alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 310.529 Drug products containing active ingredients offered over-the-counter (OTC) for oral use as insect repellents. ( a ) Thiamine hydrochloride (vitamin B-1) has been marketed as an ingredient in over-the-counter (OTC) drug products for oral use as an insect repellent (an orally administered drug product intended to keep insects away). There is a lack of adequate data to establish the effectiveness of this, or any other ingredient for OTC oral use as an insect repellent. Labeling claims for OTC orally administered insect repellent drug products are either false, misleading, or unsupported by scientific data. The following claims are examples of some that have been made for orally administered OTC insect repellent drug products: “Oral mosquito repellent,” “mosquitos avoid you,” “bugs stay away,” “keep mosquitos away for 12 to 24 hours,” and “the newest way to fight mosquitos.” Therefore, any drug product containing ingredients offered for oral use as an insect repellent cannot be generally recognized as safe and effective.
( b ) Any OTC drug product that is labeled, represented, or promoted for oral use as an insect repellent is regarded as a new drug within the meaning of section 201(p) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act for which an approved new drug application under section 505 of the act and part 314 of this chapter is required for marketing. In the absence of an approved new drug application, such product is also misbranded under section 502 of the act.
( c ) Clinical investigations designed to obtain evidence that any drug product labeled, represented, or promoted OTC for oral use as an insect repellent is safe and effective for the purpose intended must comply with the requirements and procedures governing the use of investigational new drugs set forth in part 312 of this chapter.
( d ) Any such drug product in interstate commerce after December 17, 1985, that is not in compliance with this section is subject to regulatory action.
[40 FR 25171, June 17, 1985, as amended at 55 FR 11579, Mar. 29, 1990]
Editorial Note on Part 870
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 870 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 870.1670 Syringe actuator for an injector. ( a ) *Identification.* A syringe actuator for an injector is an electrical device that controls the timing of an injection by an angiographic or indicator injector and synchronizes the injection with the electrocardiograph signal.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk February 6, 2013

p0130 

# Order

February 6, 2013

145828

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145828

COA: 307496

Oakland CC: 1994

- 133674

- FC

GARY L. MORRIS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 27, 2012

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

C AVANAGH , J., would grant leave to appeal.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit Byron White United States Courthouse

1823 Stout Street Denver, Colorado 80294 (303) 844-3157
Patrick Fisher Clerk Elisabeth A. Shumaker Chief Deputy Clerk
4/28/06

TO: ALL RECIPIENTS OF THE CAPTIONED ORDER AND JUDGMENT RE: 95-5124, Brown v. Tulsa County Board of Commissioners April 18, 1996 by Judge Seymour
Please be advised of the following correction to the captioned decision: Page 3, item 2, the word “if” has been corrected to the word “is”. Please make this correction to your copy.
Very truly yours, Patrick Fisher, Clerk By: Barbara Schermerhorn Deputy Clerk* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors thecitation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 4/18/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

JERRY LEWIS BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. TULSA COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, TULSA COUNTY, and THE CITY OF TULSA, Defendant-Appellees. No. 95-5124 (D.C. No. 94-C-1105-B) (N.D. Okla.)



### ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR , Chief Judge, McKAYand LUCERO , Circuit Judges. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-3-

Mr. Jerry Lewis Brown filed this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the Tulsa County Board of County Commissioners, Tulsa County, and the City of Tulsa deprived him of his statutory right to a competency hearing prior to the initiation of criminal procedures against him. See Okla. Stat. Tit. 22, §§ 1175 et seq. The district court granted the City’s motion to dismiss because Mr. Brown failed to respond, and dismissed the action against the Board of County Commissioners and Tulsa County for lack of service. Mr. Browns appeals. This matter is before the court on appellant’s motion for leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs or fees. In order to succeed on his motion, an appellant must show both : 1. A financial inability to pay the required filing fees and 2. The existence of a nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Coppedge v. United States , 369 U.S. 438 (1962); Ragan v. Cox , 305 F.2d 58 (10th Cir. 1962). We conclude that appellant can make no rational argument on the law or facts in support of the issues raised on appeal, as required by paragraph two above. therefore, the motion for leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs or fees is denied. It is further ordered as follows: 1. The filing fee is waived;-4-

2. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED; and 3. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT Stephanie K. Seymour Chief Judge
# C_2016027EN.01005101.xml

| 25.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/51

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 December 2015 — Infusion Brands v OHIM (DUALSAW)

(Case T-647/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for the Community figurative mark DUALSAW - Absolute grounds for refusal - Partial refusal of registration - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 027/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Infusion Brands, Inc. (Myerlake Circle Clearwater, Florida, United States) (represented by: K. Piepenbrink, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by V. Melgar, and subsequently by H. O’Neill and M. Rajh, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 July 2014 (Case R 397/2014-4), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign DUALSAW as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Infusion Brands, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Infusion Brands, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 380, 27.10.2014.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.5

                                  AMENDMENT NO. 3
                (DATED FEBRUARY 1, 1999 FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY)
                                          
                           To Lease Dated April 15, 1994
                                          
                Between PRESBYTERIAN HEALTH FOUNDATION as Landlord,
        and UROCOR, INC. formerly known as CytoDiagnostics, Inc., as Tenant

     WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant are the parties to the above described Lease
for the Building located at 800 N. Research Parkway; and,

Landlord and Tenant mutually desire to amend the above-described lease, (amended
via Amendment No. 1 dated April 14, 1997 and Amendment No. 2 dated April 14,
1998) as follows:

The provisions of this Amendment No. 3 shall supersede and control any
inconsistent provisions contained in the Lease, regardless of whether such
inconsistent provisions are contained in the printed portion of the Lease or any
rider, addendum, amendment or exhibit annexed thereto.

1)   Tenant agrees to pay an additional $15,000 per month in Rent for the months
     of January through April in the year 1999.

2)   Tenant agrees to pay an additional $3,750 per month in Rent for the months
     of January through December in the year 2000.

3)   The "Inducement" clause of Amendment No. 2 will be deleted in its entirety
     and replaced with the following:

     "Landlord agrees to reimburse Tenant the depreciated value of previous
     Tenant-paid leasehold improvements which will remain in the Building
     located at 800 N. Research Parkway."

4)   Tenant will pay the cost of architectural services for space planning.

Both parties agree to the terms of the Lease Agreement as amended by Amendment
No. 1, Amendment No. 2 and this Amendment No. 3 and the Lease Agreement shall
continue in full force and effect.

Landlord:      Presbyterian Health Foundation

By:            /s/  Dennis McGrath                     Date:     3/15/99
               --------------------------------                  -------
               Dennis McGrath, Vice President

Tenant:             UROCOR, INC.

By:            /s/ Michael W. George                   Date:     2/17/99
               --------------------------------                  -------
               Michael W. George
               President/Chief Operating Officer


                                        -1-
# C_2015007EN.01004901.xml

| 12.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/49

---

Action brought on 15 September 2014 — ZZ v ECB

(Case F-94/14)

(2015/C 007/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the Executive Board of the ECB not to grant the applicant an additional salary increase, in the context of the annual revision of salaries and bonuses for 2014.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Executive Board, adopted on 25 February 2014 and notified to the staff on 3 March 2014, not to grant the applicant an additional increase in salary for 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Executive Board, adopted on 25 February 2014 and notified to the staff on 3 March 2014, not to grant the applicant an additional increase in salary for 2014;

| — | annul the decision dismissing the special appeal dated 1 July 2014 and received on 7 July 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision dismissing the special appeal dated 1 July 2014 and received on 7 July 2014;

| — | if necessary, annul the decision of the competent Head of Department/DG-H not to consider or propose the applicant for an additional salary increase, notified implicitly by the decision of the Executive Board of 25 February 2014 and by the decision to dismiss the special appeal of 1 July 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

