alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 201
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 201 appear at 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004.

§ 201.20 Declaration of presence of FD&C Yellow No. 5 and/or FD&C Yellow No. 6 in certain drugs for human use. ( a ) The label for over-the-counter and prescription drug products intended for human use administered orally, nasally, rectally, or vaginally, or for use in the area of the eye, containing FD&C Yellow No. 5 as a color additive using the names FD&C Yellow No. 5 and tartrazine. The labeling for over-the-counter and prescription drug products shall bear a statement such as “Contains FD&C Yellow No. 5 (tartrazine) as a color additive” or “Contains color additives including FD&C Yellow No. 5 (tartrazine)”. The labels of certain drug products subject to this labeling requirement that are also cosmetics, such as antibacterial mouthwashes and fluoride toothpastes, need not comply with this requirement provided they comply with the requirements of § 701.3 of this chapter.
( b ) For prescription drugs for human use containing FD&C Yellow No. 5 that are administered orally, nasally, vaginally, or rectally, or for use in the area of the eye, the labeling required by § 201.100(d) shall bear the warning statement “This product contains FD&C Yellow No. 5 (tartrazine) which may cause allergic-type reactions (including bronchial asthma) in certain susceptible persons. Although the overall incidence of FD&C Yellow No. 5 (tartrazine) sensitivity in the general population is low, it is frequently seen in patients who also have aspirin hypersensitivity.” This warning statement shall appear in the “Precautions” section of the labeling.
( c ) The label for over-the-counter drug products intended for human use administered orally, nasally, rectally, or vaginally containing FD&C Yellow No. 6 shall specifically declare the presence of FD&C Yellow No. 6 by listing the color additive using the name FD&C Yellow No. 6. The labeling for over-the-counter and prescription drug products containing FD&C Yellow No. 6 shall declare the presence of FD&C Yellow No. 6. The labels of certain drug products subject to this labeling requirement that are also cosmetics, such as antibacterial mouthwashes and fluoride toothpastes, need not comply with this requirement provided they comply with the requirements of § 701.3 of this chapter.
[45 FR 60422, Sept. 12, 1980, as amended at 51 FR 41783, Nov. 19, 1986; 52 FR 21509, June 8, 1987; 59 FR 60898, Nov. 29, 1994] Effective Date Note
Effective Date Note: At 53 FR 49138, Dec. 6, 1988, § 201.20(c) was suspended pending further agency action.
§ 331.15 Combination with nonantacid active ingredients. ( a ) An antacid may contain any generally recognized as safe and effective nonantacid laxative ingredient to correct for constipation caused by the antacid. No labeling claim of the laxative effect may be used for such a product.
( b ) An antacid may contain any generally recognized as safe and effective analgesic ingredient(s), if it is indicated for use solely for the concurrent symptoms involved, e.g., headache and acid indigestion, and is marketed in a form intended for ingestion as a solution.
( c ) An antacid may contain any generally recognized as safe and effective antiflatulent ingredient if it is indicated for use solely for the concurrent symptoms of gas associated with heartburn, sour stomach or acid indigestion.
#### ANGELO STROLLO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. JERSEY CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, A BODY CORPORATE, AND A. CHESTER CONROW, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Submitted May 2, 1939

Decided July 17, 1939.

*602Before Brogan, Chief Justice, and Justices Donges and Porter.

For the plaintiff-appellant, *Parsons, Labrecque & Borden (Theodore D. Parsons,*of counsel).

For the defendants-respondents, *Autenrieth & Worlendyke.*

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Porter, J.

This appeal is from a judgment of nonsuit in favor of both respondents. The action was for slander. It was alleged that the respondent Conrow was employed as general manager of the respondent Jersey Central Power and Light Co., and that while so acting had slandered appellant by charging him with “stealing juice from the Jersey Central” and with duly publishing such defamatory words.

The complaint fixes the time of the commission of this offense as between May 29th, 1936, and June 6th, 1936. A bill of particulars was demanded which gave the date as May 29th, 1936. An examination of the proofs satisfies us that the appellant failed to establish his case.

