alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 58.105 Test and control article characterization. ( a ) The identity, strength, purity, and composition or other characteristics which will appropriately define the test or control article shall be determined for each batch and shall be documented. Methods of synthesis, fabrication, or derivation of the test and control articles shall be documented by the sponsor or the testing facility. In those cases where marketed products are used as control articles, such products will be characterized by their labeling.
( b ) The stability of each test or control article shall be determined by the testing facility or by the sponsor either: ( 1 ) Before study initiation, or
( 2 ) concomitantly according to written standard operating procedures, which provide for periodic analysis of each batch.
( c ) Each storage container for a test or control article shall be labeled by name, chemical abstract number or code number, batch number, expiration date, if any, and, where appropriate, storage conditions necessary to maintain the identity, strength, purity, and composition of the test or control article. Storage containers shall be assigned to a particular test article for the duration of the study.
( d ) For studies of more than 4 weeks' duration, reserve samples from each batch of test and control articles shall be retained for the period of time provided by § 58.195.
[43 FR 60013, Dec. 22, 1978, as amended at 52 FR 33781, Sept. 4, 1987; 67 FR 9585, Mar. 4, 2002]
§ 74.2260 D&C Orange No. 10. ( a ) *Identity and specifications.* The color additive D&C Orange No. 10 shall conform in identity and specifications to the requirements of § 74.1260(a)(1) and (b).
( b ) *Uses and restrictions.* D&C Orange No. 10 may be safely used for coloring externally applied cosmetics in amounts consistent with good manufacturing practice.
( c ) *Labeling requirements.* The label of the color additive shall conform to the requirements of § 70.25 of this chapter.
( d ) *Certification.* All batches of D&C Orange No. 11 shall be certified in accordance with regulations in part 80 of this chapter.
[46 FR 18954, Mar. 27, 1981]
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed November 16, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-1112

Lower Tribunal No. F20-10705

________________

Guy Greene II,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Teresa 

Pooler, Judge.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Andrew Stanton, Assistant 

Public Defender, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Linda Katz, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee.

Before HENDON, MILLER and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: NEAL JONES; AMY JONES, 

Debtors,

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

NEAL JONES; AMY JONES, 

Appellants,

 v.

RUCHIR PATEL, 

Appellee.

No. 23-60018

BAP No. 22-1104

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

Faris, Lafferty III, and Spraker, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Submitted November 9, 2023** 

Phoenix, Arizona

Before: SCHROEDER, COLLINS, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

FILED

NOV 14 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The bankruptcy court entered judgment in favor of judgment creditor,

Ruchir Patel, holding that his Illinois judgment was enforceable against the

community property of Appellants Neal and Amy Jones in Arizona. The

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) affirmed, and the Joneses appeal. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d), and we affirm.

Appellants contend that under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-215(D), the judgment is

not enforceable against the community because Patel did not join both spouses in

the Illinois action. We have held that § 25-215(D) does not require joinder to

execute a foreign judgment against community property where, as here, the debt is

a community obligation, and there was no basis to name both spouses in the

foreign action. See Gagan v. Sharar, 376 F.3d 987, 992 (9th Cir. 2004).

Appellants acknowledge Gagan but contend that an intervening Arizona

Supreme Court decision undermines its holding. See Lattin v. Shamrock

Materials, LLC, 503 P.3d 116 (Ariz. 2022). Lattin, however, involved an award of

fees and costs, not a foreign judgment. Id. at 120. It did not affect the validity of

Gagan or overrule any of the cases on which Gagan relied.

There is no reason to certify this case to the Arizona Supreme Court. See

Childress v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 978 F.3d 664, 665 (9th Cir. 2020). Gagan

2
assesses the relevant Arizona case law and is binding precedent requiring

affirmance. Certification would only create further delay.

AFFIRMED.

3
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned, Kevin S. Herrmann, Chief Financial Officer of Ballantyne of Omaha, Inc. (the "Company"), has executed this certification in connection
with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the "Report").

The
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to his knowledge that:



IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the 1st day of April 2008.

|/s/KEVIN S. HERRMANNKevin S. Herrmann
Chief Financial Officer |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

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

---



QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-29-1996
<CASH>                                     (1,729,000)
<SECURITIES>                                 2,477,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,861,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,331,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,858,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,070,000
<PP&E>                                     110,604,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              21,641,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             142,706,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,386,000
<BONDS>                                      6,593,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       157,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 113,015,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               142,706,000
<SALES>                                    131,680,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           132,196,000
<CGS>                                       41,336,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               75,989,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            40,959,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,348,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,558,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   854,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            704,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   704,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.30

                              Charles F. Avery, Jr.
                                  Offer Summary

Position: Vice President - Finance, Selfix/Seymour

Starting salary: $120,000

Bonus target: 30% of salary if Selfix/Seymour's budgeted EBITDA profits are
achieved; subject to floor at 90% achievement level; no cap. Pro rata in 1998.
The bonus plan design is subject to annual review by the Board of Directors and
may change from time-to-time. There are currently no pending changes of
significance.

