; Correction

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Correcting amendment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to final regulations (TD 
9507) that were published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, December 
7, 2010 (75 FR 75897) providing guidance relating to Federal tax 
deposits (FTDs) by Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT). The temporary and 
final regulations provide rules under which depositors must use EFT for 
all FTDs and eliminate the rules regarding FTD coupons.

DATES: This correction is effective on January 6, 2011 and is 
applicable in taxable years ending on or after December 31, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael E. Hara, (202) 622-4910 (not a 
toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The final regulations that are the subject of this document is 
under section 6302 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Need for Correction

    As published, the final regulations (TD 9507) contain errors that 
may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.

List of Subjects

26 CFR Part 40

    Excise taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

26 CFR Part 301

    Employment taxes, Estate taxes, Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income 
taxes, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Correction of Publication

0
Accordingly, 26 CFR parts 40 and 301 are corrected by making the 
following correcting amendments:

PART 40--EXCISE TAX PROCEDURAL REGULATIONS

0
Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 40 continues to read in 
part as follows:

    Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

Sec.  40.6302(c)-3  [Amended]

0
Par. 2. Section 40.6302(c)-3, paragraph (c) is amended by removing the 
language in the third sentence `` ``legal holiday'' '' and adding in 
its place ``legal holiday.''

PART 301--PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION

0
Par. 3. The authority citation for part 301 continues to read in part 
as follows:

    Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *


0
Par. 4. Part 301 is amended by revising the authority paragraph to read 
as follows:

PART 301--PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION

0
Par. 21. The authority citation for part 301 continues to read in part 
as follows:

    Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
* * * * *

Guy Traynor,
Federal Register Liaison, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal 
Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel, Procedure and 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-33354 Filed 1-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

June 23, 2005

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

JAMES HENRY CLARK, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 05-1106

v. (D.C. No. 04-Z-2256)

CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER;

MAYOR HICKENLOOPER; and

OFFICER KAFADI,

(D. Colorado)

Defendants-Appellees.

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before EBEL, McKAY, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.

After examining Appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). 

The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

This is a pro se civil rights appeal under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his claim to

the district court, Mr. Clark alleged his civil rights were violated by Denver
-2-

County Sheriff’s Department officials (Defendants) while he was detained for a

zoning violation at the Denver County Sheriff’s intake facility. During the

detention, Mr. Clark alleges Defendants violated his constitutional rights when

they deprived him of asthma medication and continually ridiculed him throughout

his detention. Mr. Clark asserts that these actions violated his rights under the

First, Fourth, and Eighth Amendments. The district court dismissed Mr. Clark’s

complaint as legally frivolous and entered judgment in Defendants’ favor. Mr.

Clark appeals to this court. 

We agree with the district court that Mr. Clark does not have standing to

bring his claim. To pursue his § 1983 claim based on alleged constitutional

violations, Mr. Clark must show he suffered some actual or threatened injury, that

the injury was caused by Defendants, and that a favorable judicial decision would

likely redress the injury. Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for

Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 472 (1982) (citations omitted). 

Mr. Clark’s claim fails to meet this exacting standard. Thus, Mr. Clark’s § 1983

claim is not cognizable.

After a thorough review of the briefs and the record, and for substantially

the same reasons set forth in the district court’s well-reasoned February 23, 2005

Order and Judgment of Dismissal, we hold that no relief is available to Mr. Clark

pursuant to § 1983. 
-3-

The decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay

Circuit Judge