alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 369

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 369 appear at 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004.

#### § 369.6 [Reserved]
Editorial Note on Part 184
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 184 appear at 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001; 68 FR 15355, Mar. 31, 2003; 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004; 70 FR 40880, July 15, 2005; 70 FR 67651, Nov. 8, 2005; and 81 FR 49897, July 29, 2016.

§ 184.1639 Potassium lactate. ( a ) Potassium lactate (C3H5O3K, CAS Reg. No. 996-31-6) is the potassium salt of lactic acid. It is a hydroscopic, white, odorless solid and is prepared commercially by the neutralization of lactic acid with potassium hydroxide.
( b ) The ingredient must be of a purity suitable for its intended use.
( c ) In accordance with § 184.1(b)(1), the ingredient is used in food with no limitation other than current good manufacturing practice. This regulation does not authorize its use in infant foods and infant formulas. The affirmation of this ingredient as generally recognized as safe (GRAS) as a direct human food ingredient is based upon the following current good manufacturing practice conditions of use: ( 1 ) The ingredient is used as a flavor enhancer as defined in § 170.3(o)(11) of this chapter; a flavoring agent or adjuvant as defined in § 170.3(o)(12) of this chapter; a humectant as defined in § 170.3(o)(16) of this chapter; and a pH control agent as defined in § 170.3(o)(23) of this chapter.
( 2 ) The ingredient is used in food at levels not to exceed current good manufacturing practice.
( d ) Prior sanctions for this ingredient different from the uses established in this section do not exist or have been waived.
[52 FR 10886, Apr. 6, 1987, as amended at 73 FR 8608, Feb. 14, 2008]
Editorial Note on Part 312
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 312 appear at 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004.

§ 312.31 Information amendments. ( a ) *Requirement for information amendment.* A sponsor shall report in an information amendment essential information on the IND that is not within the scope of a protocol amendment, IND safety reports, or annual report. Examples of information requiring an information amendment include: ( 1 ) New toxicology, chemistry, or other technical information; or
( 2 ) A report regarding the discontinuance of a clinical investigation.
( b ) *Content and format of an information amendment.* An information amendment is required to bear prominent identification of its contents (e.g., “Information Amendment: Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Control”, “Information Amendment: Pharmacology-Toxicology”, “Information Amendment: Clinical”), and to contain the following: ( 1 ) A statement of the nature and purpose of the amendment.
( 2 ) An organized submission of the data in a format appropriate for scientific review.
( 3 ) If the sponsor desires FDA to comment on an information amendment, a request for such comment.
( c ) *When submitted.* Information amendments to the IND should be submitted as necessary but, to the extent feasible, not more than every 30 days.
[52 FR 8831, Mar. 19, 1987, as amended at 52 FR 23031, June 17, 1987; 53 FR 1918, Jan. 25, 1988; 67 FR 9585, Mar. 4, 2002]
Motion for Rehearing Granted, Relief Denied, and Supplemental Majority and 

Dissenting Opinions on Rehearing filed March 8, 2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-19-00991-CV

DHI HOLDINGS, LP, Appellant

V.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR 

MORGAN STANLEY ABS CAPITAL I INC. TRUST 2006-HE3, 

MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-HE3; 

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR 

MORGAN STANLEY ABS CAPITAL I INC. TRUST 2006-HE3; AND 

SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Appellees

On Appeal from the 127th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2018-06668

SUPPLEMENTAL DISSENTING OPINION ON REHEARING

For the reasons stated in my dissent on original submission, I would grant the

relief requested in appellant’s motion for rehearing. See DHI Holdings, LP v. 

Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. as Tr. for Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Tr. 2006-
2

HE3, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-HE3, No. 14-19-00991-CV, 

2021 WL 5071472, at *5 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 2, 2021, no pet.

h.) (Zimmerer, J., dissenting).