if necessary, annul the decision of the competent Head of Department/DG-H not to consider or propose the applicant for an additional salary increase, notified implicitly by the decision of the Executive Board of 25 February 2014 and by the decision to dismiss the special appeal of 1 July 2014;

| — | order compensation for the material damage consisting of the loss of an opportunity to obtain an additional salary increase in 2014 evaluated at EUR 51  962 or, alternatively, annulment of the procedure leading up to the decision of 25 February 2014 and the organisation by the ECB of a new procedure for granting additional salary increases for 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

order compensation for the material damage consisting of the loss of an opportunity to obtain an additional salary increase in 2014 evaluated at EUR 51  962 or, alternatively, annulment of the procedure leading up to the decision of 25 February 2014 and the organisation by the ECB of a new procedure for granting additional salary increases for 2014;

| — | order the defendant to pay compensation for the non-material damage suffered, assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 5  000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay compensation for the non-material damage suffered, assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 5  000;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

---
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A1260. RAFAEL CRAPPS v. THE STATE.

In 2016, Rafael Crapps pled guilty to three counts of aggravated assault and

one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He subsequently filed,

among other things, a motion to withdraw his guilty plea and a motion for an out-oftime appeal, which the trial court denied. We dismissed an application for

discretionary review from that order as untimely. See Case No. A18D0366 (Apr. 3,

2018). On November 6, 2018 Crapps filed a “motion to vacate judgment deemed

void.” In the motion, Crapps argued that counsel provided ineffective assistance by

failing to inform him of a plea offer that was less than the sentence he eventually

received. The trial court denied his motion, and Crapps filed this appeal. We,

however, lack jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court has made clear that a motion seeking to challenge an

allegedly invalid or void judgment of conviction “is not one of the established

procedures for challenging the validity of a judgment in a criminal case” and that an

appeal from the denial of such a motion is subject to dismissal. Roberts v. State, 286

Ga. 532, 532 (690 SE2d 150) (2010). Because Crapps is not authorized to

March 12, 2019
collaterally attack his conviction in this manner, his appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

See id.; Jordan v. State, 253 Ga. App. 510, 511 (1) (559 SE2d 528) (2002). 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

03/12/2019
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


(CELERIS CORPORATION LETTERHEAD)


April 1, 2002

United States Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Judiciary Plaza
Washington, D.C. 20549

Re: Letter responsive to Temporary Note 3T to Article 3 of Regulation S-X

Dear Sir or Madam:

In compliance with Temporary Note 3T to Article 3 of Regulation S-X, I am
writing to inform you that Arthur Andersen LLP ("Andersen") has represented to
Celeris Corporation ("Celeris") that Andersen's audit of the consolidated
balance sheets of Celeris and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and December
31, 2000, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders'
equity and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December
31, 2001, was subject to Andersen's quality control system for the U.S.
accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the
engagement was conducted in compliance with professional standards, that there
was appropriate continuity of Andersen personnel working on the audit and
availability of national office consultation. Availability of personnel at
foreign affiliates of Andersen is not relevant to this audit.

 Sincerely,
/s/ Paul R. Johnson
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
§ 822.9 What must I include in my submission? Your submission must include the following: ( a ) Organizational/administrative information: ( 1 ) Your name and address;
( 2 ) Generic and trade names of your device;
( 3 ) Name and address of the contact person for the submission;
( 4 ) Premarket application/submission number and device identifiers for your device;
( 5 ) Table of contents identifying the page numbers for each section of the submission;
( 6 ) Description of the device (this may be incorporated by reference to the appropriate premarket application/submission);
( 7 ) Product codes and a list of all relevant model numbers; and
( 8 ) Indications for use and claims for the device;
( b ) Postmarket surveillance plan;
( c ) Designated person information; ( 1 ) Name, address, and telephone number; and
( 2 ) Experience and qualifications.
[67 FR 38887, June 6, 2002, as amended at 78 FR 58823, Sept. 24, 2013]
UNITED STATESENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

