alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 225.58 Laboratory controls. ( a ) The periodic assay of medicated feeds for drug components provides a measure of performance of the manufacturing process in manufacturing a uniform product of intended potency.
( b ) The following assay requirements shall apply to medicated feeds: ( 1 ) For feeds requiring a medicated feed mill license (Form FDA 3448) for their manufacture and marketing, at least three representative samples of medicated feed containing each drug or drug combination used in the establishment shall be collected and assayed by approved official methods, at periodic intervals during the calendar year, unless otherwise specified in this chapter. At least one of these assays shall be performed on the first batch using the drug. If a medicated feed contains a combination of drugs, only one of the drugs need be subject to analysis each time, provided the one tested is different from the one(s) previously tested.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( c ) The originals or copies of all results of assays, including those from State feed control officials and any other governmental agency, shall be maintained on the premises for a period of not less than 1 year after distribution of the medicated feed. The results of assays performed by State feed control officials may be considered toward fulfillment of the periodic assay requirements of this section.
( d ) Where the results of assays indicate that the medicated feed is not in accord with label specifications or is not within permissible assay limits as specified in this chapter, investigation and corrective action shall be implemented and an original or copy of the record of such action maintained on the premises.
( e ) Corrective action shall include provisions for discontinuing distribution where the medicated feed fails to meet the labeled drug potency. Distribution of subsequent production of the particular feed shall not begin until it has been determined that proper control procedures have been established.
[41 FR 52618, Nov. 30, 1976, as amended at 51 FR 7390, Mar. 3, 1986; 55 FR 11577, Mar. 29, 1990; 64 FR 63203, Nov. 19, 1999]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1525

GEORGE CLEVELAND,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

SENECA SC, CITY OF; BONNIE L. MOSES, individually and in her 

official capacity as election manager, director, poll worker for 

the City of Seneca SC; RICK LACEY, individually and in his 

official capacity as Seneca Recreation Department Director; 

TERRY F. MULLIKIN, individually and in his official capacity as 

groundsman employed by the Seneca Recreation Department; RONNIE 

O’KELLY, Mayor Pro Tem for the City of Seneca individually and 

in his official capacity; SENECA POLICE DEPARTMENT; JOHN 

COVINGTON, individually and in his official capacity as Police 

Chief for the City of Seneca; JOHN DOES, in their official 

capacity as Police Officers for the City of Seneca,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (8:09-cv-00626-HMH)

Submitted: December 21, 2010 Decided: January 3, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

George Cleveland, Appellant Pro Se. James Dean Jolly, Jr., 

LOGAN, JOLLY & SMITH, LLP, Anderson, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

George Cleveland appeals the district court’s order

accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying 

relief on Cleveland’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint, and a 

subsequent order denying Cleveland’s motion for reconsideration. 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Cleveland v. Seneca SC, No. 8:09-cv-00626-HMH (D.S.C. 

Mar. 23, 2010; Apr. 9, 2010). 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.

AFFIRMED
# Product Specifications H920Tornado

• FlightTime 24 min • Dimension 31.4x36.2x18.1in (797x920x461mm) • Diagonal Length Without Rotor Blades 36.2 in(920mm) • Propeller/Main Rotor Diameter 17.3 in (440mm) • Weightwith GB603, GH4 Camera and Battery 176.4oz (5000g) • Battery LiPo 6s • Charger 6S 22.2V LiPo DC Balancing Smart Charger with AC Adapter (included) • Transmitter 24-channel 2.4GHz with 5.8GHz video downlink (included) • 4 Flight Modes Smart,Angle,Throttle,and Home Modes • Maximum Flying Height (Absolute altitude) 4000m (13124

### ft) • Maximum Flying Height (Relative altitude) 1000m (3281 

### ft) • Maximum Rotation Rate 100°/S • Maximum RoLL Angle 35° • Maximum HorizontalSpeed 21m/s47MPH 75 KPH (5kg,throttle) • Radio Control Frequency Band 2.4GHz • Operating Temperature Range 05"Cto 80"C

• Operating System AndroidTM • Number ofChannels 24 • ControlTransmission Distance/Range (Optimum Conditions) 2km • Robust Radio Control ModulationYuneec Protocol • Video Link Frequency Band 5.8GHz • Video Transmission Distance/Range (Optimum Conditions) FCC Compliance: Up to 600m (1968.5 

### ft) CE Compliance: Up to 300m (984.252 

### ft) • FlightSystems Telemetry Data On Screen Display (OSD) Yes • LED Backlit LCD Screen 7"• Tactile (Vibrating) and Audible Feedback Yes • Built-In LiPo BatteryVoltage

### I Capacity 8700mah Li-ion 1s • Charger Smart Balance Charge

• WeightWithoutcamera: 31.4 oz(890g}/With camera: 56.5 oz (1600g) • Dimension 6.5x8.6x7.7in (165x219x196mm) • ControlAngle Accuracy ±0.02° · • Maxumum Control Range Pitch : between -30° and 100° Roll: between
-30°and 30° Yaw : between ooand 360° • Mechanical Range Pitch : between -120oand 45° Roll : between40°and 40°Yaw : between oo and 360° • Maximum Control Speed Pitch : 30°/S Yaw: 30°/S