/s/ Jerry Zimmerer

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Bourliot, Zimmerer, and Spain (Spain, J., Majority).
* Pursua nt to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

January 30, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40091

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALEJANDRO FELIX RODRIGUEZ-PECINA,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(5:04-CR-1492-ALL)

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

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant Alejandro Felix Rodriguez-Pecina

(“Rodriguez-Pecina”) appeals his conviction and sentence for

illegal reentry after a previous deportation. Rodriguez-Pecina

argues that the district court reversibly erred under United States

v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), by sentencing him pursuant to a

mandatory application of the sentencing guidelines.

There was no “ Booker ” error or Sixth Amendment violation

because the only enhancement to Rodriguez-Pecina’s sentence was for2

h i s prior conviction. S ee Booker

, 125 S. Ct. at 756, 769.

Nevertheless, the distric t court committed “ F anfan ” error by

sentencing Rodriguez-Pecina pursuant to a mandatory guidelines

system. S ee United States v. Walters

, 418 F.3d 461, 463-64 ( 5th

Cir. 2005). A F anfan error is not stru ctural error. S ee United

States v. Martinez-Lugo

, 411 F.3d 597, 601 (5th Cir.), c ert.

denied

, 126 S. Ct. 464 (2005). The government concedes that

Rodriguez-Pecina preserved his Fanfan claim, so we review the claim

for harmless error. S ee Walters

, 418 F.3d at 464. There is no

indication in the record that the district court would have imposed

the same sentence had the guidelines been advisory rather than

mandatory. Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand for

resentencing in accordance with Booker

.

Rodriguez-Pecina also contends that the “felony” and

“aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (b)(2)

are unconstitutional on their face and as applied in his case in

light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). RodriguezPecina’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States

, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although

Rodriguez-Pecina contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly

decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule

Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi

, we have repeatedly rejected

such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding.

See United States v. Garza-Lopez

, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied

, 126 S. Ct. 298 (200 5). Rodriguez-Pecina properly3

concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of A lmendarez

Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it

for further review. Accordingly, Rodriguez-Pecina’s conviction is

AFFIRMED.

CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED; CASE REMANDED FOR

RESENTENCING.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**JONATHAN M. GIANNOTTO,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 930 MAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 6th day of April, 2016, the Petition for Allo wance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**

**Justice Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.**
---




SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Washington, D.C. 20549





---




AMENDMENT TO





Form 10-Q





QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF


THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934





FOR
THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2002





Commission File Number 1-10741





---




PROVENA FOODS, INC.


(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)





California

95-2782215(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)

(I.R.S. employer identification number)5010 Eucalyptus Avenue, Chino, California

91710(Address of principal executive offices)

ZIP Code





(909) 627-1082


(Registrants telephone number, including area code)





Amendment





Registrants Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the quarter ended June 30, 2002, heretofore filed, is hereby amended by
changing Item 6 (a) to read:





(a)    The only exhibit filed with this report
(as amended) is Exhibit 99.1 Certifications of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer





and by adding said exhibit.





Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its
behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.





Date:    August 14, 2002

PROVENA FOODS INC.   By:
                    /s/    Thomas J. Mulroney Thomas J. Mulroney Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### Savitsky v. Savitsky

*Everett A. Rosser*and *Alex Marcus,*for plaintiff.

*John W. Bour*and *Carlon M. O’Malley,*for defendant.

December 4, 1950.

Eagen, J.,

— This is an action in ejectment, wherein plaintiff moves for judgment upon the pleadings. The motion is premature and must be dismissed.

The Rules of Civil Procedure in regard to actions in assumpsit also apply to actions in ejectment. Rule 1034 specifically states that a motion for judgment on the pleadings may be filed only after the pleadings are closed. Such is not the case here.

In answer to the complaint defendant filed an answer setting up “new matter”. No reply to the new matter has been filed.

Therefore, December 4, 1950, the motion for judgment upon the pleadings is overruled. Plaintiff is granted 10 days in which to file a reply.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 00-2803

___________ Phyllis M. Burns, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western v. * District of Missouri. * Larry G. Massanari, Acting * [UNPUBLISHED] Commissioner of Social Security, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: June 7, 2001 Filed: June 12, 2001

___________ Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and FAGG, Circuit Judge.

___________ PER CURIAM. Phyllis M. Burns appeals the district court's order affirming the Commissioner's decision to deny Burns's applications for supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits. We affirm.

