alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Loggins, Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 52,251.

First District, Second Division.

April 8,1969.

Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender of Cook County, of Chicago (Herbert Becker, Norman W. Fishman, and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant; Edward V. Hanrahan, State’s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and Edward Stasukaitis, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee.

Opinion by

JUSTICE BURKE.

Not to be published in full.
§ 606.151 Compatibility testing. Standard operating procedures for compatibility testing shall include the following: ( a ) A method of collecting and identifying the blood samples of recipients to ensure positive identification.
( b ) The use of fresh recipient serum or plasma samples less than 3 days old for all pretransfusion testing if the recipient has been pregnant or transfused within the previous 3 months.
( c ) Procedures to demonstrate incompatibility between the donor's cell type and the recipient's serum or plasma type.
( d ) A provision that, if the unit of donor's blood has not been screened by a method that will demonstrate agglutinating, coating and hemolytic antibodies, the recipient's cells shall be tested with the donor's serum (minor crossmatch) by a method that will so demonstrate.
( e ) Procedures to expedite transfusion in life-threatening emergencies. Records of all such incidents shall be maintained, including complete documentation justifying the emergency action, which shall be signed by a physician.
[40 FR 53532, Nov. 18, 1975, as amended at 64 FR 45371, Aug. 19, 1999; 66 FR 1835, Jan. 10, 2001; 66 FR 40889, Aug. 6, 2001]
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear at 68 FR 24879, May 9, 2003, and at 88 FR 45064, July 14, 2023.

§ 10.75 Internal agency review of decisions. ( a ) A decision of an FDA employee, other than the Commissioner, on a matter, is subject to review by the employee's supervisor under the following circumstances: ( 1 ) At the request of the employee.
( 2 ) On the initiative of the supervisor.
( 3 ) At the request of an interested person outside the agency.
( 4 ) As required by delegations of authority.
( b ) ( 1 ) The review will be made by consultation between the employee and the supervisor or by review of the administrative file on the matter, or both. The review will ordinarily follow the established agency channels of supervision or review for that matter.
( 2 ) A sponsor, applicant, or manufacturer of a drug or device regulated under the act or the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), may request review of a scientific controversy by an appropriate scientific advisory panel as described in section 505(n) of the act, or an advisory committee as described in section 515(g)(2)(B) of the act. The reason(s) for any denial of a request for such review shall be briefly set forth in writing to the requester. Persons who receive a Center denial of their request under this section may submit a request for review of the denial. The request should be sent to the Chief Mediator and Ombudsman.
( c ) An interested person outside the agency may request internal agency review of a decision through the established agency channels of supervision or review. Personal review of these matters by center directors or the office of the Commissioner will occur for any of the following purposes: ( 1 ) To resolve an issue that cannot be resolved at lower levels within the agency (e.g., between two parts of a center or other component of the agency, between two centers or other components of the agency, or between the agency and an interested person outside the agency).
( 2 ) To review policy matters requiring the attention of center or agency management.
( 3 ) In unusual situations requiring an immediate review in the public interest.
( 4 ) As required by delegations of authority.
( d ) Internal agency review of a decision must be based on the information in the administrative file. If an interested person presents new information not in the file, the matter will be returned to the appropriate lower level in the agency for reevaluation based on the new information.
( e ) Each request by an interested person for review of a decision within the Center for Devices and Radiological Health shall also comply with § 800.75 of this chapter.
[44 FR 22323, Apr. 13, 1979, as amended at 50 FR 8994, Mar. 6, 1985; 63 FR 63982, Nov. 18, 1998; 84 FR 31477, July 2, 2019]
**EXHIBIT 32.2****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,I, David Thompson, Secretary and Chief Financial Officer, certify that:1. To my knowledge, this report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2. To my knowledge, the information in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of International Absorbents Inc. as of July 31, 2006.   Date: September11, 2006 /s/ DAVID THOMPSON     David Thompson
38753.

#### WILSON v. TUMLIN.

Decided April 25, 1961

Rehearing denied May 10, 1961.

*Jean E. Johnson, Sr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*Claud M. Hicks, G. Robert Howard,*contra.

Jordan, Judge.