• Dimension 6.9x4.9x8.1in (175x125x205mm) • Weight 26.5oz (750g) • Focusing System 18x OpticalZoom • Field OfView 54.8° (For Wide-Angle) • VideoTransmission Range Up to 1000m • Video Resolution FULL HD 1080p 30FPS • Photo Resolution 2 Megapixels • Storage(memory) Micro SO Class 10,4-32GB • ControlAngle Accuracy ±0.02° • White Balance AutomaticWhite Balance • Transmission System 5.8GHz • Input/OperatingVoltage 13Vto 30V • Working Temperature o·cto 50'C • Storage Temperature -20'Cto 60'C • AngularVibration Range ±0.02° • Control Range between -100° and 30° Yaw : between oo and 360° • Maximum ControlSpeed Pitch : 30°/S Yaw: 35°/S /.block
§ 58.15 Inspection of a testing facility. ( a ) A testing facility shall permit an authorized employee of the Food and Drug Administration, at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, to inspect the facility and to inspect (and in the case of records also to copy) all records and specimens required to be maintained regarding studies within the scope of this part. The records inspection and copying requirements shall not apply to quality assurance unit records of findings and problems, or to actions recommended and taken.
( b ) The Food and Drug Administration will not consider a nonclinical laboratory study in support of an application for a research or marketing permit if the testing facility refuses to permit inspection. The determination that a nonclinical laboratory study will not be considered in support of an application for a research or marketing permit does not, however, relieve the applicant for such a permit of any obligation under any applicable statute or regulation to submit the results of the study to the Food and Drug Administration.
###### 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.

#### § 181.33 Sodium nitrate and potassium nitrate.

Sodium nitrate and potassium nitrate are subject to prior sanctions issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for use as sources of nitrite, with or without sodium or potassium nitrite, in the production of cured red meat products and cured poultry products.

[48 FR 1705, Jan. 14, 1983]
Editorial Note on Part 316
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 316 appear at 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004.

§ 316.12 Providing written recommendations. ( a ) FDA will provide the sponsor with written recommendations concerning the nonclinical laboratory studies and clinical investigations necessary for approval of a marketing application if none of the reasons described in § 316.14 for refusing to do so applies.
( b ) When a sponsor seeks written recommendations at a stage of drug development at which advice on any clinical investigations, or on particular investigations would be premature, FDA's response may be limited to written recommendations concerning only nonclinical laboratory studies, or only certain of the clinical studies (e.g., Phase 1 studies as described in § 312.21 of this chapter). Prior to providing written recommendations for the clinical investigations required to achieve marketing approval, FDA may require that the results of the nonclinical laboratory studies or completed early clinical studies be submitted to FDA for agency review.
HeinOnline -- 65 Fed. Reg. 62159 2000
#### § 1316.01 Scope of subpart A.

Procedures regarding administrative inspections and warrants pursuant to sections 302(f), 510, 1008(d), and 1015 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 822(f), 880, 958(d), and 965) are governed generally by those sections and specifically by the sections of this subpart.
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.

§ 314.92 Drug products for which abbreviated applications may be submitted. ( a ) Abbreviated applications are suitable for the following drug products within the limits set forth under § 314.93: ( 1 ) Drug products that are the same as a listed drug. A “listed drug” is defined in § 314.3. For determining the suitability of an abbreviated new drug application, the term “same as” means identical in active ingredient(s), dosage form, strength, route of administration, and conditions of use, except that conditions of use for which approval cannot be granted because of exclusivity or an existing patent may be omitted. If a listed drug has been voluntarily withdrawn from or not offered for sale by its manufacturer, a person who wishes to submit an abbreviated new drug application for the drug shall comply with § 314.122.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( 3 ) Drug products that have been declared suitable for an abbreviated new drug application submission by FDA through the petition procedures set forth under § 10.30 of this chapter and § 314.93.
( b ) FDA will publish in the list listed drugs for which abbreviated applications may be submitted. The list is available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, 202-783-3238.
[57 FR 17983, Apr. 28, 1992, as amended at 64 FR 401, Jan. 5, 1999]
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7480 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7480

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 5, 2024

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
                           and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend section 102(a)(20) of the Housing and Community Development 
 Act of 1974 to require the exclusion of service-connected disability 
 compensation when determining whether a person is a person of low and 
   moderate income, a person of low income, or a person of moderate 
                    income, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Disabled Veterans Housing Support 
Act''.

SEC. 2. SERVICE CONNECTED DISABILITY COMPENSATION.

    Section 102(a)(20) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
1974 (42 U.S.C. 5302(a)(20)) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
                    ``(C) Service-connected disability compensation.--
                When determining whether a person is a person of low 
                and moderate income, a person of low income, or a 
                person of moderate income under this paragraph, a 
                State, unit of general local government, or Indian 
                tribe shall exclude any service-connected disability 
                compensation received by such person from the 
                Department of Veterans Affairs.''.