We conclude the administrative law judge (ALJ) correctly evaluated the severity of Burns's depression and associated functional limitations. Burns did not allege disabling depression in her applications; and although she was treated for depression,-2-

took prescription and antidepressants, and attended counseling, no treating physician indicatedher depression was disabling, her therapist opined her depression was somewhat situational in nature, and a consultative neuropsychiatrist found no specific abnormalities other than a mildly depressed mood. See Dunahoo v. Apfel , 241 F.3d 1033, 1039 (8th Cir. 2001) (failure to allege disabling mental impairment in application is significant, even if evidence of depression was later developed); cf. Qualls v. Apfel , 158 F.3d 425, 428 (8th Cir. 1998) (ALJ need not adopt treating physician's opinion on ultimate issue of disability). The ALJ also followed the proper procedure for evaluating Bu rns's mental impairment, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520a, 416.920a (2000), and the ALJ's findings are supportedby the record, see Rose v. Apfel , 181 F.3d 943, 944-45 (8th Cir. 1999) (although claimant received outpatient psychiatric treatment and was diagnosed as having depression, depression was not disabling because there was no evidence of problems with concentration, persistence, or pace, of deterioration in work situation, or of related limitation of daily activities).

We also conclude the ALJ made sufficient findings about the physical and mental demands of Burns's past relevant sedentary work as a telemarketer. Burns testified she could stand for 10 to 15 minutes and could work some; her medical records noted no limitations on either of these activities; and, based on her vocational report, a telephone operator did not need to lift. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(a) (2000) (sedentary work requirements). The ALJ properly considered the mental demands of Burns's past work by referring to the job description for telephone solicitor in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles , see Pfitzner v. Apfel , 169 F.3d 566, 569 (8th Cir. 1999), and by determining her mental limitations did not affect her ability to work, see Rose , 181 F.3d at 945. Accordingly , we find substantial evidence supports the ALJ's findings, see Cunningham

v. Apfel , 222 F.3d 496, 500 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of review), and affirm.-3-

A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### § 1301.02 Definitions.
Link

Any term used in this part shall have the definition set forth in section 102 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 802) or part 1300 of this chapter.

[62 FR 13945, Mar. 24, 1997]
[No. 16130-7-III.

Division Three.

December 9, 1997.]

#### *In the Matter of the Marriage of*Melvin L. Howard, *Appellant,*and Anna Sue Howard, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Klickitat County, No. 95-3-00109-1, Tom Reynolds, J., entered July 30, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Kato, J., concurred in by Kurtz and Brown, JJ.
#### § 510.201 Scope.

This subpart applies to tolerances for residues of new animal drugs not approved or conditionally approved for use in the United States, but lawfully used in another country and present in imported, animal-derived food and food products.
**Exhibit32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Each of the undersignedofficers of Spescom Software Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies to hisknowledge that the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period endedDecember 31, 2006 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.  This certification is provided solely pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed to be a part of the Reportor “filed” for any purpose whatsoever.
| Dated:   February 14, 2007 |   |
|--------------------------------------|--------|
|                                 |   |
| /s/ Alan Kiraly                      |   |
|                                 |   |
| Alan Kiraly                          |   |
| Chief Executive Officer              |   |

 
| Dated:  February 14, 2007 |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|
|                                |   |
| /s/ John W. Low                     |   |
|                                |   |
| John W. Low                         |   |
| Chief Financial Officer             |   |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Spescom SoftwareInc. and will be retained by Spescom Software Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----

 

27

----
Editorial Note on Part 25
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 25 appear at 88 FR 45065, July 14, 2023.

