alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 175
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 175 appear at 61 FR 14482, Apr. 2, 1996; 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; and 70 FR 72074, Dec. 1, 2005.

§ 175.360 Vinylidene chloride copolymer coatings for nylon film. Vinylidene chloride copolymer coatings identified in this section and applied on nylon film may be safely used as food-contact surfaces, in accordance with the following prescribed conditions: ( a ) The coating is applied as a continuous film over one or both sides of a base film produced from nylon resins complying with § 177.1500 of this chapter.
( b ) The coatings are prepared from vinylidene chloride copolymers produced by copolymerizing vinylidene chloride with one or more of the monomers acrylic acid, acrylonitrile, ethyl acrylate, methacrylic acid, methyl acrylate, methyl methacrylate (CAS Reg. No. 80-62-6; maximum use level 6 weight percent) and 2-sulfoethyl methacrylate (CAS Reg. No. 10595-80-9; maximum use level 1 weight percent). The finished copolymers contain at least 50 weight percent of polymer units derived from vinylidene chloride. The finished coating produced from vinylidene chloride copolymers produced by copolymerizing vinylidene chloride with methyl methacrylate and/or 2-sulfoethyl methacrylate, or with methyl methacrylate and/or 2-sulfoethyl methacrylate together with one or more of the other monomers from this section, is restricted to use at or below room temperature.
( c ) Optional adjuvant substances employed in the production of the coatings or added thereto to impart desired properties may include sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate.
( d ) The coating in the finished form in which it is to contact food, when extracted with the solvent or solvents characterizing the type of food, and under conditions of time and temperature characterizing the conditions of its intended use as determined from tables 1 and 2 of § 176.170(c) of this chapter, shall yield net chloroform-soluble extractives not to exceed 0.5 milligram per square inch of coated surface when tested by the methods described in § 176.170(d) of this chapter.
( e ) Acrylonitrile copolymers identified in this section shall comply with the provisions of § 180.22 of this chapter.
[42 FR 14534, Mar. 15, 1977, as amended at 43 FR 7206, Feb. 21, 1978; 45 FR 76998, Nov. 21, 1980; 47 FR 54430, Dec. 3, 1982]
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 38 (Friday, February 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 8920]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4078]



[[Page 8920]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1662]


Grant of Authority for Subzone Status; Danisco USA, Inc., 
Sweeteners Division (Xylitol, Xylose, Galactose and Mannose); Thomson, 
IL

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of 
June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade 
Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones Act provides for `` * * * the 
establishment * * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the 
United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for 
other purposes,'' and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant 
to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade 
zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border Protection ports of 
entry;
    Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR Part 400) provide for the 
establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities 
cannot serve the specific use involved, and when the activity results 
in a significant public benefit and is in the public interest;
    Whereas, the Jo-Carroll Foreign Trade Zone Board, grantee of 
Foreign-Trade Zone 271, has made application to the Board for authority 
to establish a special-purpose subzone at the xylitol, xylose, 
galactose and mannose manufacturing facility of Danisco USA, Inc., 
Sweeteners Division, located in Thomson, Illinois, (FTZ Docket 4-2009, 
filed 2/4/2009);
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment has been given in the 
Federal Register (74 FR 6856-6857, 2/11/2009) and the application has 
been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; 
and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the 
public interest;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby grants authority for subzone 
status for activity related to the manufacturing of xylitol, xylose, 
galactose and mannose at the facility of Danisco USA, Inc., Sweeteners 
Division, located in Thomson, Illinois (Subzone 271A), as described in 
the application and Federal Register notice, subject to the FTZ Act and 
the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this February 5th, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, 
Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-4078 Filed 2-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7464 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for access standards 

with respect to the provision by the Department of Veterans Affairs 

of hospital care, medical services, or extended care services that are 

applicable to certain veterans with mental disorders. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 28, 2024 

Mr. YAKYM introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for access 

standards with respect to the provision by the Department of Veterans Affairs of hospital care, medical services, or extended care services that are applicable to 

certain veterans with mental disorders. 

