alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 73
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 73 appear at 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001.

§ 73.530 Spirulina extract. ( a ) *Identity.* ( 1 ) The color additive spirulina extract is prepared by the filtered aqueous extraction of the dried biomass of *Arthrospira platensis.* The color additive contains phycocyanins as the principal coloring components.
( 2 ) Color additive mixtures for food use made with spirulina extract may contain only those diluents that are suitable and are listed in this subpart as safe for use in color additive mixtures for coloring foods.
( b ) *Specifications.* Spirulina extract must conform to the following specifications and must be free from impurities, other than those named, to the extent that such other impurities may be avoided by good manufacturing practice: ( 1 ) Lead, not more than 2 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) (2 part per million (ppm));
( 2 ) Arsenic, not more than 2 mg/kg (2 ppm);
( 3 ) Mercury, not more than 1 mg/kg (1 ppm); and
( 4 ) Negative for microcystin toxin.
( c ) *Uses and restrictions.* Spirulina extract may be safely used for coloring confections (including candy and chewing gum), frostings, ice cream and frozen desserts (including non-dairy frozen dessert), dessert coatings and toppings, beverage mixes and powders, yogurts (including non-dairy yogurt alternatives), custards, puddings (including non-dairy puddings), cottage cheese, gelatin, breadcrumbs, ready-to-eat cereals (excluding extruded cereals), alcoholic beverages with less than 20 percent alcohol-by-volume content, non-alcoholic beverages, seasoning mixes (unheated), salad dressings, condiments and sauces, dips, coating formulations applied to dietary supplement tablets and capsules, at levels consistent with good manufacturing practice, and to seasonally color the shells of hard-boiled eggs, except that it may not be used to color foods for which standards of identity have been issued under section 401 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, unless the use of the added color is authorized by such standards.
( d ) *Labeling requirements.* The label of the color additive and of any mixture prepared therefrom intended solely or in part for coloring purposes must conform to § 70.25 of this chapter.
( e ) *Exemption from certification.* Certification of this color additive is not necessary for the protection of the public health, and therefore batches thereof are exempt from the certification requirements of section 721(c) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
[78 FR 49120, Aug. 13, 2013, as amended at 79 FR 20098, May 13, 2014; 80 FR 50765, Aug. 21, 2015; 82 FR 30734, July 3, 2017; 87 FR 67789, Nov. 10, 2022]
Editorial Note on Part 73
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 73 appear at 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001.

§ 73.2150 Dihydroxyacetone. ( a ) *Identity and specifications.* The color additive dihydroxyacetone shall conform in identity and specifications to the requirements of § 73.1150 (a)(1) and (b).
( b ) *Uses and restrictions.* Dihydroxyacetone may be safely used in amounts consistent with good manufacturing practice in externally applied cosmetics intended solely or in part to impart a color to the human body.
( c ) *Labeling requirements.* The labeling of the color additive and any mixtures prepared therefrom intended solely or in part for coloring purposes shall conform to the requirements of § 70.25 of this chapter.
( d ) *Exemption from certification.* Certification of this color additive is not necessary for the protection of the public health and therefore batches thereof are exempt from the requirements of section 721(c) of the act.
#### Fossmeyer *v.*Self.

[No. 17,355.

Filed April 26, 1945.]

*554
      *Lewis & Lewis,*of Vincennes, for appellant.

*Horace A. Foncannon,*of Vincennes, for appellee.

Draper, C. J.

— The appellee brought this action against the appellant to recover damages for injuries to his automobile, caused by its collision with appellant’s parked truck. Trial was by the court, resulting in a finding and judgment for appellee. Appellant’s motion for new trial was overruled and this appeal perfected.

At the outset the appellee challenges the sufficiency of appellant’s brief. However, we believe the brief exhibits a good faith effort to comply with the rules governing the preparation thereof, and we will consider it sufficient to present the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to show any negligence on the part of appellant.

