alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 522.2680 Zeranol. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each pellet contains 12, 18, or 20 milligrams (mg) zeranol.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See 000061 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Related tolerances.* See § 556.760 of this chapter.
( d ) *Conditions of use* — ( 1 ) *Beef cattle* — ( i ) *Amount.* 36 mg zeranol (one implant consisting of 3 pellets, each pellet containing 12 mg zeranol) per implant dose.
( ii ) *Indications for use.* ( A ) Weaned beef calves, growing beef cattle, feedlot steers, and feedlot heifers: For increased rate of weight gain and improved feed conversion.
( B ) Suckling calves: For increased rate of weight gain.
( iii ) *Limitations.* Implant pellets subcutaneously only. Not approved for repeated implantation (reimplantation) with this or any other cattle ear implant within a single production phase as safety and effectiveness have not been evaluated. Do not use in beef calves less than 2 months of age, dairy calves, and veal calves because effectiveness and safety have not been evaluated. A withdrawal period has not been established for this product in preruminating calves. Do not use in replacement beef heifers after weaning or in bulls, dairy cows, or replacement dairy heifers.
( 2 ) *Feedlot lambs* — ( i ) *Amount.* 12 mg zeranol (one implant consisting of 1 pellet containing 12 mg zeranol) per implant dose.
( ii ) *Indications for use.* For increased rate of weight gain and improved feed conversion.
( iii ) *Limitations.* Implant subcutaneously in ear only. Do not use in breeding animals. Do not implant animals within 40 days of slaughter. Safety and effectiveness have not been established in veal calves. A withdrawal period has not been established for this product in preruminating calves. Do not use in calves to be processed for veal.
( 3 ) *Steers fed in confinement for slaughter* — ( i ) *Amount.* 72 mg zeranol (one implant consisting of 6 pellets, each pellet containing 12 mg zeranol) per implant dose.
( ii ) *Indications for use.* For increased rate of weight gain and improved feed efficiency.
( iii ) *Limitations.* Implant subcutaneously in ear only. Safety and effectiveness have not been established in veal calves. A withdrawal period has not been established for this product in preruminating calves. Do not use in calves to be processed for veal.
( 4 ) *Pasture cattle (slaughter, stocker, feeder steers, and heifers)* — ( i ) *Amount.* 138 mg zeranol (one implant consisting of 7 pellets, each of 6 pellets containing 20 mg zeranol and a seventh pellet containing 18 mg zeranol) per implant dose.
( ii ) *Indications for use.* For increased rate of weight gain.
( iii ) *Limitations.* Implant subcutaneously in ear only. Safety and effectiveness have not been established in veal calves. A withdrawal period has not been established for this product in preruminating calves. Do not use in calves to be processed for veal.
[59 FR 19639, Apr. 25, 1994; 60 FR 26360, May 17, 1995, as amended at 62 FR 61625, Nov. 19, 1997; 64 FR 46840, Aug. 27, 1999; 67 FR 6867, Feb. 14, 2002; 70 FR 6764, Feb. 9, 2005; 88 FR 55566, Aug. 16, 2023]
# C_2016106EN.01003301.xml

| 21.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2016 — PRIMA v Commission

(Case T-722/14) (1)

1

((Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Support for the European Commission representative in Bulgaria in the context of the organization of public events - Rejection of tender submitted by a tenderer and award of the contract to another tenderer - Award criteria - Obligation to state reasons - Concept of relative advantages of the successful tender - Transparency))

(2016/C 106/37)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Parties

Applicants: PRIMA — Produtsentska, reklamna, informatsionna i mediyna agentsia AD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: Y. Ruskov, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Di Paolo, P. Mihaylova and D. Roussanov, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of, first, the decision of the European Commission of 12 August 2014 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in the context of the call for tenders PO/2013 13/SOF relating to support for the European Commission representative in Bulgaria in the context of the organization of public events, and awarding the contract to another tenderer and, second, the ‘subsequent decisions’, including that of 12 September 2014 to conclude the contract for its performance.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders PRIMA — Produtsentska, reklamna, informatsionna i mediyna agentsia AD to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders PRIMA — Produtsentska, reklamna, informatsionna i mediyna agentsia AD to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 462, 22.12.2014.

