alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 42 (Thursday, March 4, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9912-9913]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4490]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

Clinical Center; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the NIH 
Advisory Board for Clinical Research.
    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with 
attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend 
and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or 
other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person 
listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting will be closed to 
the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 
552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended to discuss personnel matters, 
the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion 
of privacy.

    Name of Committee: NIH Advisory Board for Clinical Research.
    Date: March 22, 2010.
    Open: 10 a.m. to 1:15 p.m.
    Agenda: To review the FY11 Clinical Center Budget.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 10, 10 Center 
Drive, CRC Medical Board Room 4-2551, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Closed: 1:15 p.m. to 2 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate personnel matters.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 10, 10 Center 
Drive, CRC Medical Board Room 4-2551, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Contact Person: Maureen E Gormley, Executive Secretary, Mark O. 
Hatfield Clinical Research Center, National Institutes of Health, 
Building 10, Room 6-2551, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-2897.

    Any interested person may file written comments with the 
committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed 
on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, 
telephone number and when

[[Page 9913]]

applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the 
interested person.
    In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent 
procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, 
including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected 
before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one 
form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, 
driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their 
visit.

    Dated: February 25, 2010.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-4490 Filed 3-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
# C_2017293EN.01003201.xml

| 4.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 293/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 293/32

---

Order of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — BPC Lux 2 and Others v Commission

(Case T-812/14) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - State aid - Aid granted by the Portuguese authorities for the resolution of the financial institution Banco Espírito Santo - Creation and capitalisation of a Bridge Bank - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility))

(2017/C 293/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: BPC Lux 2 Sàrl (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) and 19 other applicants whose names are set out in the Annex to the order (represented by: P. Fajardo, lawyer, J. Webber and M. Steenson, Solicitors, and K. Bacon QC)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and P.-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by L. Inez Fernandes and S. Jaulino, acting as Agents, and by M. Mendes Pereira, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 5682 final of 3 August 2014 on State aid SA.39250 (2014/N) — Portugal — Resolution of Banco Espírito Santo.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | BPC Lux 2 Sàrl and the other parties whose names are set out in the Annex to this order shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings and in the proceedings for interim relief. |
| --- | --- |

2.

BPC Lux 2 Sàrl and the other parties whose names are set out in the Annex to this order shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings and in the proceedings for interim relief.

| 3. | The Portuguese Republic shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Portuguese Republic shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.

1

---
§ 74.3106 D&C Blue No. 6. ( a ) *Identity.* The color additive D&C Blue No. 6 is principally [Δ2,2′-biindoline]-3,3′ dione (CAS Reg. No. 482-89-3).
( b ) *Specifications.* D&C Blue No. 6 shall conform to the following specifications and shall be free from impurities other than those named to the extent that such impurities may be avoided by good manufacturing practice: Volatile matter at 135 °C (275 °F), not more than 3 percent. Matter insoluble in *N,N-* dimethylformamide, not more than 1 percent. Isatin, not more than 0.3 percent. Anthranilic acid, not more than 0.3 percent. Indirubin, not more than 1 percent. Lead (as Pb), not more than 10 parts per million. Arsenic (as As), not more than 3 parts per million. Mercury (as Hg), not more than 1 part per million. Total color, not less than 95 percent.
( c ) *Uses and restrictions.* ( 1 ) D&C Blue No. 6 may be safely used at a level— ( i ) Not to exceed 0.2 percent by weight of the suture material for coloring polyethylene terephthalate surgical sutures for general surgical use;
( ii ) Not to exceed 0.25 percent by weight of the suture material for coloring plain or chromic collagen absorbable sutures for general surgical use;
( iii ) Not to exceed 0.5 percent by weight of the suture material for coloring plain or chromic collagen absorbable sutures for ophthalmic surgical use;
( iv ) Not to exceed 0.5 percent by weight of the suture material for coloring polypropylene surgical sutures for general surgical use; and
( v ) Not to exceed 0.5 percent by weight of the suture material for coloring polydioxanone synthetic absorbable sutures for ophthalmic and general surgical use.
( 2 ) Authorization for these uses shall not be construed as waiving any of the requirements of sections 510(k), 515, and 520(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to the medical device in which the color additive is used.
( d ) *Labeling.* The label of the color additive shall conform to the requirements of § 70.25 of this chapter.
( e ) *Certification.* All batches of D&C Blue No. 6 shall be certified in accordance with regulations in part 80 of this chapter.
[49 FR 29956, July 25, 1984; 49 FR 34447, Aug. 31, 1984, as amended at 50 FR 30698, July 29, 1985]
EXHIBIT 32.2

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



     In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of CEC  Entertainment,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the  quarter  ended April 2, 2006 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned  certifies,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


     (1)  The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.



