alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6660

CHARLES JERALL SMITH, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate Judge. (3:05-cv-00196-MHL)
Submitted: August 21, 2009 Decided: September 11, 2009

Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Jerall Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Geneva Misbach, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Charles Jerall Smith seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, and dismissing it on that basis. * The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims, and any dispositive procedural ruling, debatable or
wrong. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-85 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Smith has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Smith’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive

* The parties consented to have the case decided by a magistrate judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).

23 petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2006). United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law that was previously unavailable and made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence that was not previously discoverable by due diligence and that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the petitioner guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) (2006). Smith’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
Editorial Note on Part 101
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 101 appear at 63 FR 14035, Mar. 24, 1998, 66 FR 17358, Mar. 30, 2001, 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001, and 81 FR 49895, July 29, 2016.

§ 101.108 Temporary exemptions for purposes of conducting authorized food labeling experiments. ( a ) The food industry is encouraged to experiment voluntarily, under controlled conditions and in collaboration with the Food and Drug Administration, with and other formats for presenting nutrition and other related food labeling information that is consistent with the current quantitative system in §§ 101.9 and 105.66 of this chapter.
( b ) Any firm that intends to undertake a labeling experiment that requires exemptions from certain requirements of §§ 101.9 and 105.66 of this chapter should submit a written proposal containing a thorough discussion of each of the following information items that apply to the particular experiment: ( 1 ) A description of the labeling format to be tested;
( 2 ) A statement of the criteria to be used in the experiment for assigning foods to categories, e.g., nutrient or other values defining “low” and “reduced”;
( 3 ) A draft of the material to be used in the store, e.g., shelf tags, booklets, posters, etc.;
( 4 ) The dates on which the experiment will begin and end and on which a written report of analysis of the experimental data will be submitted to FDA, together with a commitment not to continue the experiment beyond the proposed ending date without FDA approval;
( 5 ) The geographic area or areas in which the experiment is to be conducted;
( 6 ) The mechanism to measure the effectiveness of the experiment;
( 7 ) The method for conveying to consumers the required nutrition and other labeling information that is exempted from the label during the experiment;
( 8 ) The method that will be or has been used to determine the actual nutritional characteristics of foods for which a claim is made; and
( 9 ) A statement of the sections of the regulations for which an exemption is sought.
( c ) The written proposal should be sent to the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, 240-402-7500, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. The proposal should be clearly identified as a request for a temporary exemption for purposes of conducting authorized food labeling experiments and submitted as a citizen petition under § 10.30 of this chapter.
( d ) Approval for food labeling experiments will be given by FDA in writing. Foods labeled in violation of existing regulations will be subject to regulatory action unless an FDA-approved exemption to the specific regulation has been granted for that specific product.
( e ) Reporting requirements contained in § 101.108(b) have been approved by this Office of Management and Budget and assigned number 0910-0151.
[48 FR 15240, Apr. 8, 1983, as amended at 59 FR 14364, Mar. 28, 1994; 62 FR 15343, Mar. 31, 1997; 88 FR 17718, Mar. 24, 2023]
#### § 317.1 [Reserved]
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**





Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




I,
      Dominick Ragone, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) of Icahn
      Enterprises G.P. Inc., the General Partner of Icahn Enterprises L.P. (the
“Registrant”), certify that, to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of
      the Icahn Enterprises L.P., quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
      September 30, 2008 of the Registrant (the “Report”):




(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Registrant.




/s/
                Dominick RagoneDominick
                RagonePrincipal
                Financial Officer of Icahn Enterprises G.P. Inc., the General Partner
                of
                Icahn Enterprises L.P.


Date:
      November 5, 2008
§ 516.21 Documentation of minor use status. So that FDA can determine whether a drug qualifies for MUMS-drug designation as a minor use in a major species under section 573 of the act, the sponsor shall include in its request to FDA for MUMS-drug designation under § 516.20 documentation demonstrating that the use is limited to a small number of animals (annualized). This documentation must include the following information: ( a ) The estimated total number of animals to which the drug could potentially be administered on an annual basis for the treatment, control, or prevention of the disease or condition for which the drug is being developed, including animals administered the drug as part of herd or flock treatment, together with a list of the sources (including dates of information provided and literature citations) for the estimate.
( b ) The estimated total number of animals referred to in paragraph (a) of this section may be further reduced to only a subset of the estimated total number of animals if administration of the drug is only medically justified for this subset. To establish this, requestors must demonstrate that administration of the drug to animals subject to the disease or condition for which the drug is being developed other than the subset is not medically justified. The sponsor must also include a list of the sources (including dates of information provided and literature citations) for the justification that administration of the drug to animals other than the targeted subset is medically inappropriate.
[72 FR 41017, July 26, 2007, as amended at 74 FR 43050, Aug. 25, 2009]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
                                  