§ 25.45 Responsible agency official. ( a ) The responsible agency official prepares the environmental documents or ensures that they are prepared.
( b ) The responsible agency official will weigh any environmental impacts of each alternative course of action, including possible mitigation measures, and will balance environmental impacts with the agency's objectives in choosing an appropriate course of action. The weighing of any environmental impacts of alternatives in selecting a final course of action will be reflected in the agency's record of formal decisionmaking as required by 40 CFR 1505.2.
[62 FR 40592, July 29, 1997, as amended at 69 FR 17291, Apr. 2, 2004]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF PRO TECH COMMUNICATIONS, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED OCTOBER
31, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                         160,428
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  205,923
<ALLOWANCES>                                    18,661
<INVENTORY>                                    285,883
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               703,448
<PP&E>                                         196,747
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 945,377
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          217,389
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,254
<OTHER-SE>                                     723,734
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   945,377
<SALES>                                      1,090,551
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,101,450
<CGS>                                          414,931
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,322,515
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,771
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (221,065)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (221,065)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (221,065)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Gordon L. Ellis, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify that:

1.

To my knowledge, this report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.

To my knowledge, the information in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of International Absorbents Inc.



|                         |                                                                         
|------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                         |                                                                         
|Date: September 11, 2009 | /s/ GORDON L. ELLIS
Gordon L. EllisPresident and Chief Executive Officer
Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm








Astea
International Inc. Subsidiaries


Horsham,
Pennsylvania











We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Nos.
333-33825, 333-107757, 333-34865, and 333-61981) on Form S-8 and (Nos.
333-11949, 333-90394, and 333-17459) on Form S-3 of Astea International, Inc.
and subsidiaries of our report dated March 30, 2007, except for Note 2 which is
as of April 14, 2008, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Astea
International, Inc. and subsidiaries appearing in the Company’s Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007.














BDO
Seidman, LLP


Woodbridge,
NJ








April 15,
2008
Exhibit 15.1




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-192720) of Kamada Ltd. (the “Company”) of our report dated March 26, 2014 with respect to the financial statements of the Company and its subsidiaries included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2013.


/s/ KOST, FORER, GABBAY & KASIERERTel Aviv, Israel
KOST, FORER, GABBAY & KASIERERMarch 26, 2014
A member of Ernst & Young Global
# L_2019329EN.01009401.xml

| 19.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 329/94 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 329/94

---

COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2019/2173

of 16 December 2019

appointing five members of the Court of Auditors

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 286(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposals by the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the French Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, and the Kingdom of the Netherlands,

Having regard to the opinions of the European Parliament (1),

Whereas:

| (1) | The terms of office of Mr Nikolaos MILIONIS, Ms Danièle LAMARQUE, Mr Henri GRETHEN and Mr Alex BRENNINKMEIJER are due to expire on 31 December 2019. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The terms of office of Mr Nikolaos MILIONIS, Ms Danièle LAMARQUE, Mr Henri GRETHEN and Mr Alex BRENNINKMEIJER are due to expire on 31 December 2019.

| (2) | The term of office of Mr Klaus-Heiner LEHNE is due to expire on 29 February 2020. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The term of office of Mr Klaus-Heiner LEHNE is due to expire on 29 February 2020.

| (3) | Five members should therefore be appointed to the Court of Auditors, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Five members should therefore be appointed to the Court of Auditors,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following are hereby appointed members of the Court of Auditors:

| (a) | for the period from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2025:






  — | Mr Nikolaos MILIONIS, |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

for the period from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2025:

—

Mr Nikolaos MILIONIS,

| — | Mr François-Roger CAZALA, |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr François-Roger CAZALA,

| — | Ms Joëlle ELVINGER, |
| --- | --- |

—

Ms Joëlle ELVINGER,

| — | Mr Alex BRENNINKMEIJER; |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Alex BRENNINKMEIJER;

| (b) | for the period from 1 March 2020 to 28 February 2026:






  — | Mr Klaus-Heiner LEHNE. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

for the period from 1 March 2020 to 28 February 2026:

—

Mr Klaus-Heiner LEHNE.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 16 December 2019.

For the Council

The President

J. LEPPÄ

---

(1)  Opinions of 26 November 2019 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

1

---