alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 556.745 Tulathromycin. ( a ) *Acceptable daily intake (ADI).* The ADI for total residue of tulathromycin is 15 μg/kg of body weight per day.
( b ) *Tolerances.* The tolerances for CP-60,300 (marker residue) are: ( 1 ) *Cattle.* Liver (target tissue): 5.5 ppm.
( 2 ) *Swine.* Kidney (target tissue): 15 ppm.
( c ) *Related conditions of use.* See §§ 522.2630 and 522.2632 of this chapter.
[84 FR 32993, July 11, 2019, as amended at 86 FR 61686, Nov. 8, 2021]
N 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

FILED 

MAY 3 1 2012 

DAMIEN WELLS, ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy 

Courts for the District of Columbia 

Plaintiff, 

v. Civil Action No. 12 0877 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT, et al., 

Defendants. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

This matter is before the Court on the plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis 

and his pro se complaint. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint. 

Plaintiff is serving a 240-month sentence imposed by the United States District Court for 

the District ofNebraska in April2002. Compl. at 2. He states that he "was sentenced to and 

charged with crack cocaine and is entitled to the new statutory penalties enacted by Congress 

under the Fair Sentencing Act." !d. He claims to be "held illegally in light of the new statutory 

penalties," for which he claims "compensation of $500.00 a day as he is entitled to immediately 

[sic] release." !d. at 3. 

The Court construes the complaint as a challenge to the legality of the plaintiffs criminal 

sentence. A challenge of this nature must be presented to the sentencing court in a motion under 

28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Ojo v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 106 F.3d 680, 683 (5th Cir. 

1997). Section 2255 provides specifically that: 

[a] prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act 

of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that 

the sentence was imposed _in violation of the Constitution or laws 

of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to 

impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the 
maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral 

attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, 

set aside or correct the sentence. 

28 U.S.C. § 2255(a) (emphasis added). And because plaintiffs claim pertains to the fact ofhis 

incarceration, he cannot recover damages in this civil rights action without showing that his 

confinement already has been invalidated by "revers[al] on direct appeal, expunge[ment] by 

executive order, declar[ ation of invalidity] by a state tribunal authorized to make such 

determination, or ... a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus." Heck v. Humphrey, 

512 U.S. 477,486-87 (1994); accord White v. Bowie, 194 F.3d 175 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (table). 

The Court will dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. An Order accompanies this 

Memorandum Opinion. 

United States District Judge 

DATE: c; It£( ( 1..
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5 <LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED BALANCE SHEET AS OF OCTOBER 30, 1999, AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AS OF
JANUARY 30, 1999 AND UNAUDITED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE
QUARTERLY PERIODS ENDED OCTOBER 30, 1999 AND OCTOBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH QUARTERLY REPORT FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD
ENDED OCTOBER 30, 1999.

</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,022
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      745
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     17,741
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,823
<PP&E>                                          32,721
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,299
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  35,245
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,412
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        98,678
<OTHER-SE>                                    (94,876)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    35,245
<SALES>                                         12,718
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,718
<CGS>                                            8,210
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,724
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   246
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,239
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  88
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,768)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,768)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,768)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.68)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 4201

_____________________________ A RNOLD J AMES O DOM ,
Petitioner
,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Belated Appeal

— Orig inal Jurisdiction

.

December 12, 2018

P ER C URIAM

. The petition for belated appeal is denied on the merits.

L EWIS , W INOKUR , and J AY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Bruce Miller, Public Defender, and Charles E. Russell, Assistant Public Defender, Shalimar
, for Petitioner

. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Respondent

.
§ 582.6219 Calcium phytate. ( a ) *Product.* Calcium phytate.
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.
# C_2015155EN.01004302.xml

| 11.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/43

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 March 2015 — CW v Parliament

(Case F-41/14) (1)

1

((Civil service - Officials - Staff report - Manifest errors of assessment - Misuse of powers - Psychological harassment - Decision to award one merit point))

(2015/C 155/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: CW (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Dean and J. Steele, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action seeking the annulment of the applicant’s staff report for 2012 and the decision to award her only one merit point.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Declares that CW is to bear her own costs and orders her to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that CW is to bear her own costs and orders her to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014, p. 34.