There was testimony that the appellant was a user of electric current furnished by the respondent company; that his meter had been removed by the company and that statements had been made by employes of the company, including respondent Conrow, that the meter had been tampered with. But we perceive no testimony of any such defamatory words as are charged to have been made by Conrow at any time. It was established that Conrow discussed the removal of the meter with one Herr. This was done in a casual conversation during a luncheon meeting on May 29th, 1936. It appears that Herr was manager for a company by whom the appellant was employed. Both Conrow and Herr were called as witnesses by the appellant and questioned as to the conversation between them at the luncheon mentioned. Erom their testimony it appears that appellant had called at the office of the . respondent company and made violent threats concerning .the removal of his meter and that Conrow told Herr of that incident and also that the meter seals had been broken and the *603meter tampered with. That, in our view, is not sufficient to raise any factual issue for the jury under the charge in the complaint. No *prima facie*case was presented therefore, against either of the respondents.

There was an attempt by appellant to prove other alleged slanderous statements made by employes of respondent company at times other than between May 29th and June 6th. The trial court sustained objections to this line of testimony, which ruling is attacked as being erroneous.

We think not. The effect of the bill of particulars was to limit proof to the specific matters contained therein. Moreover, these events were alleged to have occurred about two years before the time of the trial and we conclude that the variances were material and prejudicial to the respondents under the circumstances.

The judgment will be affirmed.
### SERVED: FEBRUARY 4, 2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF SOLUTIONS AIR CHARTER, LLC I 

### FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA- 2013-0854



### NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2011SW910191) has been assigned to Administrative Law Judge J.E. Sullivan. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other persons on the attached Service List.

Ronnie A. 

### ChiefAdministrative Law J Attachment

- Service List



# .............**--------------------~--~-**

### SERVICE LIST- BY 

### U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & 

### ONE COPY Feder Aviation Administration 800 I dependence Avenue, S.W. Wash ngton, DC 20591 Atten ion: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2W10001

J. C. uehler, 

### Director of Operations Solu ons Air Charter, LLC, 

### Respondent Indi apolis Executive Airport 1132 East State Road 32 Zion ville, IN 46077 TEL 317"769-2538/317-769-4487 F : 317-769-3207 J.C. uehler, 

### Respondent's Counsel Bue lerAssociates, Attorneys 777 ast-86th Street :Sox 40924 Indi apolis, IN 46240-0924 TE : 317-253-8686 F : 317-253-9371 

### ONE COPY

Nic olas R. Milliard, 

### Complainant's Counsel En£ rcementDivision, AGC-300 

### 0 ce ofthe ChiefCounsel Fed ral AviationAdministration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Wa hington, DC 20591 TE : 202-267-3452 F : 202-267-5106 Ho
. J.E. Sullivan,

### Administrative Law Judge Oftee ofHearings, M-20 U.
. Department ofTransportation 12 0NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) W shington, DC 20590 T L: 202-366-2132 F : 202-366-7536 FDMS No.**FAA-201~-0854** (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was byU.S. Mail. For service inperson orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal A 'ationAdministration, 600 IndependenceAvenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000,Washington, D 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

### -2-
#### R. P. ANDREWS & COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES.

[41 C. Cls. R., 48; 207 U. S. R., 229.]

*On the defendants’ Appeal.*

A contract for paper to be furnished to the Philippine Public Pointing Office at Manila provides that the paper be inspected by the Insular Division in Washington before shipment, the paper to be o. 6. *Manila at the price at which the same is now furnished to the Government Printing Office, .Washington, D. O., plus freight from Neio York*” to Manila, “ *payment to he made from Philippine funds on invoice verificar tion at Manila."*A quantity of paper is ordered and inspected in Washington and delivered, pursuant to the order, on board a designated transport. The claimant pays the freight to Manila. The paper is badly damaged by water on the voyage. A board of survey on arrival condemns the paper, and it is sold by the Philippine Commission.

The court below decides:

I. The general rule is that title passes on delivery of the goods to the vendee, if nothing more remains to be done by the vendor.

II. Where the vendor, pursuant to the terms of the contract and to the vendee’s orders, delivered goods on a designated vessel and prepaid the freight, and nothing more remained to be done by him, the title passed, and the goods on the voyage were at the risk of the vendee.

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

Mr. Justice Day

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court December 2, 1907.
#### Southern Pacific Company *v.*Mitnik

[No. 17,317.

Filed December 19, 1944.

Rehearing denied January 29, 1945.

Transfer denied March 13, 1945.]

*465
      *Hartell F. Denmure,*of Aurora, for appellant.

*Charles A. Lowe,*of Lawrenceburg, for appellees.

Dowell, P. J.

— The record of this cause appears by *nunc pro tunc*entry of the court below made on July 1, 1944, showing a trial by jury on April 26, 1944,- with return of the verdict on the same day and a further showing that appellants’ motion for a new trial was filed on June 21, 1944.