Paragraph 5 of the defendant’s answer *655alleged the following: “By way of further answer the defendant shows that he entered into a construction contract with the said Tagenais, for an amount certain, and that all money due said Tagenais Construction, for weeks [sic] has been paid him and that your defendant is not liable to the plaintiff in any amount.” The plaintiff demurred specially to this paragraph and moved that it be stricken on the ground that it was insufficient in law to set out a plea of payment in that it did not allege the time, manner and person to whom payment was made. “ ‘A plea of payment which fails to allege with reasonable certainty when, how, and to whom the payment was made is insufficient, and, unless amended, should be stricken, upon demurrer, timely filed, specifically pointing out these defects.’ [Citing cases].” *Williford v.*Phillips, 49 Ga. App. 223 (174 S. E. 641). Accordingly, the defendant having failed to amend within the time allowed, the trial court did not err in striking paragraph 5 of the defendant’s answer:

“Where a special demurrer to a petition is sustained, with leave to amend, and there is a failure to do so, the petition should be dismissed if the delinquency relates to the entire cause of action. But if the demurrer goes only to some particular part of the petition, without which a valid cause of action would still be set forth, the proper judgment is to strike the *defective portion*and not dismiss the entire action. [Citing cases].” *Sellers v. City of Summerville,*88 Ga. App. 109, 114 (76 S. E. 2d 99). While paragraph 5 of the defendant’s answer, which was included in his answer by way of further answer and plea, constituted the defendant’s entire affirmative defense to the action, that is, prior payment to the contractor in settlement of the claim, paragraphs 2 and 3 of his answer by way of denial denied certain material allegations of the plaintiff’s petition and thus created an issue of fact thereto. Accordingly, the trial court erred in striking the answer in its entirety.

The trial court having erred in striking the defendant’s answer in its entirety, the subsequent proceedings on the motion for summary judgment were rendered nugatory and it is not necessary to consider the assignment of error thereon.

*Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.*

*Townsend, P. J., Carlisle and Frankum, JJ., concur.*
EXHIBIT 32.1









CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the “Form 10-Q”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 of Crimson Exploration Inc. (the “Issuer”).  The undersigned hereby certifies that the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.





Date:
May 12, 2011/s/ Allan D. KeelName:
Allan D. KeelTitle:
President and Chief Executive Officer








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Issuer and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or its staff, upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                          15,377
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,847,694
<ALLOWANCES>                                    80,000
<INVENTORY>                                  5,372,613
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,615,742
<PP&E>                                       7,305,550
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,074,259
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,662,128
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,888,043
<BONDS>                                      1,148,613
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        419
<COMMON>                                       105,093
<OTHER-SE>                                   (496,463)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,662,128
<SALES>                                      1,099,500
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,099,500
<CGS>                                          906,530
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,558,471
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (54,351)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             146,247
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,550,867)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,550,867)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,706,044)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.17)


</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 201

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 201 appear at 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004.

#### § 201.312 Magnesium sulfate heptahydrate; label declaration on drug products.

Magnesium sulfate heptahydrate should be listed on the label of a drug product as epsom salt, which is its common or usual name.
§ 556.710 Testosterone. ( a ) [Reserved]
( b ) *Residues.* Residues of testosterone are not permitted in excess of the following increments above the concentrations of testosterone naturally present in untreated animals: ( 1 ) *Cattle.* ( i ) Fat: 2.6 ppb.
( ii ) Kidney: 1.9 ppb.
( iii ) Liver: 1.3 ppb.
( iv ) Muscle: 0.64 ppb.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( c ) *Related conditions of use.* See § 522.2343 of this chapter.
[84 FR 32993, July 11, 2019, as amended at 87 FR 10970, Feb. 28, 2022]
§ 640.71 Manufacturing responsibility. ( a ) All steps in the manufacturing of Source Plasma, including donor examination, blood collection, plasmapheresis, laboratory testing, labeling, storage, and issuing shall be performed by personnel of the establishment licensed to manufacture Source Plasma, except that testing performed in accordance with § 610.40 of this chapter and § 640.65(b) may be performed by personnel of an establishment licensed for blood and blood derivatives under section 351(a) of the Public Health Service Act, or by a clinical laboratory that meets the standards of the Clinical Laboratories Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA) (42 U.S.C. 263a): *Provided,* The establishment or clinical laboratory is qualified to perform the assigned test(s).
( b ) Such testing shall not be considered divided manufacturing, which requires two biologics licenses for Source Plasma: *Provided,* That ( 1 ) The results of such tests are maintained by the licensed manufacturer of the Source Plasma whereby such results may be reviewed by a responsible physician as required in § 640.65(b)(2) of this chapter and by an authorized representative of the Food and Drug Administration.
( 2 ) The Source Plasma manufacturer has obtained a written agreement that the testing laboratory will permit authorized representatives of the Food and Drug Administration to inspect its testing procedures and facilities during reasonable business hours.
( 3 ) The testing laboratory will participate in any proficiency testing programs undertaken by the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration.
[41 FR 10770, Mar. 12, 1976, as amended at 49 FR 23834, June 8, 1984; 50 FR 4140, Jan. 29, 1985; 53 FR 117, Jan. 5, 1988; 55 FR 11013, Mar. 26, 1990; 64 FR 45374, Aug. 19, 1999; 64 FR 56453, Oct. 20, 1999; 66 FR 1837, Jan. 10, 2001; 80 FR 29905, May 22, 2015]
*

 Circuit Judge of the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.

** Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstancesset forth in 5TH CIR.R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 30, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________

No. 02-60572

____________

MISSISSIPPI TRUCKING ASSOCIATION, INC.; MISSISSIPPI

TRUCKING ASSOCIATION MANAGEMENT SERVICES

INCORPORATED EMPLOYEE WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

F. A. RICHARD & ASSOCIATES, INC., doing business as Fara

Benefit Services; LEON GOLEMI,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Mississippi

No. 3:01-CV-369-BN

Before DAVIS, CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL* and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:**

Mississippi Trucking Association, Inc. and Mississippi Trucking Association Management
-2-

Services, Inc. Employee Welfare Benefit Plan (collectively, “MTA”) appeal the district court’s grant

ofsummary judgment in favor of F.A. Richard & Associates, Inc., doing business as FARA Benefit

Services, and its Director, Leon Golemi (collectively, “FARA”). This dispute arises out of FARA’s

role in establishing a partially self-funded employee healt h benefits plan for the use of MTA’s

members. MTA claims that FARA represented that MTA’s exposure under the plan would be limited

to $200,000, whereas the pl an has to date cost MTA at least $585,917.90. On appeal, MTA

contends that the district court erred in concluding that no genuine issues of material fact existed as

to its negligence, promissory estoppel and fraud claims.

We have read the briefs, heard the arguments of counsel, and consulted the pertinent portions

of the record. On the basis of the record, the exhibits and the applicable case law, we find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we AFFIRM essentially for the reasons given by the district court.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION AS REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(a),**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, N. William White, certify that: 

 

6. I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-KSB of 1st Independence Financial Group, Inc.; 

 

7. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

8. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respect the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

9. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: 

 

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared; 

 

(e) [omitted inaccordance with SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986]; 

 

(f) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and****

 

(g) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and ****

 

10. The small businessissuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(c) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process summarize and reportfinancial information; and 

 

(d) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal controls over financial reporting. 

 

Date: December 29, 2004

N. William White

N. William White

President
§ 582.5835 Sorbitol. ( a ) *Product.* Sorbitol.
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.
EXHIBIT 23.1


                          Independent Auditors' Consent


To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of Footstar, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
333-20731, No. 333-30011 and No. 333-41390) on Form S-8 of Footstar, Inc. of our
report dated February 5, 2002, except as to the third paragraph of the "Business
Risk" note which is as of March 15, 2002, with respect to the consolidated
balance sheets of Footstar, Inc. and Subsidiary Companies as of December 29,
2001 and December 30, 2000, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, shareholders' equity and comprehensive income and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 29, 2001 and the
related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the December 29,
2001 Annual Report on Form 10-K.



/s/ KPMG LLP

New York, New York
March 20, 2002


                                       86
# C_2016305EN.01002702.xml

| 22.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 July 2016 — Copernicus-Trademarks v EUIPO — Maquet (LUCEO)

(Case T-82/14) (1)

1

((European Union trade mark - Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity - European Union word mark LUCEO - Absolute ground for refusal - Bad faith during the filing of the application for registration - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 305/37)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd (Borehamwood, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Henkel, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Schifko, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the Genelral Court: Maquet GmbH (Rastatt, Germany) (represented by: N. Hebeis, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the Genelral Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 November 2013 (Case R 2292/2012-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Copernicus-Trademarks and Maquet.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd to bear its own costs and those of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Maquet GmbH. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd to bear its own costs and those of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Maquet GmbH.

---

(1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.

1

---
United States Court of Appeals 

For the First Circuit 

No. 18-1138 

JOSE ALBERTO MEDINA, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, 

ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL,*

Respondent. 

ERRATA SHEET 

 The opinion of this Court, issued on January 22, 2019, is 

amended as follows: 

 On page 5, line 6, delete "motion to" 

 * Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2), Acting Attorney 

General Matthew G. Whitaker has been substituted for former 

Attorney General Jefferson B. Sessions, III as the respondent.
§ 582.6199 Calcium gluconate. ( a ) *Product.* Calcium gluconate.
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.
§ 573.560 Iron ammonium citrate. Iron ammonium citrate may be safely used in animal feed in accordance with the following prescribed conditions: ( a ) The additive is the chemical green ferric ammonium citrate.
( b ) The additive is used or intended for use as an anticaking agent in salt for animal consumption so that the level of iron ammonium citrate does not exceed 25 parts per million (0.0025 percent) in the finished salt.
( c ) To assure safe use of the additive the label or labeling of the additive shall bear, in addition to the other information required by the Act: ( 1 ) The name of the additive.
( 2 ) Adequate directions to provide a final product that complies with the limitations prescribed in paragraph (b) of this section.