1

---
§ 812.18 Import and export requirements. ( a ) *Imports.* In addition to complying with other requirements of this part, a person who imports or offers for importation an investigational device subject to this part shall be the agent of the foreign exporter with respect to investigations of the device and shall act as the sponsor of the clinical investigation, or ensure that another person acts as the agent of the foreign exporter and the sponsor of the investigation.
( b ) *Exports.* A person exporting an investigational device subject to this part shall obtain FDA's prior approval, as required by section 801(e) of the act or comply with section 802 of the act.
[45 FR 3751, Jan. 18, 1980, as amended at 62 FR 26229, May 13, 1997]
FAA 333 Exemption

5-18-15

To whom it may concern,

My name is Brook Aitken from Boulder Colorado and I am a professional Cinematographer. I have been 

in the business and self employed for over 18 years. Most of my work involves filming, tv shows, 

commercials, and documentaries as a contractor. My resume includes several awards including an 

Academy Award for the film “The Cove”. 

 In the last few years as Aerial Drone photography & cinematography has expanded I have hired 

numerous companies to fly for me. I have a healthy understanding of aeronautics and a descent amount 

of practical experience as an unofficial student/co-pilot in my colleague's Cessna 182 and twin engine 

Piper Seneca, having logged over 40hrs (not towards a rating). I have flown numerous missions filming 

out of small planes and helicopters, military and civilian flights internationally and domestically. Some of 

my clients include National Geographic, Discovery Channel, Outdoor Channel, Anschutz Corporation 

and they recognize the need for aerial drone imagery. I have taken it upon myself to expand my business 

and buy a DJI Inspire One drone in order to remain competitive in my field. I have flown dozens of safe 

flights thus far with zero incidents and have abided by the 400ft ceiling regulations, VFR, never above 

crowds or traffic, not within a 5 mile radius of any airport and only on approved land. I have also taken it 

upon myself to speak with the local Parks & Open Space officials, State Park Rangers & National Forrest 

Service in order to confirm the local laws in my particular area of flights. I am also a member of the 

Academy of Model Aeronautics member # 1070493 and have supplemental insurance. 

 Recently I lost two jobs because they actually required that I have the FAA 333 exemption in order to 

fly for them. One job was on Government property and was told that the drone pilot absolutely had to 

have the FAA 333. If there were to be further blanket regulations placed on aerial drone 

cinematography my business would certainly suffer.

 I understand the need for more regulation and completely agree that we need it to happen as soon as 

possible. The sheer number of hobbyist taking to flying drones is amazing becoming potentially 

dangerous as well as making it unsafe for the rest of us that take it seriously and make a living doing it. 

Sincerely,

Brook Aitken

Cinematographer

Boulder Co 80303

www.brookaitken.com
#### Pat Cicala *v.*Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act

*George N. Wakelee,*in support of the motion.

Submitted August 13

decided September 24, 1969

The motion by the plaintiff to strike certain portions of the assignment of errors in the appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County is denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.35

Kathleen Flanagan and Colleen McKeown Adstedt have entered into Transition
Assistance Agreements that are substantially identical in all material respects
to the agreement with Clyde L. Thomas that is filed as Exhibit 10.34 to this
Annual Report on Form 10-K.
# C_2015171EN.01002402.xml

| 26.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/24

---

Order of the General Court of 17 March 2015 — Mammoet Salvage BV v Commission

(Case T-234/14) (1)

1

((‘Action for declaration that an institution has failed to act and for damages - Contractual liability - Non-contractual liability - Plea of inadmissibility - Eighth European Development Fund - Works to remove 74 wrecks from the Bay of Nouadhibou - Contract concluded between the applicant and Mauritania and taken up by the Commission for funding by the European Union - Execution of a contract - Report on the end date for payments from the European Union under the contract - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law’))

(2015/C 171/29)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mammoet Salvage BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: P.Kuypers and A.Schadd, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P.Van Nuffel and S.Bartlet, agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

An action under article 265 of TFEU seeking a declaration that the Commission had unlawfully refrained from acceding to the applicant’s request to extend the period for payments from the European Union pursuant to the contract for the work of removing 74 wrecks from the Bay of Nouadhibou (Mauritania) between the Islamic Republic of Mauritania and the applicant and accepted for financing by the Commission under the Eighth European Development Fund and, in the alternative, an action ordering the Commission to pay the invoices issued by the applicant under the above-mentioned contract on the basis of the contractual liability of the European Union and, in the further alternative, an action seeking recognition of the non-contractual liability of the European Union.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Mammoet Salvage is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mammoet Salvage is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 184, 16.6.2014.