Appellant assigns two errors (a) that the court below erred in overruling appellants’ motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of all the evidence, (b) that the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

The first assignment presents no question since it is independently assigned and not stated as one of the grounds for new trial in the motion therefor. *White*v. *State, ex rel.*(1915), 183 Ind. 649, 109 N. E. 905; *Fausett*v. *State*(1942), 219 Ind. 500, 39 N. E. (2d) 728; *Lavene*v. *Friedrichs*(1917), 186 Ind. 333, 115 N. E. 324, 116 N. E. 421.

The question on the motion for a new ferial is not before us since the record shows the motion to have been filed 55 days after the return of the verdict instead of within 30 days thereafter as required by statute. §2-2403, Burns’ 1933; *466§370, Baldwin’s 1934; *Income Guaranty Co.*v. *Zienlinski*(1939), 107 Ind. App. 248, 21 N. E. (2d) 87.

Appellee has filed timely motion to dismiss. It must be sustained.

Ordered: Appeal be and same is hereby dismissed.

Note. — Reported in 58 N. E. (2d) 201.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Charles Duncan McMillan d/b/a Anthony 

Sign Company, Appellant

No. 06-18-00040-CV v.

Kelly Shane Hearne, Appellee

Appeal from the 6th District Court of Lamar 

County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 85944). Opinion 

delivered by Justice Burgess, Chief Justice 

Morriss and Justice Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the judgment 

of the court below. Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment to reflect an award of past 

damages in the amount of $97,296.50. As modified, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

We further order that the appellant, Charles Duncan McMillan d/b/a Anthony Sign 

Company, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED JULY 22, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
§ 520.2325b Sulfaquinoxaline drench. ( a ) *Specifications.* A soluble powder containing 25 percent sulfaquinoxaline.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 016592 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Related tolerances.* See § 556.685 of this chapter.
( d ) *Conditions of use in cattle* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* Administer 1 teaspoon of 25 percent sulfaquinoxaline soluble powder for each 125 pounds of body weight for 3 to 5 days as a drench.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* For the control and treatment of outbreaks of coccidiosis in cattle and calves caused by *Eimeria bovis* or *E. zuernii.*
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Not for use in lactating dairy cattle. A withdrawal period has not been established for this product in preruminating calves. Do not use in calves to be processed for veal. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[79 FR 28831, May 20, 2014, as amended at 82 FR 12169, Mar. 1, 2017; 84 FR 32992, July 11, 2019; 84 FR 53310, Oct. 7, 2019]
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Ex Parte Donald Wayne Herod

Appellate case number: 01

- 15

- 00494

- CR

Trial court case number: 0677275

Trial court: County Criminal Court at Law No. 2 of Harris County

On June 30, 2015, the trial clerk filed a supplemental clerk’s record with the amended trial court’s certification of the right of appeal of the A pril 21, 2015 denial of the habeas application, filed by the pro se appellant, Donald Wayne Herod. On August
27

, 2015, th is Court had abated this appeal and re quested a second supplemental clerk’s
record be filed with findings of fact and conclusions of l aw regarding the habeas denial
and to address appellant’ s July 10, 2015 motion for appointment of counsel. On October 13, 2015, appellant filed a second pro se motion for appointment of appellate counsel.

On Dec ember 1 1 , 2015

, a compliant second supplemental clerk’s record with the trial court’s findings

, conclusions

, and order, signed on December 8, 2015, was filed.
The trial court , among other things, found that appellant ’s habeas application did not meet the requirements under Articles 11.072 or 11.073

, and that the appointment of counsel was not required in the interest of justice

. See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 1.051(d)(3), 11.072, § 7(a), 11.073(a) (West Supp. 2014)

. A ccordingly, w e REINSTATE this case on this Court’s active docket and D ENY appellant’s July 10, 2015 and October 13, 2015 motions for counsel. Because a ppellant
filed a pro se brief on June 17, 2015, his supplemental brief, if any, is ORDERED to be
filed no later than 2 0 days from the date of this order. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 2, 3 1.1

. T he State’s appellee’s brief, if any, is ORDERED to be filed no later than 2 0 days f rom the
f iling of the supplemental brief . I f the supplemental or appellee’s briefs are not timely filed, this Court will set the appeal for submission without further briefs

