alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 556.515 Pirlimycin. ( a ) *Acceptable daily intake (ADI).* The ADI for total residue of pirlimycin is 0.01 mg/kg of body weight per day.
( b ) *Tolerances.* The tolerances for pirlimycin (marker residue) are: ( 1 ) *Cattle.* ( i ) Liver (target tissue): 0.5 ppm.
( ii ) Muscle: 0.3 ppm.
( iii ) Milk: 0.4 ppm.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( c ) *Related conditions of use.* See § 526.1810 of this chapter.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7417 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7417

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 4, 2024

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 135 West Spring Street in Titusville, Pennsylvania, as the ``Edwin 
                    L. Drake Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. EDWIN L. DRAKE POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 135 West Spring Street in Titusville, Pennsylvania, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Edwin L. Drake Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Edwin L. 
Drake Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 3, 2024.

            Attest:

                                             KEVIN F. MCCUMBER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                           5
<LEGEND>

This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from RIVERSIDE
PARK ASSOCIATES LIMITED  PARTNERSHIP 2000 Second Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.

</LEGEND>

<CIK>                              0000813812
<NAME>                             RIVERSIDE PARK ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
<MULTIPLIER>                                           1,000


<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                      APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                        JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                                 6,165
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          2,109
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           0 <F1>
<PP&E>                                                77,782
<DEPRECIATION>                                        38,729
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        48,186
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      0 <F1>
<BONDS>                                               51,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                            (3,766)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          48,186
<SALES>                                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       6,861
<CGS>                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       6,763
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     2,103
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            0
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       98
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         (453)
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                            (355)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (607.77)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              0
<FN>

<F1> Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet. <F2> Multiplier is 1.

</FN>


</TABLE>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NHY/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PABLO NEGRETE ROSILA; MA

MAGDALENA GARCIA ALVAREZ,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-74685

Agency Nos. A095-307-523

 A095-307-522

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 16, 2010** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Pablo Negrete Rosila and Ma Magdalena Garcia Alvarez, spouses and

natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen. We have

FILED

FEB 25 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
NHY/Research 2 07-74685

jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion the

denial of a motion to reopen, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2008),

we deny the petition for review. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioners’ motion to

reopen where the new evidence they presented did not support prima facie

eligiblity for cancellation of removal. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592,

600 (9th Cir. 2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### § 660.33 Testing of source material.

Except as provided in this section, a sample of each blood incorporated into the Reagent Red Blood Cell product shall be individually tested, with no fewer than two donor sources of each antibody specificity employed, to confirm the identification of all blood group antigens specified in the labeling as present or absent. The manufacturer shall perform at least one of the required tests for each factor. The Reagent Red Blood Cell product may be tested with a single donor source of antibody specificity if only one source of antibody is available, and the Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, has approved the use of a single donor source of antiserum. Each of these tests shall be conducted and interpreted independently, and any discrepancy between the results of these two tests shall be resolved by testing with at least one additional antiserum before concluding that the antigen is present or absent. Where fewer than three donor sources of an antibody specificity are available, test discrepancies shall be resolved in accordance with the manufacturer's biologics license application. Group O Reagent Red Blood Cells used in the detection or identification of unexpected antibodies shall include at least the following common antigens in each lot of the product: D, C, E, c̄, e, K, k̄, Fya, Fyb, Jka, Jkb, Lea, Leb, P1, M, N, S, and s̄.

[52 FR 37450, Oct. 7, 1987, as amended at 55 FR 11013, Mar. 26, 1990; 64 FR 56454, Oct. 20, 1999]
# C_2014085EN.01002701.xml

| 22.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 85/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/27

---

Action brought on 10th January 2014 — ZZ v European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)

(Case F-3/14)

2014/C 85/46

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. T. Bontinck, Ms A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of EASA’s decision to renew the contract of the applicant for only one year instead of five years, in violation of article 39 of Regulation (EC) 216/2008/CE.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision dated March 12th, 2013 of the Management Board to extend his contract for only one year; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision dated March 12th, 2013 of the Management Board to extend his contract for only one year;

| — | and therefore, annul the amendment no 2 to his contract of employment which renew the contract for a one year period; |
| --- | --- |

—

and therefore, annul the amendment no 2 to his contract of employment which renew the contract for a one year period;

o

| — | order the Defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Defendant to pay the costs.

---
38991.

#### KINSEY v. BOWMAN TRANSPORTATION, INC.

Eberhakdt, Judge.