1

---
#### § 822.17 How long will your review of my submission take?

We will review your submission within 60 days of receipt.
# cm C lnventoryExpertService A division of the American Chemical Society Phone: 800-631-1884, 614-447-3870 Fax:614-447-3747 E-maii: answersQcas.org Web: www.cas.org/products/other-cas-products/client-senrices/


# INVENTORY EXPERT SERVICE REPORT
IES Order Nnmber: 378763-1 Registry Nnmber: Not Registered 

# c CA Index Name:

Please print the above CA Index Name on the appropriate page of your PMN. 

# a If this box is checked, CAS has made correction(s) marked in red to your IES order. Please make the same corrections to your PMN before submitting it to the EPA. CAS - 2540 Olentangy River Road - P.O. Box 3343 • Columbus, OH 43210-0334 - USA
39000.

#### FISHER v. THE STATE.

Decided September 6, 1961.

*360
      *Gordon Knox, Jr., A. R. Ross,*for plaintiff in error.

*Albert D. Mullís, Solicitor-General, Will Ed Smith,*contra.

Jordan, Judge.'

This is the second appearance of this case in this court. See *Fisher v. State,*102 Ga. App. 505 (116 SE2d 640). The question to be here decided is whether or not there was sufficient evidence to authorize the finding of the jury. The defendant contends that there was no direct evidence that his automobile struck the deceased and that the evidence relied upon by the State was wholly circumstantial. While a considerable part of the State’s case is based upon circumstantial evidence, there was the positive direct testimony of the two witnesses who were following the defendant’s car to the effect that they saw his car swerve off the. highway at which time they saw a cloud of dust and an.object flying into the air, and that this object was *361seen to be the- body of the deceased immediately upon their arrival at the scene of the accident. Other witnesses who heard the impact, saw the cloud of dust and the object in the air identified the car which hit the object as being the same make and color car which was' being driven by the defendant at the time he was apprehended.

Witnesses at the scene of the accident fixed the time at approximately five minutes before 8 p.m. While other testimony would indicate an earlier time, the jury was authorized to believe that the accident occurred some 32 minutes-after the defendant left Cochran,-Ga., giving ample time for his vehicle to be-at -the scene of the accident traveling at a normal speed. This theory of the defense as well as the possibility that the defendant suffered an epileptic seizure at the time, together -with the theory that some other vehicle could have struck the deceased have all been decided against the defendant by-the jury. A jury -has seen proper to render a verdict against the defendant in a case turning upon questions of fact; the judge who presided in the case has approved the verdict; the motion for new trial is confined-to the general grounds, and this court, in accordance with the rule of non-interference in such cases, must affirm the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial. *Walters v. Freeman,*116 Ga. 423 (42 SE 741); *Meadows v. State,*186 Ga. 592 (199 SE 133). Where the verdict is supported by some evidence and is approved by the trial court, this court is without authority to interfere. *Humphries v. State,*78 Ga. App. 139 (50 SE2d 799) After a careful consideration of the facts in this casé we must conclude that there was ample evidence to authorize the verdict of the jury. The judgment of the trial court in-overruling the motion for a new trial is therefore affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Townsend, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<PAGE>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 1996
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF USA DETERGENTS, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           2,373
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,545
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,349)
<INVENTORY>                                     32,657
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                64,976
<PP&E>                                          33,473
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,870)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  98,904
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,414
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           138
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,121
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    98,904
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               174,031
<CGS>                                          115,338
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   35,634
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,412
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,421
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 868
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,779
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,912
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,647
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,867
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .65





</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.28

DATE: MARCH 28, 2003

IRREVOCABLE STANDBY LETTER OF CREDIT NUMBER: 3055120


BENEFICIARY:                                 APPLICANT:

TORONTO DOMINION (TEXAS), INC.               CARAUSTAR INDUSTRIES, INC.
909 FANNIN                                   3100 JOE JERKINS BLVD.
HOUSTON, TX 77010                            AUSTELL, GA 30106
ATTN: CAROL BRANDT                           ATTN: WILLIAM NIX

