alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 582.1143 Ammonium sulfate. ( a ) *Product.* Ammonium sulfate.
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.
Good Neighbor Environmental Board

Double Tree by Hilton Hotel El Paso Downtown

600 North El Paso Street

El Paso, Texas 79901

AGENDA

Thursday, June 28

8:00 a.m. Registration

8:30-8:45 Welcome and Introductions

 Mark Joyce

Associate Director and Acting Designated Federal Officer

Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach

 Diane Austin

Chair

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

8:45-10:00 Environment and Water Quality

 Aimee Roberson – Transboundary Conservation of Rio Grande Watershed 

and the Big Bend-Rio Bravo Region

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 Leslie Grijalva – Rio Grande Water Quality

Texas Clean Rivers Program, International Boundary and Water 

Commission

 Omar Chacón Betancourt

Chief, Department of Regulation and Sanitation, Junta Municipal de Agua 

y Saneamiento (Municipal Board of Water and Sanitation)

10:00-10:15 Break

10:15-11:30 Water Supply Perspectives

 Jesus Reyes – Local Water Management

General Manager, El Paso County Water Improvement District # 1

 Jesus Reyes – Regional Approach and Challenges

Paso del Norte
 Carlos Peña – Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Program

Principal Engineer, International Boundary and Water Commission

11:30-12:15 Resources

 Doug Liden - Border 2020 Update

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9

 Maria Elena Giner - BECC Update 

General Manager, Border Environment Cooperation Commission

12:15-12:45 Public Comments

12:45-1:45 Lunch

1:45-3:00 Discussion of 15th Report

3:00-3:15 Break

4:00-6:00 Discussion of 15th Report

6:00 Adjourn

Meeting Day 2

Friday, June 29

8:30-9:30 Discussion of Next Meetings and Other Business

9:30-11:00 Discussion of 15th Report

11:00-11:15 Break

11:15-1:30 Discussion of 15th Report

1:30-2:00 Public Comments

2:00 Adjourn
Editorial Note on Part 355
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 355 appear at 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004.

§ 355.70 Testing procedures for fluoride dentifrice drug products. ( a ) A fluoride dentifrice drug product shall meet the biological test requirements for animal caries reduction and one of the following tests: Enamel solubility reduction or fluoride enamel uptake. The testing procedures for these biological tests are labeled *Biological Testing Procedures for Fluoride Dentifrices*; these testing procedures are on file under Docket No. 80N-0042 in the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and are available on request to that office.
( b ) The United States Pharmacopeia fluoride dentifrice reference standards along with reference standard stability profiles (total fluoride, available fluoride ion, pH, and specific gravity) required to be used in the biological tests are available to any purchaser upon written request to the United States Pharmacopeial Convention, Inc., 1260 Twinbrook Parkway, Rockville, MD 20852.
( c ) Alternative testing procedures may be used. Any proposed modification or alternative testing procedures shall be submitted as a petition in accord with § 10.30 of this chapter. The petition should contain data to support the modification or data demonstrating that an alternative testing procedure provides results of equivalent accuracy. All information submitted will be subjected to the disclosure rules in part 20 of this chapter.
[60 FR 52507, Oct. 6, 1995, as amended at 68 FR 24879, May 9, 2003; 88 FR 45066, July 14, 2023]
#### § 357.103 Definition.

As used in this subpart:

*Anthelmintic.* An agent that is destructive to worms.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 19, 2018

No. 04-17-00316-CV

LAREDO JET CENTER, LLC,

Appellant

v.

CITY OF LAREDO,

Appellee

From the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CVF003042D3

Honorable Rebecca Ramirez Palomo, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Appellant’s motion for rehearing is denied.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 19th day of October, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

JOHNNY MADISON WILLIAMS, Jr.,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 15

- 30327

D.C. No.

2:94

- cr

- 00398

- TSZ

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

JOHNNY MADISON WILLIAMS, Jr.,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 15

- 30328

D.C. No.