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 ‘‘Sergeant Ted Grubbs 

5 Mental Healthcare for Disabled Veterans Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 7464 IH

1 SEC. 2. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS COMMUNITY 

2 CARE ACCESS STANDARDS FOR CERTAIN 

3 VETERANS WITH MENTAL DISORDERS. 

4 Section 1703B(a) of title 38, United States Code, is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following new para6 graph: 

7 ‘‘(3) The access standards required under this sub8 section shall provide that in the case of a covered veteran 

9 with a service-connected mental disorder rated at 50 per10 cent or more, the Department shall furnish hospital care, 

11 medical services, or extended care services for such mental 

12 disorder within five days of the date on which the covered 

13 veteran requests such care or services.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6483** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. DEWAYNE ROY WILSON, a/k/a Dub, a/k/a New Jersey, a/k/a Jonah James Levant, III , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Charlottesville
. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. ( 3:12

- cr - 00035

- GEC

- RSB

- 1; 3: 15

- cv - 80812

- GEC

RSB )

Submitted : September 20, 2016 Decided: September 29, 2016

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Dewayne Roy Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Mitchell Huber, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished op inions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Dewayne Roy Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merit s, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional ri ght. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wilson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because t he facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
January 22. 1976 

The Honorable Betty Cleland 

Executive Secretary 

Opinion No. H-769 

Texas State Board of Examiners Re: Whether a person 

of Psychologists employed as a psychologist 

108 West 15th Street by a hospital licensed by 

Austin, Texas 78701 the Department of Mental 

Health and Mental Retardation is exempt from the 

licensing requirements of 

the Psychologists Certification and Licensing Act. 

Dear Ms. Cleland: 

You have requested our opinion regarding whether a 

person employed as a psychologist by a hospital licensed by 

the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation 

is exempt from the licensing requirements of the Psychologists 

Certification and Licensing Act, article 4512c, V.T.C.S. 

Section 22 of the Act~provides, in part: 

Nothing in this Act shall be construed 

to apply to: (a) the activities, services 

and use of official title on the part of 

a person employed as a psychologist by 

any : (1) governmental agency, (2) 

public school district, (3) institution 

of higher education approved by the 

Board or any hospital licensed by the 

Texas State Department of Health . . . . 

(Emphasis added). 

The Texas Board of Health Resources, which is part of 

the Texas Department of Health Resources (formerly the Texas 

State Department of Health), article 4414a, V.T.C.S., is 

granted licensing authority over "general" and "special" 

hospitals under the terms of article 4437f, V.T.C.S. 

p. 3246 
The Honorable Betty Cleland - page 2 (H-769) 

-r;~tite m-nta; hcjpitala, however, are excepted from this 

statute, and the licensing of any "person or political 

subdivision" operating such a mental hospital is committed 

by article 5547-88, V.T.C.S., to "the Department," by which 

is meant the Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation. V.T.C.S. art. 5547-4(a). Since there is nothing in 

article 4512~ which would indicate that the exemption regarding 

the State Department of Health is also applicable to the 

Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, it is 

our opinion that a person employed as a psychologist by a 

hospital licensed by the Department of Mental Health and 

Mental Retardation and not by the Texas Department of Health 

Resources is not exempt from the licensing requirements of 

the Psychologists Certification and Licensing Act. 

SUMMARY 

A person employed as a psychologist by a 

hospital licensed by the Texas Department 

of Mental Health and Mental Retardation 

is not exempt from the licensing requirements 

of the Psychologists Certification and 

Licensing Act, article 4512c, V.T.C.S. 

fiVery truly yours, 

- 

Attorney General 

Opinion Committee 

jwb 

of Texas 

p, 3247
# C_2016222EN.01001501.xml

| 20.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2016 — Andres and Others v ECB

(Case T-129/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - ECB staff - Pensions - Reform of the pension insurance scheme - Freezing of the pension plan - Conditions of employment of ECB staff - Right of consultation - Difference in nature between a contractual employment relationship and an employment relationship covered by the Staff Regulations - Distortion - Error of law))

(2016/C 222/16)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Carlos Andres (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) and the other 150 appellants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented initially by B. Ehlers and M. López Torres, and subsequently by B. Ehlers and F. Malfrère, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2013 in Andres and Others v ECB (F-15/10, EU:F:2013:194), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Carlos Andres and the other appellants whose names are listed in the annex to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Carlos Andres and the other appellants whose names are listed in the annex to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 159, 26.5.2014.

---
§ 571.130 Procedure for amending and repealing tolerances or exemptions from tolerances. ( a ) The Commissioner, on his own initiative or on the petition of any interested person, pursuant to part 10 of this chapter, may propose the issuance of a regulation amending or repealing a regulation pertaining to a food additive or granting or repealing an exception for such additive.
( b ) Any such petition shall include an assertion of facts, supported by data, showing that new information exists with respect to the food additive or that new uses have been developed or old uses abandoned, that new data are available as to toxicity of the chemical, or that experience with the existing regulation or exemption may justify its amendment or repeal. New data shall be furnished in the form specified in § 571.1 for submitting petitions.
[42 FR 4717, Jan. 25, 1977; 42 FR 15676, Mar. 22, 1977]
#### THOMAS KANNELLOS v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.1

December 10, 1923.

No. 23,234.

Case followed.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of defendant, entered after an order of the district court for St. Louis county, Cant, J., sustaining defendant’s demurrer to the amended complaint, had been affirmed on appeal.

Affirmed.

*McCoy*& *Hansen,*for appellant.

*M. L. Countryman*and *Baldwin, Baldwin, Holmes*& *Mayall,*for respondent.

1

 Reported in 196 N. W. 280.

*506PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the St. Louis county district court entered in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff in an action brought by the plaintiff to recover for personal injuries based upon the Federal Safety Appliance Act. The questions presented are those decided by this court on an appeal by the plaintiff from an order sustaining a general demurrer interposed by the defendant to plaintiff’s complaint, which decision of this court is reported in 151 Minn. 157, 186 N. W. 389. Following the decision in that ease, the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7243 

To reimburse States for expenses incurred relating to securing the border. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 6, 2024 

Mr. CURTIS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To reimburse States for expenses incurred relating to 

securing the border. 

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 ‘‘Border Security State 

5 Reimbursement Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REIMBURSEMENT TO STATES RELATING TO SECUR7 ING THE BORDER. 

8 The Secretary of Homeland Security shall reimburse 

9 to a State each expense of such State determined by the 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 7243 IH

1 Secretary to be related to securing the southern inter2 national border of the United States. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
§ 358.101 Scope. ( a ) An over-the-counter wart remover drug product in a form suitable for topical application is generally recognized as safe and effective and is not misbranded if it meets each of the conditions in this subpart and each of the general conditions established in § 330.1 of this chapter.
( b ) References in this subpart to regulatory sections of the Code of Federal Regulations are to chapter I of title 21 unless otherwise noted.
# C_2014151EN.01001501.xml

| 19.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 20 March 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Zoran Spasic

(Case C-129/14)

2014/C 151/19

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg

Party to the main proceedings

Party to the main proceedings

Zoran Spasic

Other party: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Nürnberg

Other party:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement (CISA) (1) compatible with Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in so far as it subjects the application of the ne bis in idem principle to the condition that if a penalty has been imposed, it has been enforced, is actually in the process of being enforced or can no longer be enforced under the laws of the sentencing Contracting Party? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement (CISA) (1) compatible with Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in so far as it subjects the application of the ne bis in idem principle to the condition that if a penalty has been imposed, it has been enforced, is actually in the process of being enforced or can no longer be enforced under the laws of the sentencing Contracting Party?

1

ne bis in idem

| 2. | Is the abovementioned condition in Article 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement also satisfied, if only one part (here: a fine) of two independent parts of the outstanding penalty imposed in the State which is the sentencing Contracting Party (here: a custodial sentence and a fine) has been enforced? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the abovementioned condition in Article 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement also satisfied, if only one part (here: a fine) of two independent parts of the outstanding penalty imposed in the State which is the sentencing Contracting Party (here: a custodial sentence and a fine) has been enforced?

---

(1)  OJ 2000 L 239, p. 19.

1

---
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 10

- 00313

- CV

RONALD CALVIN

, Appellant

v.

JIM L. BEARD

, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No

. 2

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 4898

- B

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Ronald Calvin appeals the judgment rende red against him in an eviction suit for

a commercial tenancy. The suit was originally tried in the justice court which granted

judgment for possession to Jim L. Beard. Calvin appealed to the County Court at Law

#2. Judgment was rendered by that court in favor of Beard.

Beard filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that a final judgment of a

county court in an eviction suit may not be appealed on the issue of possession unless

the premises in question are being used for residential purposes only. T EX

. P ROP

. C ODE

A NN . § 24.007 (Vernon 2000 ). Calvin asked to mediate the appeal. We granted hisCalvin v. Beard Page 2

request, referred the appeal to mediation, and suspended the appeal. Beard objected to

the referral.

We sustain Beard’s objection and lift the suspensio n of the appeal.

We agree with Beard that according to section 24.007 of the Texas Property Code,

Calvin has no right to appeal. Id . In coming to this conclusion, we do not address the

merits of any issue, specifically including res judicata or the prop er construction of the

settlement agreement. We simply do not have jurisdiction of this appeal.

Accordingly, we grant Beard’s motion to dismiss, and this appeal is dismissed.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(a).

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Reyna, and

Justice Davis

Objection sustained

Motion granted

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed November 3, 2010

[CV06]
**Exhibit
32(b)**
 
 **Certification
of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350**
 **(Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**
 
 Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Republic Bancorp Inc. (the
“Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that the Company’s
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005 (the
“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, 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:
      August 8, 2005
    /s/
      Thomas F. MenacherName:
      Thomas F. MenacherTitle:
      Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial
      Officer
 
 The
foregoing certification (i) accompanies the filing and is being furnished solely
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, (ii) will 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, and (iii) will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act,
except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by
reference.
 
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Republic Bancorp Inc. and will be retained
by Republic Bancorp Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.