1

---
§ 524.1662b Oxytetracycline and polymyxin B ophthalmic ointment. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each gram of the ointment contains oxytetracycline hydrochloride equivalent to 5 milligrams of oxytetracycline and 10,000 units of polymyxin B sulfate.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 054771 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use in dogs and cats* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* Administer topically to the eye two to four times daily.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* For the prophylaxis and local treatment of superficial ocular infections due to oxytetracycline- and polymyxin-sensitive organisms including ocular infections due to streptococci, rickettsiae, *E. coli,* and *A. aerogenes* (such as conjunctivitis, keratitis, pinkeye, corneal ulcer, and blepharitis in dogs, cats, cattle, sheep, and horses); ocular infections due to secondary bacterial complications associated with distemper in dogs; and ocular infections due to bacterial inflammatory conditions which may occur secondary to other infectious diseases in dogs, cats, cattle, sheep, and horses.
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[40 FR 13873, Mar. 27, 1975, as amended at 79 FR 10972, Feb. 27, 2014; 88 FR 14901, Mar. 10, 2023]
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF KPMG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The
Board of Directors
Mackie Designs Inc.:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 33-98720) on Form S-8 of Mackie Designs Inc. of our report
dated March 31, 2003, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Mackie Designs Inc. as of December 31, 2002 and 2001 and the related consolidated statements of operations,
cash flows and shareholders' equity and comprehensive income (loss) for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2002, which report appears in the December 31, 2002
annual report on Form 10-K of Mackie Designs Inc.

Our
report on the consolidated financial statements refers to the adoption of Financial Accounting Standard No. 142, "Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets," effective
January 1, 2002.

KPMG
LLP

Seattle,
Washington
April 15, 2003

---

QuickLinks
#### § 58.45 Animal supply facilities.

There shall be storage areas, as needed, for feed, bedding, supplies, and equipment. Storage areas for feed and bedding shall be separated from areas housing the test systems and shall be protected against infestation or contamination. Perishable supplies shall be preserved by appropriate means.

[43 FR 60013, Dec. 22, 1978, as amended at 52 FR 33780, Sept. 4, 1987]
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JUAN ANTONIO GUTIERREZ,

 

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-18-00194-CR

Appeal from the

41st District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20140D03047)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s fourth motion for extension of time within which to 

file the brief until July 19, 2019. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

FILE THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Veronica Teresa Lerma, the Appellant’s attorney, 

prepare the Appellant’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before July 19, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 7

th day of June, 2019.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Richard D. Toce

*John P. McKeon,*in support of the petition.

*Walter H. Scanlon,*assistant chief prosecuting attorney, in opposition.

Submitted November 10

decided December 16, 1969

The petition by the defendant for certification for appeal from the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court is denied.
§ 350.1 Scope. ( a ) An over-the-counter antiperspirant drug product in a form suitable for topical administration is generally recognized as safe and effective and is not misbranded if it meets each condition in this part and each general condition established in § 330.1 of this chapter.
( b ) References in this part to regulatory sections of the Code of Federal Regulations are to chapter I of title 21 unless otherwise noted.
###### 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.

#### § 314.104 Drugs with potential for abuse.

The Food and Drug Administration will inform the Drug Enforcement Administration under section 201(f) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801) when an application or abbreviated application is submitted for a drug that appears to have an abuse potential.

[57 FR 17989, Apr. 28, 1992]
###### Editorial Note on Part 184

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 184 appear at 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001; 68 FR 15355, Mar. 31, 2003; 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004; 70 FR 40880, July 15, 2005; 70 FR 67651, Nov. 8, 2005; and 81 FR 49897, July 29, 2016.