The evidence in this case was conflicting, but there was ample evidence to sustain the judgment. Invoices showing the cost of the lost merchandise and a canceled check issued in payment thereof constituted all of the evidence as to its value. Plaintiff in error contends that the market value was not proven. “While the measure of damages was the market value of such articles when they were lost, yet it is well settled that proof of the cost of the articles is legitimate evidence, to be considered in determining the market value. *Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Harris,*1 Ga. App. 667 (57 SE 1030); *Mayor of Macon v. Daley,*2 Ga. App. 355 (58 SE 540); *Southern Ry. Co. v. Williams,*113 Ga. 335 (38 SE 744).” *Atlanta Baggage &c. Co. v. Mizo,*4 Ga. App. 407, 411 (61 SE 844). “Presumably what an article cost at the time of its purchase was its value.” *Southern Ry. Co. v. Williams,*113 Ga. 335, 336 (38 SE 744). Here the articles involved were lost while in transit from the seller to the purchaser, and thus their loss is so closely identified with the time of purchase as to give rise to the presumption. There was no evidence to rebut it. There is no merit in the general grounds of the amended motion for new trial.

The only other assignments of error are as to the overruling of special grounds 4 and 5 of the amended motion in which complaint is made of the admission, over objection, of documentary evidence, same being the front of a bill of lading and designated as plaintiff’s Exhibits 4 and 8, respectively. An examination of these exhibits reveals that they are one and the same, one being a duplication of the other. It also ap*348pears that there was admitted, without objection, plaintiff’s Exhibits 6 and 9, which are likewise fronts of the same bill of lading form. “Though the admission of evidence over objection may be erroneous, it does not require a reversal where ■other evidence to the same effect is introduced without objection.” *State Highway Board v. Coleman,*78 Ga. App. 54, 57 (50 SE2d 262); *Milam v. Lewis,*47 Ga. App. 376, 377 (3) (170 SE 404). Moreover, the documents were, under a notice to produce, produced by plaintiff from its files, and there was extensive examination and cross-examination of several witnesses relative to them. And even if the documents had not been admissible, the case having been tried before Judge Camp without a jury, who was acting as both judge and jury, it must be presumed that “he has sifted the wheat from the chaff and selected the legal testimony from that which is illegal and incompetent.” *Bailey v. Holmes,*163 Ga. 272, 275 (136 SE 60); *Loftis v. Allen Plumbing Co.,*57 Ga. App. 847, 849 (197 SE 45); *American Cas. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,*104 Ga. App. 337.

Decided September 6,1961.

*James L. Flemister,*for plaintiff in error.

*Elmo Holt, Reynolds, Holt & Reynolds,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Carlisle, P. J., and Nichols, J. concur.*
#### Maureen E. Kelleher et al. *v.*Walter J. Smith

*Charles A. Sherwood,*in support of the petition.

Submitted May 5

decided May 21, 1969

The petition by the plaintiffs for certification for appeal from the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court is denied.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

VONNESSIA L. WILSON , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No s . 4D 19

- 132

, 19

- 134, 1 9

- 135 & 19

- 140

[ November 7, 2019 ]

CORRECTED OPINION

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County ; Steven J. Levin , Judge; L.T. Case No. 56 2016CF002641A

, 562016CF002820A

, 562016CF003009A and 562017CF000278A

.
Antony P. Ryan, Regional Counsel, and Paul O ’ Neil, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lindsay A. Warner, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirme d.

T

AYLOR , M AY and D AMOORGIAN , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 30, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-20606 Summary Calendar

JOSE VALENTINE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus ADRIAN M. THOMAS, Correctional Lieutenant; JAMES D. RUBY, Sergeant of Correctional Officers; CAREY S. STAPLES, Assistant Warden; SENIOR WARDEN LAUGHLIN; MAJOR RICE, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:04-CV-1951

-------------------- Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jose Valentine, Texas prisoner # 113104, appeals the district court’s dismissal as frivolous of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. He asserts that Lieutenant Thomas used excessive force against him by pushing him into a filing cabinet, resulting in a bruise on his thigh, which did not require medical treatment, although he was given ibuprofen. Valentine has not established that he suffered an injury that was more than deNo. 04-20606 -2- minimis. See Hudson v. McMillian , 503 U.S. 1, 9-10 (1992); Gomez v. Chandler , 163 F.3d 921, 924 (5th Cir. 1999). The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing this claim. See Siglar v. Hightower , 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). Valentine does not argue on appeal that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his claims against the defendants not physically present for the assault or in refusing to consider his state law claims of assault. These claims area therefore deemed abandoned. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). The judgment of the district court is thus AFFIRMED.
§ 56.101 Scope. ( a ) This part contains the general standards for the composition, operation, and responsibility of an Institutional Review Board (IRB) that reviews clinical investigations regulated by the Food and Drug Administration under sections 505(i) and 520(g) of the act, as well as clinical investigations that support applications for research or marketing permits for products regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, including foods, including dietary supplements, that bear a nutrient content claim or a health claim, infant formulas, food and color additives, drugs for human use, medical devices for human use, biological products for human use, and electronic products. Compliance with this part is intended to protect the rights and welfare of human subjects involved in such investigations.
( b ) References in this part to regulatory sections of the Code of Federal Regulations are to chapter I of title 21, unless otherwise noted.
[46 FR 8975, Jan. 27, 1981, as amended at 64 FR 399, Jan. 5, 1999; 66 FR 20599, Apr. 24, 2001]
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-02-00088-CV

Shannon Noble, Individually and as a General Partner of Stone Marketing & Imports;

and Stone Marketing & Imports, Appellants

v.