The evidence most favorable to the appellee discloses appellant as the owner of a platform truck twenty-five feet long and seven and one-half feet wide, with stock rack and open top. About noon on November 9, 1940, he drove it to a garage on 13th Street in Terre Haute *555to have a heater installed. He parked it in the street near the garage and left the ignition key in the switch. The ignition key also worked the lock on the cab of the truck. The heater was installed sometime after 3:00 P. M. and the mechanic parked it in the street within 50 or 60 feet of the garage, and diagonal to the curb so that the tail end extended well out into the street, and he also left the ignition key in the switch. The appellant returned to the garage about 6:00 P. M., paid the bill and left. Several hours later in the evening, which was dark, foggy and misting rain, the appellee, driving by at 10 to 15 miles per hour, failed to see the truck until it was too late to avoid it, and collided with the left rear corner of it. At that time the truck was entirely without lights. Immediately after the accident the cab on the truck was found to have been locked and the key gone. The appellee later found appellant in a pool room and informed him of the accident. The appellant advised him he knew there were no lights on the truck; that he had aimed to move it before dark but never got down there; that he had insurance and they would have to fix it. The appellant testified that about 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon he had left word with his brother’s wife for his brother to get the truck where it was parked and take it home.

The appellant contends he did not park the truck in the street, did not authorize it to be so parked and did not know it was so parked. However, from the evidence it' could well be found or inferred that he knew the truck was parked in the manner described, and with that knowledge he voluntarily left it so parked after dark without lights, when lights were required by the statute. See § 47-2214, Burns’ 1940 Replacement. His violation of the statute constituted neg*556ligence *per se. Gerlot*v. *Swartz*(1937), 212 Ind. 292, 7 N. E. (2d) 960.

No other question being presented, the judgment is affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 60 N. E. (2d) 610.
# C_2015389EN.01004601.xml

| 23.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 389/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 389/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2015 — Schroeder v Council and Commission

(Case T-205/14) (1)

1

((Non-contractual liability - Dumping - Imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits originating in China - Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008 declared by the Court of Justice to be invalid - Loss allegedly suffered by the applicant following the adoption of the regulation - Action for compensation - Exhaustion of domestic remedies - Admissibility - Sufficiently serious infringement of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009) - Duty of care - Causal link))

(2015/C 389/49)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: I. Schroeder KG (GmbH & Co.) (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: K. Landry, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, and initially D. Geradin and N. Tuominen, and subsequently N. Tuominen, lawyers) and European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Action for compensation for the harm which the applicant claims to have suffered following the adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008 of 18 December 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2008 L 350, p. 35), declared invalid by the judgment of 22 March 2012 in GLS (C-338/10, ECR, EU:C:2012:158)..

GLS

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders I. Schroeder KG (GmbH & Co.) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders I. Schroeder KG (GmbH & Co.) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.

1

---
# C_2020061EN.01002301.xml

| 24.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2019 — BPC Lux 2 and Others v Commission

(Case T-812/14 RENV) (1)

(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 - Lack of standing - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 61/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: BPC Lux 2 Sàrl (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) and the 19 other applicants whose names are set out in the Annex to the judgment (represented by: J. Webber and M. Steenson, Solicitors, and B. Woolgar and K. Bacon, Barristers)

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

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

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, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

| 2. | Orders BPC Lux 2 Sàrl and the other applicants whose names are set out in the Annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission for the proceedings for interim relief, at first instance and after referral back to the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders BPC Lux 2 Sàrl and the other applicants whose names are set out in the Annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission for the proceedings for interim relief, at first instance and after referral back to the General Court;

| 3. | Orders the Commission to bear the costs incurred by it in the proceedings on the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to bear the costs incurred by it in the proceedings on the appeal;

| 4. | Orders the Portuguese Republic to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Portuguese Republic to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.

---
§ 820.170 Installation. ( a ) Each manufacturer of a device requiring installation shall establish and maintain adequate installation and inspection instructions, and where appropriate test procedures. Instructions and procedures shall include directions for ensuring proper installation so that the device will perform as intended after installation. The manufacturer shall distribute the instructions and procedures with the device or otherwise make them available to the person(s) installing the device.
( b ) The person installing the device shall ensure that the installation, inspection, and any required testing are performed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions and procedures and shall document the inspection and any test results to demonstrate proper installation.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,380
<SECURITIES>                                     7,357
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,346
<ALLOWANCES>                                       137
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,232
<PP&E>                                           3,593
<DEPRECIATION>                                     402
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  26,650
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,742
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,975
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,139
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    26,650
<SALES>                                         11,407
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,407
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,705
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,561
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  50
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    238
<INCOME-TAX>                                       230
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  8
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         8
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
§ 582.1631 Potassium hydroxide. ( a ) *Product.* Potassium hydroxide.
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**