Stock options: 20,000 options at market price to be awarded and priced on
October 13, 1998 or at such other time as the Board shall meet and award
options. A cash award will be used to make up any shortfall between the option
price and the current market price.

Full benefit package: Health, dental, life, disability, 401(k), profit sharing,
stock purchase plan etc. consistent with Selfix/Seymour's current benefit plans.
A summary of such plans has been previously provided to you.

Severance agreement - A severance agreement will be provided after your first
day of employment that will guarantee a minimum of 6 months severance in the
event of termination without cause.
# C_2014439EN.01002401.xml

| 8.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 439/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 439/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Cagliari (Italy) lodged on 2 October 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Claudia Concu and Isabella Melis

(Case C-457/14)

(2014/C 439/32)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Cagliari

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Claudia Concu and Isabella Melis

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1) | Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU and the principles laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Union in [Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10 Costa and Cifone [2012] ECR I-0000] to be interpreted as precluding a call for tenders for the award of licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded in the past, where that tendering procedure has been launched in order to remedy the consequences of the unlawful exclusion of a certain number of operators from earlier tendering procedures? |
| --- | --- |

1)

Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU and the principles laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Union in [Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10 Costa and Cifone [2012] ECR I-0000] to be interpreted as precluding a call for tenders for the award of licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded in the past, where that tendering procedure has been launched in order to remedy the consequences of the unlawful exclusion of a certain number of operators from earlier tendering procedures?

Costa and Cifone

| 2) | Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU and the principles laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Costa and Cifone to be interpreted as precluding the possibility that sufficient justification for the shorter period of validity of licences offered for tender, as compared with licences awarded in the past, can be found in the requirement for the licensing system to be reorganised through the alignment of licence expiry dates? |
| --- | --- |

2)

Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU and the principles laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Costa and Cifone to be interpreted as precluding the possibility that sufficient justification for the shorter period of validity of licences offered for tender, as compared with licences awarded in the past, can be found in the requirement for the licensing system to be reorganised through the alignment of licence expiry dates?

Costa and Cifone

---
§ 74.3708 D&C Yellow No. 8. ( a ) *Identity and specifications.* The color additive D&C Yellow No. 8 shall conform in identity and specifications to the requirements of § 74.1708(a)(1) and (b).
( b ) *Uses and restrictions.* ( 1 ) D&C Yellow No. 8 may be safely used for coloring contact lens solution for coloring disposable daily-wear hydrogel-based soft (hydrophilic) contact lenses at a level not to exceed 0.044 percent in the contact lens solution. Following excitation by ultraviolet light, the colored contact lenses fluoresce a yellow-green color. The contact lens solution colored with D&C Yellow No. 8 is distributed by prescription only and used in accordance with the supplied directions for use. Contact lens solutions containing D&C Yellow No. 8 are intended for use only for coloring contact lenses that are worn for infrequent, celebratory occasions, and not for regular or daily use.
( 2 ) Authorization for this use 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 contact lens solution in which the color additive is used.
( c ) *Labeling.* The label of the color additive shall conform to the requirements of § 70.25 of this chapter.
( d ) *Certification.* All batches of D&C Yellow No. 8 shall be certified in accordance with regulations in part 80 of this chapter.
[83 FR 48375, Sept. 25, 2018]
Editorial Note on Part 868
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 868 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 868.1100 Arterial blood sampling kit. ( a ) *Identification.* An arterial blood sampling kit is a device, in kit form, used to obtain arterial blood samples from a patient for blood gas determinations. The kit may include a syringe, needle, cork, and heparin.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 868.9.
[47 FR 31142, July 16, 1982, as amended at 61 FR 1119, Jan. 16, 1996; 66 FR 38793, July 25, 2001]
38705.

#### DUNN *et al.*v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY.

Carlisle, Presiding Judge.

This was a declaratory judgment action brought by the insurance company against Dunn and others seeking to have declared therein the liability of the insurance company to defend the insured against an action *820brought by Dunn on account of personal injuries alleged to have been negligently inflicted by the insured ini the operation of a motor vehicle listed in an insurance policy issued by the company. At the conclusion of the trial, the judge of the superior court directed a verdict for the plaintiff against all of the defendants, holding that no coverage was afforded with respect to the occurrence in question. Subsequently, a motion for a judgment n. o. v. and for a new trial complaining of the directed verdict was overruled by the judge, and those judgments were brought to this court by writ of error. This court affirmed the trial court’s rulings. *Dunn v. Travelers Indemnity Co.,*103 Ga. App. 669 (120 SE2d 631). The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the ruling and judgment of this court and of the trial court. *Dunn v. Travelers Indemnity Co.,*217 Ga. 426 (122 SE2d 518). Accordingly, the judgment of affirmance originally entered in this case is vacated and the judgment of the trial court is reversed in accordance with the opinion and decision of the Supreme Court.