                                            /s/ Christopher D. Morris
                                            -----------------------------
                                            Christopher D. Morris
                                            Chief Financial Officer
                                            May 12, 2006



A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to CEC  Entertainment,  Inc. and will be retained by CEC Entertainment,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon
request.
Editorial Note on Part 355
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 355 appear at 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004.

§ 355.20 Packaging conditions. ( a ) *Package size limitation.* Due to the toxicity associated with fluoride active ingredients, the following package size limitations are required for anticaries drug products: ( 1 ) *Dentifrices.* Dentifrice (toothpastes and tooth powders) packages shall not contain more than 276 milligrams (mg) total fluorine per package.
( 2 ) *Preventive treatment gels and treatment rinses.* Preventive treatment gel and treatment rinse packages shall not contain more than 120 mg total fluorine per package.
( 3 ) *Exception.* Package size limitations do not apply to anticaries drug products marketed for professional office use only and labeled in accord with § 355.60.
( b ) *Tight container packaging.* To minimize moisture contamination, all fluoride powdered dentifrices shall be packaged in a tight container as defined as a container that protects the contents from contamination by extraneous liquids, solids, or vapors, from loss of the article, and from efflorescence, deliquescence, or evaporation under the ordinary or customary conditions of handling, shipment, storage, and distribution, and is capable of tight reclosure.
Order entered January 23 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 00868
- CV BRIGETTA D’OLIVIO, Appellant

V. GREG FOX, Appellee On Appeal from the 191st Judicial D istrict Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 16
- 05606



### O RDER By order dated January 15, 2019, we granted the motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s counsel. Appellant is now appearing pro se. Prior to withdrawing, counsel for appellant f iled a brief and appellee has filed his brief. Before the Court is the Ja nuary 18 , 2019 amended motion of appellant requesting to file

an amended brief. We GRANT the motion. Appellant shall file an amended brief by February 21, 2019

. Appellee shall have thirty days from the date appellant files a pro se brief to file any amended brief. /s/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE
* 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 circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-50053

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

NEFTALI ADALID MONTOYA-NAVA, also known

as Neftali Montoya-Nava

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-03-CR-1497-ALL-FM

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

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Neftali Adalid Montoya-Nava appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Montoya-Nava contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior

conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element

of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 23, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 04-50053

-2-

been alleged in his indictment. Montoya-Nava maintains that he

pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry

under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds

the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed

for that offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Montoya-Nava acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report of LOUD Technologies Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, James T. Engen and Timothy P. O'Neil, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer, respectively, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|Dated: April 27, 2004 |  | By: | /s/JAMES T. ENGENJames T. Engen President and Chief Executive Officer                                 
|--------------------- |  | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                      |  |     | /s/TIMOTHY P. O'NEILTimothy P. O'Neil Chief Financial Officer, Vice President,
Secretary and Treasurer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to LOUD Technologies Inc. and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
§ 582.5245 Carotene. ( a ) *Product.* Carotene.
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.
### Nebraska Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinions

NOT Selected for Posting to Court Website

(r eleased June 27 , 2023 

### )

The following memorandum opinions were filed by the Nebraska Court of

Appeals and can be viewed using SSCALES :



### None Available

The above

- listed memorandum opinions c an be viewed online through the

appellate court case search available by subscription through Nebra ska.gov:

http://www.nebraska.gov/subscriber/

.

Current subscribers to Nebraska.gov can search appellate court cases here:

http s ://www.nebraska.gov/courts/s c cales/

.
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 07070

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

07070\07070_Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement

x 07070\07070_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

07070\07070_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

07070\07070_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 07070\07070_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07070\07070_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07070\07070_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07070\07070_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07070\07070_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07070\07070_PartF.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07070\07070_PartG.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07070\07070_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

07070\Supporting Documents\07070_A2-3 Site EIS Excerpt.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 07070\Supporting Documents\07070_A5-2 Site Map.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 07070\Supporting Documents\07070_A5-3 Water Balance Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 07070\Supporting Documents\07070_D3-1 Pond System Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 07070\Supporting Documents\07070_F5-6 Landfill Monitoring Well Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
#### CITY OF HANNIBAL, Respondent, v. R. A. DUDLEY, Appellant.