#### § 184.1610 Potassium alginate.

(a) Potassium alginate (CAS Reg. No. 9005-36-1) is the potassium salt of alginic acid, a natural polyuronide constituent of certain brown algae. Potassium alginate is prepared by the neutralization of purified alginic acid with appropriate pH control agents.

(b) The ingredient meets the specifications of the Food Chemicals Codex, 3d Ed. (1981), p. 239, which is incorporated by reference. Copies are available from the National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20418, or available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.*

(c) In accordance with § 184.1(b)(2), the ingredient is used in food only within the following specific limitations:

| Category of food | Maximum level of use in food (as served) (percent) | Functional use |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Confections and frostings, § 170.3(n)(9) of this chapter | 0.1 | Stabilizer, thickener, § 170.3(o)(28) of this chapter |
| Gelatins and puddings, § 170.3(n)(22) of this chapter | 0.7 | Do. |
| Processed fruits and fruit juices, § 170.3(n)(35) of this chapter | 0.25 | Do. |
| All other food categories | 0.01 | Do. |

(d) Prior sanctions for potassium alginate different from the uses established in this section do not exist or have been waived.

[47 FR 29951, July 9, 1982]
§ 582.1135 Ammonium bicarbonate. ( a ) *Product.* Ammonium bicarbonate.
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.
# C_2015363EN.01004701.xml

| 3.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/47

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 22 September 2015 — Barnett v EESC

(Case F-20/14) (1)

1

((Civil service - Pension - Retirement pension - Early retirement without reduction of pension rights - General implementing provisions for Article 9(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Objection of illegality concerning the general implementing provisions - Interests of the service - Definition - None - Duration of the applicant’s professional activity - Taking account of all of the professional career both inside and outside the EU institutions - Discretion of the institution - Legality))

(2015/C 363/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Inge Barnett (Roskilde, Denmark) (represented by: initially N. Nikolajsen, lawyer, then S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (represented by: M. Pascua Mateo, L. Camarena Januzec and K. Gambino, acting as Agents, M. Troncoso Ferrer and F.-M. Hislaire, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the EESC rejecting the applicant’s request to be entitled to early retirement without a reduction of her pension rights, pursuant to Article 9(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1) | annuls the decision of the European Economic and Social Committee of 11 July 2013, issuing the list of beneficiaries, in respect of 2013, of the measure laid down in Article 9(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, in so far as it refuses to allow Mrs Barnett to benefit from that measure; |
| --- | --- |

1)

annuls the decision of the European Economic and Social Committee of 11 July 2013, issuing the list of beneficiaries, in respect of 2013, of the measure laid down in Article 9(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, in so far as it refuses to allow Mrs Barnett to benefit from that measure;

| 2) | orders the European Economic and Social Committee to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Ms Barnett. |
| --- | --- |

2)

orders the European Economic and Social Committee to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Ms Barnett.

---

(1)  OJ C 175, 10/6/2014, p. 55.

1

---
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Technological Change and Manpower Trends in Six Industries: Textile Mill Products, Lumber and Wood Products, Tires and Tubes, Aluminum, Banking, Health Services

              																	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*Technological Change and Manpower Trends in Six Industries: Textile Mill Products, Lumber and Wood Products, Tires and Tubes, Aluminum, Banking, Health Services : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1817*,												Washington, D.C: 								U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 										1974,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4856,			accessed on September 26, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1171
In Re: JOSEPH PETER FORST, Debtor.