Decided November 20, 1961.

*Walton Hardin, Robert E. Knox,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Harry L. Greene, Clement E. Sutton,*contra.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Judges concur.*
Exhibit 10.4


 


		
        1 World Trade Center, 85th
        Floor

        New York, NY 10007 USA

        +1.212.220.8780

        mikes@drone1usa.com

        www.drone1usa.com

	 	 
	 	


 


Joint Venture Agreement between Drone
USA and Brvant


 


For two million shares of Drone USA (that represents XX%) and
One million dollars cash paid over a period to be defined at a later date, Drone USA will acquire the following:


 


1 – Drone USA acquires commercial rights and
privileges to BRVANT and all its employees' technology and Intellectual Property.


 


2 – Drone USA gets exclusive export and representation
rights.


 


3 – Drone USA has the option for no extra cost to acquire
as much BRVANT as it can without jeopardizing Brazilian government contracts, if Rodrigo Kuntz and Michael Bannon feel that would
be in the best interest of Drone USA and BRVANT.


 


4 – Drone USA has the preference to acquire full
ownership of BRVANT if Rodrigo Kuntz and Michael Bannon feel that would be in the best interest of Drone USA and BRVANT.


 


All terms and conditions will be defined in a separate document.


 


	/s/ Rodrigo Kuntz	 
	Rodrigo
    Kuntz (CEO Brvant)


 


	/s/ Michael
    Bannon	 
	Michael
    Bannon (CEO Drone USA)


 


Page 1 of 1

Confidential
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,297
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   52,661
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     22,388
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                78,183
<PP&E>                                          85,650
<DEPRECIATION>                                (47,824)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 137,625
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,778
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        22,491
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   137,625
<SALES>                                         55,283
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                55,283
<CGS>                                           39,016
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   50,125
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 789
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,369
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,529
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,840
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,840
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .45
        

</TABLE>
#### § 720.2 Times for filing.

Within 180 days after forms are made available to the industry, Form FDA 2512 should be filed for each cosmetic product being commercially distributed as of the effective date of this part. Form FDA 2512 should be filed within 60 days after the beginning of commercial distribution of any product not covered within the 180-day period.

[57 FR 3129, Jan. 28, 1992]
Exhibit 99(a)


         Written Statement of the President and Chief Executive Officer
                          Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350

         Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, I, the
undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer of Ladish Co., Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2002 (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.




 /s/  Kerry L. Woody
------------------------------
Kerry L. Woody
November 11, 2002
§ 50.22 Exception from informed consent requirements for minimal risk clinical investigations. The IRB responsible for the review, approval, and continuing review of the clinical investigation described in this section may approve an informed consent procedure that does not include or that alters some or all of the elements of informed consent set forth in § 50.25(a) and (b), or may waive the requirement to obtain informed consent, provided the IRB finds and documents the following: ( a ) The clinical investigation involves no more than minimal risk to the subjects;
( b ) The clinical investigation could not practicably be carried out without the requested waiver or alteration;
( c ) If the clinical investigation involves using identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens, the clinical investigation could not practicably be carried out without using such information or biospecimens in an identifiable format;
( d ) The waiver or alteration will not adversely affect the rights and welfare of the subjects; and
( e ) Whenever appropriate, the subjects or legally authorized representatives will be provided with additional pertinent information after participation.
[88 FR 88248, Dec. 21, 2023]
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE



I, James E. Winslow, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Home Products International, Inc., certify that:



|(1) | The Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 27, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Ace of 1934; and
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | The information contained in the foregoing report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Home Products International, Inc.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ JAMES E. WINSLOW                                
|James E. Winslow                                    
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Dated: May 5, 2004



The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350, Chapter 63 of
Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Home Products International, Inc. and will be retained by Home Products
International, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00630-CR

David Browne, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY, 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. CR2013-466, HONORABLE DIB WALDRIP, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D ER

PER CURIAM

The State’s brief was originally due on July 7, 2015. On counsel’s motions, the

deadline for filing was extended to September 30. State’s counsel has now filed a third motion

requesting that the Court extend the time for filing the State’s brief an additional 30 days. We grant

the motion for extension of time and order State’s counsel to file a brief no later than October 30,

2015. No further extension of time will be granted, and failure to comply with this order will result

in the case being submitted to this Court on the appellant’s brief alone.

It is ordered on October 2, 2015.

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Bourland

Do Not Publish