2:94

- cr

- 00548

- TSZ

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

JOHNNY MADISON WILLIAMS, Jr., No. 15

- 30329

D.C. No.

2:94

- cr

- 00550

- TSZ

- 1

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3. 

# FILED

MAY 11 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APP EALS2 Defendant

- Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

JOHNNY MADISON WILLIAMS, Jr.,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 15

- 30330

D.C. No.

2:94

- cr

- 00604

- TSZ

- 1

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Thomas S. Zilly, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 9, 2017 **

Seattle, Washington

Before: McKEOWN, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Johnny Madison Williams, Jr. appeals the district court’s order denying his

motion to discharge over $857,000 in criminal restitution. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review de novo legal and constitutional ch allenges to

the application of restitution sentences. United States v. Berger , 574 F.3d 1202,

1204 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. DeSalvo , 41 F.3d 505, 511 (9th Cir. 1994).

We affirm.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).3

Williams argues that extending the time period under which he is ob ligated

to pay restitution violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. When Williams was

sentenced, his liability to pay restitution terminated “twenty years after the entry of

the judgment.” 18 U.S.C. § 3613(b)(1) (1992). However, under the Mandatory

Victims Re stitution Act of 1996 (“MVRA”), a defendant’s liability to pay

restitution terminates “the later of 20 years from the entry of judgment or 20 years

after the release from imprisonment of the [defendant].” 18 U.S.C. § 3613(b). We

recently held that the MV RA’s termination

- of

- liability provision applies in

Williams’s situation. See United States v. Blackwell , 852 F.3d 1164, 1166 (9th Cir.

2017) (per curiam). We also concluded that applying the MVRA’s termination

- of

liability provision is procedural and doe s not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. Id. ;

see also United States v. Gianelli , 543 F.3d 1178, 1183 (9th Cir. 2008)

(“Procedural changes, . . . which do not alter the definition of criminal conduct or