_________________________ JOSEPH PETER FORST, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Internal Revenue Service, Defendant - Appellee, and THOMAS L. LACKEY, Party in Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA96-1585-PJM, BK-95-15286) Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 20, 1997 Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judges.2 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Peter Forst, Appellant Pro Se. Marion Elizabeth Erickson, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's orders dismissing his petition for relief underChapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on thereasoning of the district court. Forst v. Department of the Treasury , Nos. CA-96-1585-PJM; BK-95-15286 (D. Md. Jan. 9, 1997). 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
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause Number: 01-14-00133-CV

Trial Court Cause 

Number: 2009-63319

Style: United Services Automobile Association

v Joseph Hayes, Jr and Joanne Hayes

Date motion filed*: November 17, 2014

Type of motion: Extension of Time to File Reply 

Party filing motion: Cross-Appellants, Joseph Hayes, Jr. and Joanne Hayes

Document to be filed: Reply Brief

Is appeal accelerated? Yes No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: October 20, 2014

Number of previous extensions granted: 1

Date Requested: November 26, 2014

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: November 26, 2014

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: 

Judge's signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of 

Date: November 20, 2014
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Honorable X. J. Townsend 

county Attorney 

Angellne cousitg 

lAmal, Texas 

Dear Sir: Opinion NO. O-7507 

Be: I8 the presenoe 

This acknowledges recei 

date whioh rsada: 

county Attorney- 

-i&act to be 

wher, inveetiga1 violations or 

quallfled for 

the oath of 

investigating wltmo~~ 

5. code of Crlalnal Prooedure, 8hte8 thet 

and juror's oath la that *the Stete'a oounowe* and your own, you shall keep eecret.m 

367b, C. C. P., whioh provides for the l ppolntment 

of grand Jury bailiris, m&es a portion or said balliff'e oath 

thet 'you will keep eooret,the prooeedlngs of the grand jury.* 
iionortible ii. 3. ‘i’owneand, pa,:e 2 

Art. 336, c. c. E., provides for the oath TV be takeu by 

B wituese VW testifies before a grand jury. h portion of said 

oath la that *you will keep eeoret all yrooeodlnge of the greud 

jury.” 

Art. 375, C. C. P., provides that “the attorney repressntlng the State may go befom the grend jury at any time exoept 

when Xhoy are dlnouoalng the propriety of finding an lndlotnbmnt or voting upon the B(UPB.~ 

In view of the preoedlng statutes pertalnlng to the aeorsoy 

of grand jurs prooeedlngs, and In view of the statute apeolfioallg 

.authorltiing the appearanoe befor@ the grand jury or the attorney 

mpreaontlng ~tha State, it would seein that a apeoiflo le&slatlve 

authorlsatian would be neoemury to allow the Xetrlot and County 

At~rne&Gtoot, aa auoh, to attend eeaaionr of a grand jury. 

Slnoe we find no law authorizing their preaenoe et eaid weeions, 

we oonolude that said attorney8 am unauthorized pelraona at thoee 

aeaalona. 

Although we find no !l’exaa oaaea In point, in i’eople V. Lunson, 

150 M. 6. 280, the Supremo Court of Illlnole aaid: 

*It ie a rundaaectal element of a grand jury lmeaTo thie end the law refuses 

-A grand jury Is organlsed for the purpose or proteoting oltisenr from unfounded aocuaation es well aa 

lnveafigating ehugom of ori~ and returning lndlot- 

-AtO thema. By mawn or the faot that the purpow 

of au& pra#eotlan may be largely forfeited where the 

lnverfigafiona of the grand jury beooma known, the 

work of that body ia surrounded by eecreoy and Vb8Wd 

with wlamnlty. Out of thaeo vtewr hae ariaen the 

rule that unauthofiierd Deraono mey not be allowed to 

attend upon their lnve8tlgatlona.~ Iemphdsfi added) 

In View of the toregoing it i# the oplnlon of thim department 

that the pra8enoe of the Dlatrlot and County Attornep8-ileot, aa 
311 

Louorobla ii. J . ,i'ownsond, pace 3 

euch, in rr grand jury eeesion, wherein lnvestiC;~tions of ori~- 

ill vlolatione am belnb zwde, is unauthorized and ehould not 

be permitted. 

lit, trust that the foregoing fully anewera your questIon. 

Youre vary truly, 

William ii. Stepp 

Aaaietant