MEMORANDUM DATE: June 24, 2014 OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTIONPREVENTION

SUBJECT: Thiabendazole and Salts: Health Effects Division's Response to Comments on the Thiabendazole Preliminary Work Plan (PWP) for Registration Review PC Code: 060101 (thiabendazole); 060102 (thiabendazole hypophosphite) Decision No.: 491835 Petition No.: NIA RiskAssessment Type: N/ A TXRNo.:N/A MRIDNo.: N/A FROM: Jessica Kidwell, Risk Assessor DP Barcode: 420713 Registration No.: N/A Regulatory Action: Registration Review CaseNo.: 2670 CAS No.: 148-79-8 (thiabendazole); 28558-32-9 (thiabendazole hypophosphite) 40 CFR: §180.242



## .j#f_ Sue Hummel, Chemist
.

### ~tr' Bonnie Cropp-Kohlligian, Dietary o ure RAB IV, Health Effects Division (HED) (7509P) 

# c/J IL? THROUGH: ElissaReaves, Ph.D., Branch Chief**~~** RAB IV, Health Effects Division (HED) (7509P) TO: Ricardo Jones, RM51 Thomas Moriarty RMIBI, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P) Two public comments were received onthe thiabendazole PWP which are pertinentto HED concerns. Bothpertained to international harmonization. Comments: Syngentarequested thatthe tolerance expression for thiabendazole be changed to parent only to harmonize internationally. They did not suggesttolerance levels for harmonization. The Northwest Horticultural Council expressed interest in continuing the registration for thiabendazole onpome fruit, and tabulatedthe MRLs on apples and pears internationally. Theyrequested that the tolerance be harmonized, but did not suggest a level. Page 1 of2HED Response: HED thanks the two commenters for their input. International harmonization, including both

- tolerance expressions and tolerance levels, are always a consideration in registrationreview. The Agency will be updating and harmonizing the tolerance expression and the tolerance levels internationally. The comments will prove useful inthat effort.

Page 2 of2
# C_2017121EN.01002201.xml

| 18.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2017 — JingAo Solar and Others v Council

(Case T-157/14) (1)

1

((Dumping - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating in or consigned from China - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Undertakings - Action for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Exporting country - Scope of the investigation - Sampling - Normal value - Definition of the product concerned - Time limit for the adoption of a decision on a market economy treatment claim - Temporal application of new provisions - Injury - Causal link))

(2017/C 121/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: JingAo Solar Co. Ltd (Ningjin, China) and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex (represented initially by A. Willems, S. De Knop and J. Charles, and subsequently by A. Willems and S. De Knop, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen, acting as Agent, B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and S. Gubel, lawyer)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented initially by J.-F. Brakeland, T. Maxian Rusche, and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, and subsequently by J.-F. Brakeland, T. Maxian Rusche, and A. Demeneix, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 1), in so far as it applies to the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders JingAo Solar Co. Ltd, and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders JingAo Solar Co. Ltd, and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

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

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 159, 26.5.2014.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 864
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 864 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 864.7490 Sulfhemoglobin assay. ( a ) *Identification.* A sulfhemoglobin assay is a device consisting of the reagents, calibrators, controls, and instrumentation used to determine the sulfhemoglobin (a compound of sulfur and hemoglobin) content of human blood as an aid in the diagnosis of sulfhemoglobinemia (presence of sulfhemoglobin in the blood due to drug administration or exposure to a poison). This measurement may be made using methods such as spectroscopy, colorimetry, spectrophotometry, or gasometry.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
[45 FR 60621, Sept. 12, 1980]
§ 82.706 FD&C Yellow No. 6. ( a ) The color additive FD&C Yellow No. 6 shall conform in identity and specifications to the requirements of § 74.706 (a)(1) and (b) of this chapter.
( b ) All lakes including current D&C external and D&C lakes of FD&C Yellow No. 6 shall be manufactured from previously certified batches of the straight color additive.
[52 FR 21509, June 8, 1987]