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           5,846,112
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,979,211
<PP&E>                                           8,157,495
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (315,064)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,821,642
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,371,695
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         2,141,735
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,308,212
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,821,642
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,311,421
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,679,247
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    632,174
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (33,438)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                665,612
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       665,612
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        


</TABLE>
§ 522.204 Boldenone. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each milliliter of solution contains 25 or 50 milligrams (mg) boldenone undecylenate.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 054771 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use in horses* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* 0.5 mg per pound body weight by intramuscular injection. Treatment may be repeated at 3-week intervals.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* As an aid for treating debilitated horses when an improvement in weight, hair coat, or general physical condition is desired.
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Do not administer to horses intended for human consumption. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[70 FR 70998, Nov. 25, 2005, as amended at 79 FR 16184, Mar. 25, 2014]
§ 7.45 Food and Drug Administration-requested recall. ( a ) The Commissioner of Food and Drugs or designee may request a firm to initiate a recall when the following determinations have been made: ( 1 ) That a product that has been distributed presents a risk of illness or injury or gross consumer deception.
( 2 ) That the firm has not initiated a recall of the product.
( 3 ) That an agency action is necessary to protect the public health and welfare.
( b ) The Commissioner or his designee will notify the firm of this determination and of the need to begin immediately a recall of the product. Such notification will be by letter or telegram to a responsible official of the firm, but may be preceded by oral communication or by a visit from an authorized representative of the local Food and Drug Administration district office, with formal, written confirmation from the Commissioner or his designee afterward. The notification will specify the violation, the health hazard classification of the violative product, the recall strategy, and other appropriate instructions for conducting the recall.
( c ) Upon receipt of a request to recall, the firm may be asked to provide the Food and Drug Administration any or all of the information listed in § 7.46(a). The firm, upon agreeing to the recall request, may also provide other information relevant to the agency's determination of the need for the recall or how the recall should be conducted.
[43 FR 26218, June 16, 1978, as amended at 69 FR 17290, Apr. 2, 2004]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 9, 2010 

d0830 

Order 

 

September 9, 2010 

141362 & (23)(24) 

 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141362 

 COA: 297479 

Oakland CC: 2007-213521-FH 

TIMOTHY RONALD BROWN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the June 28, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is 

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented 

should be reviewed by this Court. The motion for miscellaneous relief is DENIED.
# C_2015146EN.01005301.xml

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/53

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 March 2015 — BU v EMA

(Case F-97/14) (1)

1

(2015/C 146/75)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015, p. 50.

1

---
§ 522.1155 Imidocarb powder for injection. ( a ) *Specifications.* The product is a sterile powder containing imidocarb dipropionate. Each milliliter of constituted solution contains 100 milligrams (mg) of imidocarb base.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 000061 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Special considerations.* Imidocarb dipropionate is sold only under permit issued by the Director of the National Program Planning Staff, Veterinary Services, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, to licensed or full-time State, Federal, or military veterinarians.
( d ) *Conditions of use in horses and zebras* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* For *Babesia caballi* infections, administer 2 mg of imidocarb base per kilogram of body weight by intramuscular injection in the neck region, repeating dosage once after 24 hours. For *Babesia equi* infections, administer 4 mg of imidocarb base per kilogram of body weight by intramuscular injection in the neck region, repeating dosage four times at 72-hour intervals.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* For the treatment of babesiosis (piroplasmosis) caused by *Babesia caballi* and *Babesia equi.*
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Do not use in horses intended for human consumption. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[79 FR 16190, Mar. 25, 2014]
#### D.H.R. Construction Company, Inc. *v.*The Ridgefield Corporation et al.

*Herbert S. Wolfe,*on the motion.

Submitted July 11

decided July 16, 1969

The motion by the named defendant for this court to review the denial by the trial court of the motion for an extension of time in the appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford County is denied.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, John P. Wilmers, Chief Executive Officer of Ballantyne of Omaha, Inc. (the "Company"), has executed this certification
in connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the "Report").

The
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to his knowledge
that:



IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the 16th day of March 2008.

/s/ JOHN P. WILMERS John P. Wilmers
Chief Executive Officer


A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Ballantyne of Omaha, Inc. and will be retained by Ballantyne of Omaha, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
EX-35.1
(logo) Deutsche Bank

1761 East St. Andrew Place
Santa Ana, CA 92705-4934

Tel 714 247 6000
Fax 714 247 6009

ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE

The undersigned, David Co, a Director of Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas,
as the Certificate Administrator (a "Certifying Servicer") under the Pooling
and Servicing Agreement, dated as of March 1, 2013 (the "Agreement"), by and
among, Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation, as Depositor, Wells
Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank,
National Association, as Special Servicer, U.S. Bank National Association, as
Trustee, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Certificate Administrator,
Paying Agent and Custodian, and Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as Operating
Advisor, here by certifies in accordance with Section 10.11 of the Agreement:

    A) A review of such Certifying Servicer's activities from March 7, 2013 to
    December 31, 2013 (the "reporting period") and of such Certifying
    Servicer's performance under the Agreement has been made under such
    officer's supervision and

    B) That, as to the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review,
    such Certifying Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the
    Agreement, in all material respects throughout the reporting period.


DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS
as Certificate Administrator


/s/ David Co
BY: David Co
Title: Director
Date: March 1, 2014
#### § 701.30 Ingredient names established for cosmetic ingredient labeling.

The Commissioner establishes the following names for the purpose of cosmetic ingredient labeling pursuant to paragraph (e) of § 701.3:

| Chemical name or description | Chemical formula | Established label name |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Trichlorofluoromethane | CCl3 F | Chlorofluorocarbon 11. |
| Trichlorofluoromethane and 0.3 pct nitromethane | CCl3 F + CH3 NO2 | Chlorofluorocarbon 11 S. |
| Dichlorodifluoromethane | CCl2 F2 | Chlorofluorocarbon 12. |
| Chlorodifluoromethane | CHClF2 | Hydrochlorofluorocarbon 22. |
| 1, 2-dichloro-1, 1, 2, 2-tetrafluoroethane | CClF2 CClF2 | Chlorofluorocarbon 114. |
| 1-Chloro-1, 1-difluoroethane | CH3 CClF2 | Hydrochlorofluorocarbon 142 B. |
| 1, 1-difluoroethane | CH3 CHF2 | Hydrofluorocarbon 152 A. |
| Ethyl ester of hydrolyzed animal protein is the ester of ethyl alcohol and the hydrolysate of collagen or other animal protein, derived by acid, enzyme, or other form of hydrolysis | | Ethyl ester of hydrolyzed animal protein. |

[42 FR 24255, May 13, 1977, as amended at 45 FR 3577, Jan. 18, 1980]
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 51446 Summary Calendar

STUART MCMULLEN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

DEANNA CAIN, also known as Deanna McMullen Cain, also known as Deanna Michelle McMullen, also known as Deanna Michelle Cain,

Defendant

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:16

- CV

- 716

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: *

Stuart McMullen removed this case from Texas state court to federal
district court as a purported civil rights case under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (1)

. The

district court remanded the case to state court, concluding that it lacked
subject matter jurisdiction. McMullen appeals.

* Pursuant to 5 TH 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 June 13, 2018
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-51446 Document: 00514511975 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/13/2018No. 16

- 51446

2 The Supreme Court has held that, for removal under § 1443(1) to be
appropriate, “ it must appear that the right allegedly denied the removal
petitioner arises under a federal law ‘providing for specific civil rights stated
in terms of racial equality.’ ” Johnson v. Mississippi , 421 U.S. 213, 219 (1975)
(quoting Georgia v. Rachel , 384 U.S. 780, 792 (1966) ). As McMullen concedes,
his claims in this case do not arise under a federal law pertaining specifically
to racial equality, yet he asks that we disregard the Supreme Court’s

construction of § 1443(1) as error. This we cannot do.

AFFIRMED. Case: 16-51446 Document: 00514511975 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/13/2018
§ 582.5301 Ferric phosphate. ( a ) *Product.* Ferric phosphate.
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.
§ 520.88a Amoxicillin trihydrate film-coated tablets. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each tablet contains amoxicillin trihydrate equivalent to 50, 100, 150, 200, or 400 milligrams (mg) amoxicillin.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 054771 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use* — ( 1 ) *Dogs* — ( i ) *Amount.* Administer orally 5 mg per pound (/lb) of body weight, twice a day for 5 to 7 days.
( ii ) *Indications for use.* Treatment of infections of the respiratory tract (tonsillitis, tracheobronchitis), genitourinary tract (cystitis), gastrointestinal tract (bacterial gastroenteritis), and soft tissues (abscesses, lacerations, wounds), caused by susceptible strains of *Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus* spp., *Escherichia coli, Proteus mirabilis,* and bacterial dermatitis caused by *S. aureus, Streptococcus* spp., and *P. mirabilis.*
( iii ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
( 2 ) *Cats* — ( i ) *Amount.* Administer orally 5 to 10 mg/lb of body weight, once daily for 5 to 7 days.
( ii ) *Indications for use.* Treatment of infections caused by susceptible organisms as follows: upper respiratory tract due to *S. aureus, Streptococcus* spp., and *E. coli;* genitourinary tract (cystitis) due to *S. aureus, Streptococcus* spp., *E. coli,* and *P. mirabilis;* gastrointestinal tract due to *E. coli;* and skin and soft tissue (abscesses, lacerations, and wounds) due to *S. aureus, Streptococcus* spp., *E. coli,* and *Pasteurella multocida.*
( iii ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[57 FR 37319, Aug. 18, 1992, as amended at 60 FR 55658, Nov. 2, 1995; 79 FR 28816, May 20, 2014]