increase the penalty by which a crime is punishable, do not violate the Ex Post

Facto Clause.” (internal alterations and quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.
```

[115th Congress Public Law 288]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 132 STAT. 4372]]

Public Law 115-288
115th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 816 East Salisbury Parkway in Salisbury, Maryland, as the ``Sgt. Maj. 
Wardell B. Turner Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Dec. 6, 2018 -  [H.R. 
                                4913]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SGT. MAJ. WARDELL B. TURNER POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 816 East Salisbury Parkway in Salisbury, Maryland, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Sgt. Maj. Wardell B. Turner Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Sgt. Maj. 
Wardell B. Turner Post Office Building''.

    Approved December 6, 2018.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4913:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018):
            Sept. 13, considered and passed House.
            Nov. 15, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### Hinchman et al. *v.*Wilson et al.

[No. 19,079.

Filed April 18, 1901.]

*Drains.*— Remonstrance.—Withdrawal *of Signature.*— Where a remonstrance to a petition for a proposed drain, under the drainage law of 1885 and amendments thereto (§5622 *et seq.*Burns 1894), was properly filed within ten days, as provided by §5624 of said act, remonstrants may not subsequently withdraw their names.

From the Hancock Circuit Court.

*Affirmed.*

*R. L. Mason, U. S. Jackson, E. W. Felt*and *E. Sample,*for appellants.

*O. Downing, R. Williamson, E. Marsh*and *W. W. Oook,*for appellees.

Hadley, J.

Hinchman and others filed in the circuit court their petition for the improvement of a drain by the deepening and widening of Brandywine creek, under §5624 Burns 1894. Within ten days after kthe proceeding was docketed as a pending cause, not counting the day of docket*477ing and intervening Sunday, more than 200 interested persons, most of whom had been admitted parties to the petition upon their own application for that purpose, filed a remonstrance against the. proposed improvement, and requested its dismissal. Pending a hearing upon the remonstrance, and more, than four months after the filing thereof, sixty-four persons who had signed the.remonstrance moved the court to dismiss the same so far as they were severally • concerned. The court overruled the motion to dismiss, and finding that two-thirds of the landowners affected by the proposed work had signed the remonstrance, dismissed the-proceeding at the cost of the petitioners. The petitioners and remonstrants, whose motion' to dismiss was overruled, join in this appeal and present the single question: Did the court err in overruling the motion of the sixty-four remonstrants to be permitted to withdraw their names from the remonstrance ? The words of the statute are: “Any person named in such petition as the owner of land shall have ten days, exclusive of Sunday and the day of docketing * * * to file with said court any demurrer, remonstrance or objection * * *. All objections to the petition or to the acting of any drainage commissioner not made within said ten days shall he deemed waived.”

When the remonstrance comes on to be heard, within a long or short period after the filing thereof, the question to be determined “is whether or not the required number of landowners, with proper qualifications, were remonstrants at the expiration of the ten days’ period. No remonstrant may withdraw subsequently.” *Sauntman*v. Maxwell, 154 Ind. 114, and cases cited. Judgment affirmed.
#### Masti-Kure Products Company et al. *v.*Kurt Appel et al.

*Charles G. Albom,*for the appellants (defendants).

*Irving 8. Ribicoff,*for the appellees (plaintiffs).

Argued November 4

decided November 4, 1969

The motion by the defendants for a stay of execution in the appeal from the Superior Court in New London County is denied.

The motion by the defendants for a stay of injunction in the appeal from the Superior Court in New London County is denied.
#### § 522.313 Ceftiofur injectable dosage forms.
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATIONS
 
 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, each of the undersigned officers of Discovery Laboratories, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies that our Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 Date: April 29, 2011
 
 /s/ W. Thomas AmickW. Thomas AmickChairman of the Boardand Chief Executive Officer/s/ John G. CooperJohn G. CooperPresident and Chief Financial Officer
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.
 
 This certification is being furnished pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.  This certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Editorial Note on Part 314
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 314 appear at 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004; 81 FR 69639, Oct. 6, 2016.

§ 314.1 Scope of this part. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 51782 , June 18, 2024.
( a ) This part sets forth procedures and requirements for the submission to, and the review by, the Food and Drug Administration of applications and abbreviated applications to market a new drug under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as well as amendments, supplements, and postmarketing reports to them.
( b ) This part does not apply to drug products subject to licensing by FDA under the Public Health Service Act (58 Stat. 632 as amended (42 U.S.C. 201 *et seq.*)) and subchapter F of chapter I of title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
( c ) References in this part to regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations are to chapter I of title 21, unless otherwise noted.
[50 FR 7493, Feb. 22, 1985, as amended at 57 FR 17981, Apr. 28, 1992; 64 FR 401, Jan. 5, 1999]
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7519 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7519

   To authorize a temporary increase in the permitted use of certain 
           homeland security grants, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 1, 2024

Mr. Schweikert introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
  Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the Committee on 
  Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To authorize a temporary increase in the permitted use of certain 
           homeland security grants, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PERMITTED USE OF CERTAIN HOMELAND SECURITY GRANTS.

    (a) Temporary Increase in Limitation.--
            (1) In general.--Notwithstanding the limitation under 
        subsection (b)(2)(A) of section 2008 of the Homeland Security 
        Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 609), not more than 75 percent of an 
        amount awarded to a recipient of grant under section 2003 or 
        2004 of such Act (6 U.S.C. 604 and 605) in any fiscal year may 
        be used to pay for covered expenses described in paragraph (2) 
        in support of the permitted uses under subsection (a) of such 
        section 2008 until September 30, 2025.
            (2) Covered expenses described.--Covered expenses described 
        in this paragraph are the following:
                    (A) The hiring of personnel, including public 
                safety personnel.
                    (B) Overtime and backfill costs.
    (b) Other Grants.--Notwithstanding any limitations under section 
2009 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 609a), including 
any implementing rules, regulations, or guidance, relating to facility 
security personnel costs under subparagraph (C) of subsection (c)(1) of 
such section, the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting through the 
Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, shall permit 
a recipient of a grant under such section to pay not more than 75 
percent of an amount awarded to such recipient for such costs until 
September 30, 2025.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,354
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,212
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,034
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,666
<PP&E>                                          43,890
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (6,192)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  73,948
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,810
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            91
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,550
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    73,948
<SALES>                                        102,623
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               102,623
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  114,745
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (984)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,507
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (12,645)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (5,654)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (6,991)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (6,991)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.77)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

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

The undersigned, Kevin S. Herrmann, Chief Financial Officer of Ballantyne Strong, 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/A for the year ended December 31, 2009
(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 23rd day of June, 2010.

/s/ KEVIN S. HERRMANN Kevin S. Herrmann
Chief Financial Officer


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

---



QuickLinks
#### § 1210.31 Hearing before prosecution.

Before violation of the act is referred to the Department of Justice for prosecution under section 5 of the Federal Import Milk Act, an opportunity to be heard will be given to the party against whom prosecution is under consideration. The hearing will be private and confined to questions of fact. The party notified may present evidence, either oral or written, in person or by attorney, to show cause why he should not be prosecuted. After a hearing is held, if it appears that the law has been violated, the facts will be reported to the Department of Justice.

[41 FR 48269, Nov. 2, 1976]
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Humphreys, Huff and Senior Judge Clements

VERIZON SOUTH, INC. AND

 NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE

COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH

MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 2498-11-2 PER CURIAM

APRIL 10, 2012

SEDRICK J. BAILEY

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

(Richard S. Sperbeck; Angela F. Gibbs; Midkiff, Muncie & Ross, 

P.C., on brief), for appellants.

No brief for appellee.

Verizon South, Inc. and its insurer contend the Workers’ Compensation Commission 

erred in finding that he sustained a compensable injury by accident.

We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is 

without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final 

opinion. See Verizon S., Inc. v. Bailey, VWC File No. 02000004696 (Nov. 15, 2011). We 

dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.

 * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
###### Editorial Note on Part 181

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 181 appear at 61 FR 14482, Apr. 2, 1996, and 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001.

#### § 181.28 Release agents.

Substances classified as release agents, when migrating from food-packaging material shall include:

Dimethylpolysiloxane (substantially free from hydrolyzable chloride and alkoxy groups, no more than 18 percent loss in weight after heating 4 hours at 200 °C.; viscosity 300 centisokes, 600 centisokes at 25 °C, specific gravity 0.96 to 0.97 at 25 °C, refractive index 1.400 to 1.404 at 25 °C).

Linoleamide (linoleic acid amide).

Oleamide (oleic acid amide).

Palmitamide (palmitic acid amide).

Stearamide (stearic acid amide).

[42 FR 14638, Mar. 15, 1977; 42 FR 56728, Oct. 28, 1977]
Editorial Note on Part 312
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 312 appear at 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004.

§ 312.40 General requirements for use of an investigational new drug in a clinical investigation. ( a ) An investigational new drug may be used in a clinical investigation if the following conditions are met: ( 1 ) The sponsor of the investigation submits an IND for the drug to FDA; the IND is in effect under paragraph (b) of this section; and the sponsor complies with all applicable requirements in this part and parts 50 and 56 with respect to the conduct of the clinical investigations; and
( 2 ) Each participating investigator conducts his or her investigation in compliance with the requirements of this part and parts 50 and 56.
( b ) An IND goes into effect: ( 1 ) Thirty days after FDA receives the IND, unless FDA notifies the sponsor that the investigations described in the IND are subject to a clinical hold under § 312.42; or
( 2 ) On earlier notification by FDA that the clinical investigations in the IND may begin. FDA will notify the sponsor in writing of the date it receives the IND.
( c ) A sponsor may ship an investigational new drug to investigators named in the IND: ( 1 ) Thirty days after FDA receives the IND; or
( 2 ) On earlier FDA authorization to ship the drug.
( d ) An investigator may not administer an investigational new drug to human subjects until the IND goes into effect under paragraph (b) of this section.