St. Louis Court of Appeals.

Submitted on Briefs May 4, 1911.

Opinion Filed June 6, 1911.

1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS: Prosecution for Violating Ordinance: Civil Action. A prosecution for violating an ordi- ■ nance is a civil action and governed by the rules applicable to such actions.

2. APPELLATE PRACTICE: Conclusiveness of Verdict. The weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are matters for determination by the jury and trial judge.

Appeal from Hannibal Court of Common *Pleas.*— Hon. *David H. Eby,*Judge.

Affirmed.

*Thomas F. Gatts*for app’ellant.

*Berryman Hemoood*for respondent.

REYNOLDS, P. J.

Defendant in this case was proceeded against in tbe recorder’s court of the city of Hannibal for a violation of a city ordinance. From a conviction there and imposition of a fine of three dollars, he appealed to the Hannibal Court of Common Pleas. After a somewhat lengthy trial before the court and a jury, at which the evidence was conflicting, defendant was again convicted and the same fine ($3.00) imposed. No instructions were asked or given. Defendant has appealed to this court.

We have held in city of Caruthersville v. Palsgrove, 155 Mo. App. 564, 134 S. W. 1032, following many cases there cited, that a prosecution for a violation of a city ordinance is not a criminal but a civil action and that the rules of court applicable to civil actions apply.

*262The contention of counsel for defendant in this case is, not that there was no evidence in the case to support the conviction, but that the weight of evidence is against the-verdict. We might dispose of the case by pronouncing this an untenable theory. Out of abundant caution, however, and to give defendant the benefit of any doubt on the matter, we have read all the testimony, as set out in the printed abstract filed with us by appellant, and see no reason to disturb the finding of the jury and the judgment of the lower court. The verdict is sustained by an abundance of evidence. Its weight and the credibility of the witnesses who gave it were for the determination of the jury and the trial judge. The judgment of the Hannibal Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

*Nortoni*and *Caulfield, JJ.,*concur.
# C_2015389EN.01005001.xml

| 23.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 389/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 389/50

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2015 — Sequoia Capital Operations LLC v OHIM — Sequoia Capital (SEQUOIA CAPITAL)

(Case T-369/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark SEQUOIA CAPITAL - Earlier Community word mark SEQUOIA - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion))

(2015/C 389/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sequoia Capital Operations LLC (Menlo Park, California, United States) (represented by: F. Delord, A. Rendle, Solicitors, and G. Hollingworth, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by A. Pohlmann, and subsequently by S. Hanne, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sequoia Capital LLP (London, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 March 2014 (Case R 1457/2013-4), concerning invalidity proceedings between Sequoia Capital LLP and Sequoia Capital Operations LLC.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sequoia Capital Operations LLC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sequoia Capital Operations LLC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.

1

---
#### Transamerica Insurance Company *v.*Horn Construction, Inc., et al.

*Charles W. Page,*for the appellee (defendant Jan-son).

Argued October 7

decided October 7, 1969

The motion by the defendant Raymond W. Janson to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in Hartford County is granted.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7656 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7656

  To amend title 31, United States Code, to require the President to 
     submit a balanced budget to Congress, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 13, 2024

  Mr. Feenstra (for himself, Mr. Bergman, Mrs. Spartz, Mr. Mann, Mrs. 
 Bice, and Mr. Nunn of Iowa) introduced the following bill; which was 
                referred to the Committee on the Budget

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 31, United States Code, to require the President to 
     submit a balanced budget to Congress, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Balanced Budget and Accounting 
Act''.

SEC. 2. REQUIRING PRESIDENTS ANNUAL BUDGET TO BE BALANCED BUDGET.

    Section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, is amended in the 
matter preceding paragraph (1) by inserting after the first sentence 
the following: ``Each budget shall be a balanced budget, and under each 
budget total outlays may not exceed total receipts during the 
applicable fiscal year.''.
                                 <all>
```