. See id. 3 1

. 1

. It is so ORDERED

. Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley



Date: December 15, 2015
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE PERIOD ENDING APRIL
1, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-01-2000
<CASH>                                          25,909
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   85,421
<ALLOWANCES>                                       501
<INVENTORY>                                    295,483
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               487,283
<PP&E>                                         319,893
<DEPRECIATION>                                  99,941
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,208,822
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          458,758
<BONDS>                                        223,994
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        47,242
<OTHER-SE>                                     398,027
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,208,822
<SALES>                                        519,549
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               519,549
<CGS>                                          435,578
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  435,578
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,522
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,201
<INCOME-TAX>                                       900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,301
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,301
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                             SPORTSLINE.COM, INC.
                          2200 W. Cypress Creek Road
                        Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309

March 26, 2002

United States Securities and Exchange Commission
450 5th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549

     Re: Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Year Ended December 31, 2001;
     Confirmation of Receipt of Assurances from Arthur Andersen LLP

Ladies and Gentlemen:

SportsLine.com, Inc. engages Arthur Andersen LLP ("Andersen") as our independent
public accountants. Andersen completed its audit work on our financial
statements for the year ended December 31, 2001 on January 25, 2002, and
Andersen's opinion with respect to our financial statements bear that date.
However, we did not file our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2001 until after March 14, 2002.

We are aware of the contents of Release No. 34-45590 and the addition of
Temporary Note 3T to Article 3 of Regulation S-X (the "Temporary Note"). As the
audit of our financial statements was completed prior to March 14, 2002, we
believe that the requirements set forth in the Temporary Note are not applicable
to our situation. However, in an abundance of caution, we have requested and
received from Andersen a letter representing to us that its audit was subject to
Andersen's quality control system for U.S. accounting and auditing practice to
provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance
with professional standards, that there was appropriate continuity of Andersen
personnel working on the audit, availability of national office consultation and
availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of Arthur Andersen to conduct
the relevant portions of the audit.

Respectfully submitted,

SPORTSLINE.COM, INC.


/s/ Kenneth W. Sanders
-----------------------------------------
Kenneth W. Sanders
President, Finance and Administration and
Chief Financial Officer
#### § 315.1 Scope.

The regulations in this part apply to radiopharmaceuticals intended for in vivo administration for diagnostic and monitoring use. They do not apply to radiopharmaceuticals intended for therapeutic purposes. In situations where a particular radiopharmaceutical is proposed for both diagnostic and therapeutic uses, the radiopharmaceutical must be evaluated taking into account each intended use.
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.

§ 184.1901 Triacetin. ( a ) Triacetin (C8 H14O6, CAS Reg. No. 102-76-1), also known as 1,2,3,-propanetriol triacetate or glyceryl triacetate, is the triester of glycerin and acetic acid. Triacetin can be prepared by heating glycerin with acetic anhydride alone or in the presence of finely divided potassium hydrogen sulfate. It can also be prepared by the reaction of oxygen with a liquid-phase mixture of allyl acetate and acetic acid using a bromide salt as a catalyst.
( b ) The ingredient meets the specifications of the Food Chemicals Codex, 3d Ed. (1981), pp. 337-338, as revised by the First Supplement to the 3d Ed., which is incorporated by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a). Copies are available from the National Academy Press, 2102 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20418, or available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .*
( c ) In accordance with § 184.1(b)(1), the ingredient is used in food with no limitation other than current good manufacturing practice. 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 in food as a flavoring agent and adjuvant as defined in § 170.3(o)(12) of this chapter; a formulation aid as defined in § 170.3(o)(14) of this chapter; and humectant as defined in § 170.3(o)(16) of this chapter; and a solvent and vehicle as defined in § 170.3(o)(27) of this chapter.
( 2 ) The ingredient is used in the following foods at levels not to exceed current good manufacturing practice: baked goods and baking mixes as defined in § 170.3(n)(1) of this chapter, alcoholic beverages as defined in § 170.3(n)(2) of this chapter; nonalcoholic beverages and beverage bases as defined in § 170.3(n)(3) of this chapter; chewing gum as defined in § 170.3(n)(6) of this chapter; confections and frostings as defined in § 170.3(n)(9) of this chapter; frozen dairy dessert and mixes as defined in § 170.3(n)(20) of this chapter; gelatins, puddings, and fillings as defined in § 170.3(n)(22) of this chapter; hard candy as defined in § 170.3(n)(25) of this chapter; and soft candy as defined in § 170.3(n)(38) of this chapter.
( d ) Prior sanctions for this ingredient different from the uses established in this section do not exist or have been waived.
[54 FR 7404, Feb. 21, 1989]