SEC. 3. REPORT.

    The Comptroller General of the United States shall, not later than 
1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, submit to the 
Congress a report that--
            (1) examines how service-connected disability compensation 
        is treated for the purposes of determining eligibility for all 
        programs administered by the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
        Development;
            (2) identifies any instances where service-connected 
        disability compensation is treated in a manner inconsistent 
        with the amendment made by section 2; and
            (3) with respect to each program administered by the 
        Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in which service-
        connected disability compensation is treated inconsistently, 
        provides legislative recommendations relating to how such 
        program could better serve veteran populations, and under-
        served communities.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 4, 2024.

            Attest:

                                             KEVIN F. MCCUMBER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
[No. 20512-2-II.

Division Two.

December 31, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Jerry L. Bostwick, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Lewis County, No. 96-1-00029-3, H. John Hall, J., entered March 20, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Morgan, J., concurred in by Seinfeld and Armstrong, JJ.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.04

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" and to the
use of our report dated January 28, 1998 (except for Note 9, as to which the
date is February 28, 1998), with respect to the financial statements of
GenQuest, Inc. included in the Registration Statement on Form S-4 and related
Prospectus of Corixa Corporation for the registration of shares of its common
stock.

Seattle, Washington                                        ERNST & YOUNG LLP
June 29, 1999
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1076 

CA 15-01813 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF BRYAN MEDINA, 

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, ACTING COMMISSIONER, 

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 

AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, 

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

 

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (MARTIN A. HOTVET OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

KAREN MURTAGH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PRISONERS’ LEGAL SERVICES OF NEW

YORK, BUFFALO (DAVID W. BENTIVEGNA OF COUNSEL), FOR

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court,

Erie County (John L. Michalski, A.J.), entered July 7, 2015 in a

proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment directed

respondent to expunge from petitioner’s institutional record all

references to the incident underlying this special proceeding. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Contrary to respondent’s contention, Supreme Court

properly determined upon reargument that expungement of all references

to the underlying incident from petitioner’s institutional record,

rather than remittal for a new hearing, was the appropriate remedy for

the violation of petitioner’s fundamental right to be present at his

disciplinary hearing (see Matter of Brooks v James, 105 AD3d 1233,

1234; Matter of Rush v Goord, 2 AD3d 1185, 1186; see also Matter of

Bowen v Coombe, 239 AD2d 960, 960-961). This is not a case in which

the record is unclear with respect to whether petitioner’s right to be

present was in fact violated (cf. Matter of Texeira v Fischer, 26 NY3d

230, 234-235; Matter of Shoga v Annucci, 132 AD3d 1338, 1339).

Entered: November 18, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7505 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7505

   To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to the 
   issuance of nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b).

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 29, 2024

 Mr. Rosendale (for himself, Mr. Harris, Ms. Boebert, Mr. McCaul, Mr. 
 Collins, Mr. Weber of Texas, and Mr. Gaetz) introduced the following 
       bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to the 
   issuance of nonimmigrant status under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b).

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``American Worker Protection Act of 
2024''.

SEC. 2. ISSUANCE OF NONIMMIGRANT STATUS UNDER H-1B.

    (a) In General.--Section 214(g) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(12) Aliens who are subject to the numerical limitations 
        of paragraph (1)(A) shall be issued visas (or otherwise 
        provided nonimmigrant status) in the order of the highest 
        compensation rate included in the application for such visa to 
        the lowest compensation rate.''.
    (b) Rules.--Prior to the issuance of a visa or nonimmigrant status 
under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) for the first fiscal year following 
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland 
Security shall issue any rules necessary to carry out section 214(g)(9) 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(9)), as 
amended by this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2016048EN.01009301.xml

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/93 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/93

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2015 — Clarke, Dickmanns and Papathanasiou v OHIM

(Joined cases F-101/14, F-102/14 and F-103/14) (1)

1

((Civil service - Temporary staff - OHIM staff - Fixed-term contract including a termination clause - Clause terminating a contract if the agent is not included on the reserve list of a competition - Date of effect of the termination clause - OHIM/AD/01/13 and OHIM/AST/02/13 open competitions))

(2016/C 048/105)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Nicole Clarke, Sigrid Dickmanns and Elisavet Papathanasiou (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agent, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

First, the action for annulment of the defendant’s decision to apply in the context of the open competitions OHIM/AD/01/13 and OHIM/AST/02/13 the clause contained in the applicants’ contracts of employment, which provides for the termination of the contract in the event of their failing the next open competition for their function groups with the specialisation ‘industrial property’, and, secondly, the claim that OHIM be ordered to pay compensation in respect of the non-material damage and material damage caused to the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions.

| 2. | Declares that Ms Clarke, Ms Papathanasiou and Ms Dickmanns shall bear their own costs and orders them to pay half the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that Ms Clarke, Ms Papathanasiou and Ms Dickmanns shall bear their own costs and orders them to pay half the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).

| 3. | Declares that the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) shall bear half of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares that the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) shall bear half of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015, p. 50, p. 51 and p. 52.

1

---