Ginny Simpson and Roger Simpson, Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 353RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. GN003105, HONORABLE JOHN K. DIETZ, JUDGE PRESIDING 

Appellants Shannon Noble, individually and as a general partner of Stone Marketing 

& Imports, and Stone Marketing & Imports filed an unopposed motion to dismiss this appeal, 

informing this Court that they no longer wish to prosecute their appeal. Accordingly, we grant 

appellants= motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2). 

 

Bea Ann Smith, Justice

Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices B. A. Smith and Yeakel

Dismissed on Appellants= Motion

Filed: April 25, 2002

Do Not Publish
# C_2017104EN.01004001.xml

| 3.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Lubrizol France v Council

(Case T-191/14) (1)

1

((Common Customs Tariff - Regulation concerning the suspension of autonomous duties on certain agricultural and industrial products - Objection to existing suspensions - Equivalence of products - Procedure for handling objections))

(2017/C 104/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Lubrizol France SAS (Rouen, France) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor, B. Hartnett, Barrister, and A. Bochon, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Florindo Gijón and M. Balta, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented initially by A. Caeiros and M. Clausen, and subsequently by A. Caieros and A. Lewis, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Articles 1 and 4 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1387/2013 of 17 December 2013 suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain agricultural and industrial products and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1344/2011 (OJ 2013 L 354, p. 201), to the extent that those measures deprived the applicant of its entitlement to three duty suspensions which it previously enjoyed under TARIC Codes 2918 2900 80, 3811 2900 10 and 3811 9000 30.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Lubrizol France SAS to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Lubrizol France SAS to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.

1

---
# C_2016392EN.01002501.xml

| 24.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Morningstar v Commission

(Case T-76/14) (1)

1

((Competition - Abuse of a dominant position - Worldwide market for consolidated real-time datafeeds - Decision making the commitments offered by the dominant undertaking binding - Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003))

(2016/C 392/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Morningstar, Inc. (Chicago, Illinois, United States of America) (represented by: S. Kinsella, K. Daly, P. Harrison, Solicitors, and M. Abenhaïm, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, A. Dawes and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Thomson Reuters Corp. (Toronto, Canada), and Reuters Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Nourry, G. Olsen and C. Ghosh, Solicitors)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 9635 final of 20 December 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/D2/39.654 — Reuters Instrument Codes (RICs)).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Morningstar, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Morningstar, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.

1

---
§ 582.5650 Proline. ( a ) *Product.* Proline (L- and DL-forms).
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.
From: <Hambrick.Amy@epamail.epa.gov> 

To: Amber Allen <Amber.Allen@erg.com> 

Date: 12/20/2012 10:12 AM 

Subject: 2 of 4- FOR THE CISWI RECONSIDERATION DOCKET 

MEMO TO CISWI RECONSIDERATION DOCKET: 

This attachment documents an EO 12866 meeting on the Standards of 

Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for 

Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration 

Units; Reconsideration and Proposed Amendments Rule held on 11/10/2011. 

Amy Hambrick 

Fuels and Incineration Group 

US EPA / OAQPS / Sector Policies and Programs Division 

Phone: 919-541-0964 

(See attached file: Boiler MACT-NHSM OMB 11-9-11.pdf) 

(See attached file: Definition of resonated wood and resinated trim 10-11.pdf) 

(See attached file: Wastewater Treatment Residuals Background 10-11.pdf) 

(See attached file: Final Cumulative Air Burden Economic Impact Summary.pdf) 

(See attached file: Fisher Study Executive Summary Jobs_9-7-11.pdf) 

(See attached file: URS AFPA cost Report Aug2011.pdf) 

(See attached file: 2060-AR15_2011_11_10_PCA_Handout4.pdf) 

(See attached file: 2060-AR15_2011_11_10_PCA_Handout3.pdf) 

(See attached file: 2060-AR15_2011_11_10_PCA_Handout2.pdf) 

(See attached file: 2060-AR15_2011_11_10_PCA_Handout1.pdf)
#### § 571.115 Application of the cancer clause of section 409 of the act.

Food additives intended for use as an ingredient in food for animals that are raised for food production and that have the potential to contaminate human food with residues whose consumption could present a risk of cancer to people must satisfy the requirements of subpart E of part 500 of this chapter.

[52 FR 49588, Dec. 31, 1987]
§ 582.5118 Alanine. ( a ) *Product.* Alanine (L- and DL-forms).
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.
§ 556.36 Altrenogest. ( a ) *Acceptable daily intake (ADI).* The ADI for total residue of altrenogest is 0.04 μg/kg of body weight per day.
( b ) *Tolerances.* The tolerances for altrenogest (marker residue) are: ( 1 ) *Swine.* ( i ) Liver (target tissue): 4 ppb.
( ii ) Muscle: 1 ppb.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( c ) *Related conditions of use.* See § 520.48 of this chapter.