AMOUNT: $28,369,452.50 U.S. DOLLARS

EXPIRATION: JANUARY 15, 2004, AT OUR COUNTERS

         WE HEREBY ESTABLISH IN YOUR FAVOR OUR IRREVOCABLE STANDBY LETTER OF
CREDIT NO. 3055120 WHICH IS AVAILABLE WITH BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. BY PAYMENT
AGAINST PRESENTATION OF YOUR DRAFTS AT SIGHT DRAWN ON BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
ACCOMPANIED BY THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT:

BENEFICIARY'S SIGNED STATEMENT CERTIFYING THAT A DEMAND HAS BEEN RECEIVED UNDER
ITS LETTER OF CREDIT NO. 1609, ITS LETTER OF CREDIT NO. 1622, OR BOTH OF THEM,
THAT THE AMOUNT BEING DRAWN REPRESENTS FIFTY PERCENT (50%) OF THE OBLIGATIONS
DUE BENEFICIARY BY STANDARD GYPSUM, L.P., AND THEREFORE PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT
OF $ ___________ IS NOW DUE.

         DEMANDS BY FACSIMILE PRESENTATION TO FACSIMILE NUMBER (213) 345-6694,
ARE PERMITTED UNDER THIS LETTER OF CREDIT.

         DEMANDS RECEIVED BY 8:00 AM LOS ANGELES TIME IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS LETTER OF CREDIT WILL BE HONORED ON THE SAME DAY.
DEMANDS RECEIVED AFTER 8:00 AM LOS ANGELES TIME IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS
AND CONDITION OF THIS LETTER OF CREDIT WILL BE HONORED ON THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY.

<PAGE>
     WE HEREBY AGREE WITH THE BENEFICIARY THAT DOCUMENTS PRESENTED TO OUR
OFFICE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS LETTER OF CREDIT
WILL BE DULY HONORED AS SPECIFIED HEREIN.

     THIS LETTER OF CREDIT IS SUBJECT TO THE INTERNATIONAL STANDBY PRACTICES
1998, ICC PUBLICATION NO. 590 ("ISP") AND SHALL, AS TO MATTERS NOT GOVERNED BY
ISP 98, BE GOVERNED AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
NEW YORK.

     IF YOU REQUIRE ANY ASSISTANCE OR HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS
LETTER OF CREDIT PLEASE CALL (213) 345-0397.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.

/s/ SANDRA LEON       SANDRA LEON         /s/ STELLA ROSALES  STELLA ROSALES
---------------------                     --------------------
AUTHORIZED OFFICER                        AUTHORIZED OFFICER
---

EXHIBIT 13.A.


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Transition Report of Petaquilla Minerals Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal period ended June 30, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joao Manuel, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: 1.

   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.

   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ Joao Manuel Joao Manuel(Principal executive officer) Dated: October 31, 2013 The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.


---
---

Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Smart-tek Solutions,
Inc., (the "Company") on Form 10K/A, Amendment No.1 for the year ending June 30,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Brian Bonar, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of the undersigneds knowledge and
belief:

(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 result of operations of the Company.

/s/ Brian BonarBrian BonarChief Executive
Officer, President and Director

March 15, 2011

---
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




I,
Dominick Ragone, Chief Financial Officer of Icahn Enterprises G.P. Inc., the
general partner of Icahn Enterprises L.P. (the “Registrant”), certify that, to
the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Icahn Enterprises L.P.,
quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 of the
Registrant (the “Report”):




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




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




/s/
      Dominick RagoneDominick
      RagoneChief
      Financial Officer of Icahn Enterprises G.P. Inc.,
                  the
      general partner of Icahn Enterprises L.P.


Date: May
6, 2009
§ 520.563 Diatrizoate. ( a ) *Specifications.* Diatrizoate meglumine oral solution is a water soluble radiopaque medium containing 66 percent diatrizoate meglumine and 10 percent diatrizoate sodium.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 054771 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use in dogs and cats* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* Administer orally 0.5 to 1.0 milliliter per pound of body weight by gavage or stomach tube. Administered rectally 0.5 to 1.0 milliliter per pound of body weight diluted with 1 part of the drug to 5 parts of water.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* For radiography of the gastrointestinal tract.
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[44 FR 12993, Mar. 9, 1979, as amended at 50 FR 41489, Oct. 11, 1985; 79 FR 28820, May 20, 2014]