 

I, John W. Burns, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of GlycoGenesys, Inc. 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit 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 annual report. 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report. 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and Iare responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15(e) for the registrant 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 registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annualreport is being prepared; 

 

**(b) [Paragraphreserved pursuant to SEC Release 33-8238];**

 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the periodcovered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(d) Disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

 

(c) All significant deficiencies in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(d) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
EX-10.4(E)



 Exhibit 10.4(E) 

[AMENDMENT TO DIRECTOR RSU AWARD] 

[date] 
 [Director’s Full Name] 

Re: Amendment of Director RSU Awards 

Dear [First Name]: 
 I write concerning the
awards of restricted stock units that have been granted to you by Yahoo! Inc. (the “Company”) under the Yahoo! Inc. Directors’ Stock Plan (the “Plan”) and are currently outstanding (your “RSU Awards”). As you know,
the Company has entered into an agreement to transfer certain of its assets to Yahoo Holdings, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (“Holdings”) and, following such transfer, to sell all of the shares of Holdings to Verizon
Communications Inc. (together, the “Transaction”). 
 As a result of the Transaction, each of your RSU Awards, to the extent
outstanding immediately prior to the closing of the Transaction (the “Closing”), will fully vest immediately prior to the Closing (subject to any existing deferred payment terms). Following the Closing, applicable law will prohibit the
Company from paying RSU Awards in shares of the Company’s common stock after a limited grace period of 120 days. Therefore, subject to the Closing, each of your RSU Awards that is scheduled for payment 120 days or more following the Closing
will be payable in cash (as opposed to shares of the Company’s common stock) on the scheduled payment date, in a cash amount equal to the number of outstanding restricted stock units scheduled for payment, multiplied by the Fair Market Value
(as defined under the Plan) of a share of the Company’s common stock on the scheduled payment date. 
 This letter agreement does not
modify any other terms of your RSU Awards except as expressly set forth above. If this letter accurately sets forth our agreement with respect to the foregoing matters, please sign below and return a copy of this letter to me. 

By Order of the Board of Directors, 

YAHOO! INC. 

[Name] 

[Title] 
 Acknowledged and
Agreed: 

			
		
	By:	 	 
		 	[FULL NAME]
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7405 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to prohibit the exclusion of an 

individual from assignment to a medical personnel position of the Armed 

Forces on the basis of the amputation of the individual, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2024 

Mrs. RODGERS of Washington introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to prohibit the exclusion of an individual from assignment to a medical personnel position of the Armed Forces on the basis of 

the amputation of the individual, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Hannah Cvancara 

5 Service Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7405 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON EXCLUSION OF INDIVIDUALS 

2 FROM ASSIGNMENT AS MEDICAL PERSONNEL 

3 OF ARMED FORCES ON BASIS OF AMPUTA4 TION. 

5 Chapter 49 of title 10, United States Code, is amend6 ed by adding at the end the following new section (and 

7 conforming the table of sections at the beginning of such 

8 chapter accordingly): 

9 ‘‘§ 989. Prohibition on exclusion of individuals from 

10 assignment as medical personnel on basis 

11 of amputation 

12 ‘‘(a) PROHIBITION.—Neither the Secretary of De13 fense nor the Secretary concerned may prohibit the assign14 ment of an individual to a medical personnel position, in15 cluding by prohibiting the accession of such individual into 

16 the Armed Forces for such assignment, on the basis that 

17 the individual has an amputated limb (regardless of 

18 whether such amputated limb is the result of a service19 connected illness or injury) if the individual otherwise 

20 meets such physical fitness and other standards as may 

21 be required for such accession. 

22 ‘‘(b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

23 ‘‘(1) The term ‘medical personnel’ has the 

24 meaning given that term in section 115a(e) of this 

25 title. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7405 IH

1 ‘‘(2) The term ‘service-connected’ has the 

2 meaning given such term in section 101 of title 38.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS