alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 25
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 25 appear at 88 FR 45065, July 14, 2023.

§ 25.21 Extraordinary circumstances. As required under 40 CFR 1508.4, FDA will require at least an EA for any specific action that ordinarily would be excluded if extraordinary circumstances indicate that the specific proposed action may significantly affect the quality of the human environment (see 40 CFR 1508.27 for examples of significant impacts). Examples of such extraordinary circumstances include: ( a ) Actions for which available data establish that, at the expected level of exposure, there is the potential for serious harm to the environment; and
( b ) Actions that adversely affect a species or the critical habitat of a species determined under the Endangered Species Act or the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna to be endangered or threatened or wild flora or fauna that are entitled to special protection under some other Federal law.
# L_2019276EN.01000101.xml

| 29.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 276/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 276/1

---

COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2019/1803

of 18 July 2019

on the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam establishing a framework for the participation of Viet Nam in European Union crisis management operations

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 37 thereof, in conjunction with Article 218(5) and (6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 8 April 2019, the Council adopted a Decision authorising the opening of negotiations for an Agreement between the European Union and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam establishing a framework for its participation in Union crisis management operations (the ‘Agreement’). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 8 April 2019, the Council adopted a Decision authorising the opening of negotiations for an Agreement between the European Union and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam establishing a framework for its participation in Union crisis management operations (the ‘Agreement’).

| (2) | The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, in accordance with Article 37 of the Treaty on European Union, subsequently negotiated that Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, in accordance with Article 37 of the Treaty on European Union, subsequently negotiated that Agreement.

| (3) | The Agreement should be approved, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Agreement should be approved,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam establishing a framework for the participation of Viet Nam in European Union crisis management operations (the ‘Agreement’) is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.

The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.

Article 2

The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the Union.

Article 3

The President of the Council shall, on behalf of the Union, give the notification provided for in Article 17(1) of the Agreement (1).

Article 4

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

Done at Brussels, 18 July 2019.

For the Council

The President

T. TUPPURAINEN

---

(1)  The date of entry into force of the Agreement will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union by the General Secretariat of the Council.

1

Official Journal of the European Union

---
§ 582.7330 Gum arabic. ( a ) *Product.* Acacia (gum arabic).
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.
§ 516.133 Denying a request for determination of eligibility for indexing. ( a ) FDA will deny a request for determination of eligibility for indexing if it determines upon the basis of the request evaluated together with any other information before it with respect to the new animal drug that: ( 1 ) The same drug in the same dosage form for the same intended use is already approved or conditionally approved;
( 2 ) There is insufficient information to demonstrate that the new animal drug is intended for use: ( i ) In a minor species for which there is a reasonable certainty that the animal or edible products from the animal will not be consumed by humans or food-producing animals, or
( ii ) In a hatchery, tank, pond, or other similar contained man-made structure in (which includes on) an early, non-food life stage of a food-producing minor species, and there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate safety for humans in accordance with the standard of section 512(d) of the act and § 514.111 of this chapter (including, for an antimicrobial new animal drug, with respect to antimicrobial resistance);
( 3 ) The new animal drug is contained in or is a product of a transgenic animal;
( 4 ) There is insufficient information to demonstrate that the requestor has established appropriate specifications for the manufacture and control of the new animal drug and that the requestor has an understanding of current good manufacturing practices;
( 5 ) The requester fails to submit an adequate environmental assessment under § 25.40 of this chapter or fails to provide sufficient information to establish that the requested action is subject to categorical exclusion under § 25.30 or § 25.33 of this chapter;
( 6 ) There is insufficient information to determine that the new animal drug is safe with respect to individuals exposed to the new animal drug through its manufacture or use; or
( 7 ) The request for determination of eligibility for indexing fails to contain any other information required under the provisions of § 516.129.
( b ) FDA may deny a request for determination of eligibility for indexing if it contains any untrue statement of a material fact or omits material information.
( c ) When a request for determination of eligibility for indexing is denied, FDA will notify the requestor in accordance with § 516.137.
§ 58.204 Notice of and opportunity for hearing on proposed disqualification. ( a ) Whenever the Commissioner has information indicating that grounds exist under § 58.202 which in his opinion justify disqualification of a testing facility, he may issue to the testing facility a written notice proposing that the facility be disqualified.
( b ) A hearing on the disqualification shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements for a regulatory hearing set forth in part 16 of this chapter.
**Exhibit23**

**Consentof Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Form S-8(No. 333-130041) of Retractable Technologies, Inc. of our report, dated April 2,2007 relating to our audit of the financial statements and financial schedulewhich appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Retractable Technologies,Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006.
|                     |   |                     |
|---------------------|--------|--------------------------|
|                |   | /s/ CF & Co., L.L.P. |
|                |   | CF & Co., L.L.P.     |
|                |   |                     |
| Dallas, Texas       |   |                     |
| April 2,  2007 |   |                     |

 

----
# C_2014292EN.01002102.xml

| 1.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 292/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/21

---

Action brought on 7 July 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Finland

(Case C-329/14)

2014/C 292/26

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch, K. Hermann and I. Koskinen, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Finland

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28(1) of Directive 2010/31/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings, because it has failed to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to transpose Article 2(2) and Article 9(1) into national law or, in any event, to inform the Commission of those measures either as regards mainland Finland and with regard to the Åland Islands it has failed to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to transpose Article 2(2) and Article 9(1) into national law or, in any event, to inform the Commission of those measures; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28(1) of Directive 2010/31/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings, because it has failed to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to transpose Article 2(2) and Article 9(1) into national law or, in any event, to inform the Commission of those measures either as regards mainland Finland and with regard to the Åland Islands it has failed to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to transpose Article 2(2) and Article 9(1) into national law or, in any event, to inform the Commission of those measures;

1

| — | order the Republic of Finland, on the basis of Article 260(3) TFEU to pay a fine of EUR 19  178,25 per day from the date of delivery of the judgment of the Court of Justice to be paid to the European Union’s own resources account, on the ground that it has failed to fulfil its obligation to indicate the measures by which the directive will be transposed into national law. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Finland, on the basis of Article 260(3) TFEU to pay a fine of EUR 19  178,25 per day from the date of delivery of the judgment of the Court of Justice to be paid to the European Union’s own resources account, on the ground that it has failed to fulfil its obligation to indicate the measures by which the directive will be transposed into national law.

| — | order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which to transpose the Directive expired on 9 July 2012.

---

(1)  OJ 2010 L 153, p. 13.

1

---
# C_2015254EN.01002401.xml

| 3.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 254/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 254/24

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 June 2015 — EE v Commission

(Case F-55/14) (1)

1

((Civil Service - Contractual staff - Non-renewal of fixed-term contract - Claims for annulment - Renewal procedure - Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to be heard - Disregard - Claims for compensation - Non-material harm))

(2015/C 254/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: EE (represented by: L. Levi and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and T.S. Bohr, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s contract, which should have been of indefinite duration.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Commission not to renew the contract of EE as a member of the contractual staff, communicated orally on 14 October 2013, confirmed by the note of 31 October 2013 and explained in the note of 13 December 2013; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Commission not to renew the contract of EE as a member of the contractual staff, communicated orally on 14 October 2013, confirmed by the note of 31 October 2013 and explained in the note of 13 December 2013;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay EE the sum of EUR 10  000; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay EE the sum of EUR 10  000;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by EE. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by EE.

---

(1)  OJ C 421, 24.11.2014, p. 59.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 73
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 73 appear at 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001.

§ 73.1095 β-Carotene. ( a ) *Identity and specifications.* ( 1 ) The color additive β-carotene shall conform in identity and specifications to the requirements of § 73.95(a)(1) and (b).
( 2 ) The diluents in color additive mixtures for drug use containing β-carotene are limited to those listed in this subpart as safe and suitable in color additive mixtures for coloring ingested drugs.
( b ) *Uses and restrictions.* The color additive β-carotene may be safely used in coloring drugs generally, including those intended for use in the area of the eye, in amounts consistent with good manufacturing practice.
( c ) *Labeling requirements.* The labeling of the color additive and any mixtures intended solely or in part for coloring purposes prepared therefrom shall conform to the requirements of § 70.25 of this chapter.
( d ) *Exemption from certification.* Certification of this color additive is not necessary for the protection of the public health, and therefore batches thereof are exempt from the certification requirements of section 721(c) of the act.
[42 FR 15643, Mar. 22, 1977, as amended at 42 FR 33722, July 1, 1977]
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 27, 2014

No. 04-14-00092-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.E., JR., ET AL., CHILDREN,

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-PA-00722

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The District Clerk's notification of late record is hereby GRANTED. The record is due 

February 28, 2014.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

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

court on this 27th day of February, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4441

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

DANNY LEE MCCOLLUM,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:14-cr-00432-WO-1)

Submitted: March 30, 2016 Decided: April 13, 2016

Before GREGORY and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Seth A. Neyhart, STARK LAW GROUP, PLLC, Chapel Hill, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Danny Lee McCollum pled guilty pursuant to a written plea 

agreement to one count of distribution of cocaine base. The 

district court sentenced him to 30 months’ imprisonment, to be 

followed by four years of supervised release. On appeal, 

McCollum’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no 

meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the 

district court imposed a reasonable sentence. McCollum was 

informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but 

has not done so.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in 

this case and have found no meritorious grounds for appeal. The 

district court made no significant procedural error at 

sentencing, see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007), 

and McCollum has not rebutted the presumption on appeal that his 

within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable, see

United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir.), cert. 

denied, 135 S. Ct. 421 (2014). Accordingly, we affirm the 

district court’s judgment.

This court requires that counsel inform McCollum, in 

writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the 

United States for further review. If McCollum requests that a 

petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition 
3

would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for 

leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must 

state that a copy thereof was served on McCollum.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2016222EN.01004802.xml

| 20.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/48

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 May 2016 — Nill v Commission

(Case F-19/14) (1)

(2016/C 222/71)

Language of the case: French

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

---

(1)  OJ C 184, 16/6/2014, p. 41.

---
Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-11118 (Summary Calendar)

MARVIN LEE BELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; KATHLENE M. HAWK, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons; GEORGE E. KILLINGER, Warden, FCI Fort Worth; EZAZ, M.D.; D. HASS, Associate Warden; ANNETTE CURRIER, Infections Disease Control Officer; WHITLOCK, H.C.U. (Case Manager) FMC; KING, Long Term Nurse and Assistant; BETTS, Long Term Nurse and Assistant,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (USDC No. 4:93-CV-608-A)

April 10, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Marvin Lee Bell, a federal prisoner formerly housed at FCI Fort Worth, appeals the district

court’s dismissal of his complaint brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents

, 403

U.S. 388 (1971). Bell argued that the conditions of his confinement while he was housed in a special

medical-care unit for 237 days violated the Eighth Amendment.

The dist rict court dismissed the complaint based on bell’s failure to meet the heightened2

pleading requirement, and on 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) . Bell’s pleadings failed to allege the requisite

deliberate indifference required to establish an Eighth Amendment violation. S ee Farmer v. Brennan

,
114 S. Ct. 1970, 1984 (1994). Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal under § 1915(d) was not

an abuse of discretion. S ee Macias v. Raul A. (Unknown), Badge No.153

, 23 F.3d 94, 97 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 220 (1994).

APPEAL DISMISSED.
#### § 579.12 Incorporation of regulations in part 179.

Regulations providing for irradiation in the production, processing, and handling of food in part 179 of this chapter are incorporated in subchapter E as applicable to use in the production, processing, handling, and labeling of animal feed and pet food, except where specifically provided for in this part. Any facility that treats animal feed and pet food with ionizing radiation must comply with the requirements of part 507 of this chapter and other applicable regulations.

[51 FR 5993, Feb. 19, 1986, as amended at 80 FR 56356, Sept. 17, 2015]
§ 680.2 Manufacture of Allergenic Products. ( a ) *Extraneous allergenic substances.* All manufacturing steps shall be performed so as to insure that the product will contain only the allergenic and other substances intended to be included in the final product.
( b ) *Cultures derived from microorganisms.* Culture media into which organisms are inoculated for the manufacture of Allergenic Products shall contain no allergenic substances other than those necessary as a growth requirement. Neither horse protein nor any allergenic derivative of horse protein shall be used in culture media.
( c ) *Liquid products for oral administration.* Liquid products intended for oral administration that are filled in multiple dose final containers shall contain a preservative in a concentration adequate to inhibit microbial growth.
( d ) *Residual pyridine.* Products for which pyridine is used in manufacturing shall have no more residual pyridine in the final product than 25 micrograms per milliliter.
( e ) [Reserved]
( f ) *Records.* A record of the history of the manufacture or propagation of each lot of source material intended for manufacture of final Allergenic Products shall be available at the establishment of the manufacturer of the source material, as required by § 211.188 of this chapter. A summary of the history of the manufacture or propagation of the source material shall be available at the establishment of the manufacturer of the final product.
[38 FR 32100, Nov. 20, 1973, as amended at 49 FR 25433, June 21, 1984; 67 FR 9587, Mar. 4, 2002]
Exhibit 23.3

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the use in this Registration  Statement on Form S-4 of PSEG
Energy Holdings Inc. of our report dated March 3, 2000 relating to the financial
statements of Hanford L.P.,  which appears in such  Registration  Statement.  We
also  consent  to the  reference  to us under  the  headings  "Experts"  in such
Registration Statement.

San Francisco, California                         /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
August 31, 2000
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7617 

To prohibit no-knock warrants, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 11, 2024 

Mr. MCGARVEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To prohibit no-knock warrants, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Justice for Breonna 

5 Taylor Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON NO-KNOCK WARRANTS. 

7 (a) FEDERAL PROHIBITION.—Notwithstanding any 

8 other provision of law, a Federal law enforcement officer 

9 (as defined in section 115 of title 18, United States Code) 

10 may not execute a warrant until after the officer provides 

11 notice of his or her authority and purpose. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7617 IH

1 (b) STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGEN2 CIES.—Beginning in the first fiscal year beginning after 

3 the date of enactment of this Act, and each fiscal year 

4 thereafter, a State or local law enforcement agency that 

5 receives funds from the Department of Justice during the 

6 fiscal year may not execute a warrant that does not re7 quire the law enforcement officer serving the warrant to 

8 provide notice of his or her authority and purpose before 

9 forcibly entering a premises. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS