alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 866
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 866 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 866.2420 Oxidase screening test for gonorrhea. ( a ) *Identification.* An oxidase screening test for gonorrhea is an in vitro device that consists of the articles intended to identify by chemical reaction, cytochrome oxidase, an oxidizing enzyme that is associated with certain bacteria including *Neisseria gonorrhoeae.* A sample of a male's urethral discharge is obtained on a swab which is placed into a wetting agent containing an ingredient that will react with cytochrome oxidase. When cytochrome oxidase is present, the swab turns a dark purple color within 3 minutes. Because it is unlikely that cytochrome oxidase-positive organisms other than *Neisseria gonorrhoeae* are present in the urethral discharge of males, the identification of cytochrome oxidase with this device indicates presumptive infection of the patient with the causative agent of gonorrhea.
( b ) *Classification.* Class III (premarket approval) (transitional device).
( c ) *Date PMA or notice of completion of a PDP is required.* As of May 28, 1976, an approval under section 515 of the act is required before this device may be commercially distributed. See § 866.3.
[47 FR 50823, Nov. 9, 1982, as amended at 52 FR 17734, May 11, 1987]
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Forms F-3 No. 333-12096, No. 333-13550 and No. 333-84510) of
Deutsche Telekom AG of our report dated March 26, 2001, except for Notes 40, 41,
42 and 43 as to which the date is February 13, 2002, relating to the
consolidated financial statements, which appears in this Form 20-F.


April 15, 2003



PwC Deutsche Revision
Aktiengesellschaft
Wirtschaftspruefungsgesellschaft
Frankfurt am Main



(Frings)                                    (Laue)
Wirtschaftspruefer                          Wirtschaftspruefer
Editorial Note on Part 864
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 864 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 864.3600 Microscopes and accessories. ( a ) *Identification.* Microscopes and accessories are optical instruments used to enlarge images of specimens, preparations, and cultures for medical purposes. Variations of microscopes and accessories (through a change in the light source) used for medical purposes include the following: ( 1 ) Phase contrast microscopes, which permit visualization of unstained preparations by altering the phase relationship of light that passes around the object and through the object.
( 2 ) Fluorescense microscopes, which permit examination of specimens stained with fluorochromes that fluoresce under ultraviolet light.
( 3 ) Inverted stage microscopes, which permit examination of tissue cultures or other biological specimens contained in bottles or tubes with the light source mounted above the specimen.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). These devices are exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 864.9. If the device is not labeled or otherwise represented as sterile, it is exempt from the current good manufacturing practice requirements of the quality system regulation in part 820 of this chapter, with the exception of § 820.180, with respect to general requirements concerning records, and § 820.198, with respect to complaint files.
[45 FR 60590, Sept. 12, 1980, as amended at 54 FR 25044, June 12, 1989; 66 FR 38789, July 25, 2001]
# C_2015398EN.01007701.xml

| 30.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/77 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/77

---

Order of the General Court of 13 October 2015 — Mabrouk v Council

(Case T-218/14) (1)

1

(2015/C 398/89)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.

1

---
<PAGE>   1
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549


                                    FORM 8-K


                            Current Report Pursuant
                         to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
                        Securities Exchange Act of 1934


                          Date of Report: May 28, 1999


                       Shampan, Lamport Holdings Limited
                       ---------------------------------
             (Exact Name of Registrant as specified in its charter)


     Washington                   333-07727                    98-0138706
(State of Incorporation)   (Commission File Number)     (IRS Identification No.)


               1260-609 Granville Street, Vancouver B.C. V7Y 1G5
              ---------------------------------------------------
              (Address of Principal Executive Office Postal Code)


                                 (604) 687-0888
                                 --------------
              (Registrant's telephone number including area code)













<PAGE>   2

Item 5. Other Events

At the request of the Company, the Company's shares of common stock (the
"Shares") ceased to trade on the Vancouver Stock Exchange (symbol: SLL.U)
effective at the close of business on May 28, 1999. The Shares shall continue
to trade on the OTC Bulletin Board in the United States (symbol: SLHX).


<PAGE>   3

                              SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.



                                    SHAMPAN, LAMPORT HOLDINGS LIMITED



Date:  May 28, 1999                      By:   /s/ William D. McCartney
                                             ----------------------------
                                                   William D. McCartney
                                                   Director
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER OF A BATEMENT

Appellate case name: In re Estate of Debra E. Hunt, Deceased (Tracy Mitchell and Andrea

Vasquez v. Arabia Vargas, Independent Exec utor of the Estate of

Debra E. Hunt, Decea sed)

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 9

- 00 216

- CV

Trial court case number: PR

- 0077954

Trial court: P robate Court of Galveston County

The a ppellant s fi led a notice of appeal from the trial court ’ s November 12, 2018 order

denying their motion for partial summa ry judgment and granting the appellee ’ s motion for partial

s ummary judgment. On October 8, 2019, th is c ourt notified the parties of its intent to dismiss this

appeal for lack of subject

- matter juris d iction because the order from which the appellants have

a ppealed is n ot a final judgment

. In res ponse, the app ellants have filed an unopposed motion to

abate th is appeal so that the parties may re turn to the trial court and dismiss the ir re maining

claim s th ereby rendering the trial court ’ s pa rtial summary judgme nt final and appealable.

We therefore abate this appeal for 60 days to allow the parties to return t o the trial court

to (1) dismiss their remaining pending claims and (2) su pplement the clerk ’ s record to reflect (a)

d ismissal of th ese c laims and (b) ent ry of a final appe alable judgment.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this c ourt’s active

docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this c ourt’s active docket when a supplemental clerk ’ s

record i s filed that show s that the par ties have dis missed their rem aining claims and the trial

court has signed a final appealable judgment

. The parties are notified that i f a supplemental

clerk’s record making these showing s is not filed within 60 days , th is c ourt may dismiss the

appeal for w ant of jurisdiction without further notice. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(a).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Gordon Goodman

Acting individually

Date: November 7 , 201 9
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 96-3528

_____________

James M. McGaffin, III, and *

Deborah McGaffin, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * On Appeal from the

* United States Tax Court.

*

Commissioner of Internal *

Revenue, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: April 14, 1997

 Filed: April 22, 1997

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, FAGG and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, ministers and other members of the

clergy can receive an exemption from self-employment tax if they are

conscientiously opposed to the tax and if they file a request for the

exemption, called a Form 4361, by a certain specified time. The question

presented in this case is whether the taxpayers, the Reverend and Mrs.

James McGaffin, III, appellants in 
James M. McGaffin, III, T.C. Memo. 1996-290 (June 24, 1996) 1

(John F. Dean, Special Trial Judge).

-2-

this Court, made a timely filing of their Form 4361. The Tax Court found 1

against them, and they appeal.

We affirm. The question whether the form was filed on time is a

question of fact. The taxpayers had the burden of proof. After a trial,

the Tax Court found that the form was not mailed on time. Mr. McGaffin

testified that it was mailed on time, on April l5, 1986, along with his

income-tax return for the year 1985. The records of the Internal Revenue

Service, on the other hand, show that the income-tax return was not

received until June 9, 1986. There is no record of the Form 4361's ever

being received. The Tax Court was convinced that the Form 4361 was mailed

along with the income-tax return, crediting Mr. McGaffin’s testimony to

this extent, but it was not convinced that the form and the return were

mailed on April 15, 1986, which was the deadline for the filing of the

form.

The finding of the Tax Court is not clearly erroneous. It was not

required to believe all of Mr. McGaffin’s testimony. As the trier of fact

with both live and documentary evidence before it, it was open to the Tax

Court to conclude that the taxpayer’s memory was faulty. The judgment is

Affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Patrick Seno

The petition by the defendant for a writ of coram nobis is dismissed.

The motion by the defendant for an order to show cause is dismissed.

*647
      *Patrick Seno,*pro se, on the petition and on the motion.

*David B. Salzman,*assistant state’s attorney, on the motion.

Submitted September 15

decided September 24, 1969

Submitted September 9

decided September 24, 1969

The motion by the state for an order requiring or appointing counsel for the defendant is dismissed.
# C_2014184EN.01001102.xml

| 16.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 12 March 2014 — Peggy Kieck v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

(Case C-118/14)

2014/C 184/15

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Peggy Kieck

Applicant:

Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is there also a right under Article 7 of Regulation No 261/20004 (1) to compensation where the departure of the booked flight is delayed by more than three hours, the passenger rebooks on another airline and the delay on arrival compared with the original flight is thereby appreciably reduced, whilst both the original flight and the replacement flight arrive at the original destination far more than three hours late? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is there also a right under Article 7 of Regulation No 261/20004 (1) to compensation where the departure of the booked flight is delayed by more than three hours, the passenger rebooks on another airline and the delay on arrival compared with the original flight is thereby appreciably reduced, whilst both the original flight and the replacement flight arrive at the original destination far more than three hours late?

1

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: is it decisive in this regard that the period of five hours, specified in Article 6(1)(iii), for application of Article 8(1) of the regulation has or has not expired? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: is it decisive in this regard that the period of five hours, specified in Article 6(1)(iii), for application of Article 8(1) of the regulation has or has not expired?

| 3. | Is it material whether the rebooking was made independently by the passenger or with the defendant’s help? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it material whether the rebooking was made independently by the passenger or with the defendant’s help?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

1

---
# C_2015089EN.01000201.xml

| 16.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/2

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 5 December 2014 — Rūdolfs Meroni v Recoletos Limited

(Case C-559/14)

(2015/C 089/02)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rūdolfs Meroni

Applicant:

Defendant: Recoletos Limited

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 34(1) of the Brussels I Regulation be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of proceedings for the recognition of a foreign judgment, infringement of the rights of persons who are not parties to the main proceedings may constitute grounds for applying the public policy clause contained in Article 34(1) of the Brussels I Regulation and for refusing to recognise the foreign judgment in so far as it affects persons who are not parties to the main proceedings? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 34(1) of the Brussels I Regulation be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of proceedings for the recognition of a foreign judgment, infringement of the rights of persons who are not parties to the main proceedings may constitute grounds for applying the public policy clause contained in Article 34(1) of the Brussels I Regulation and for refusing to recognise the foreign judgment in so far as it affects persons who are not parties to the main proceedings?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative, must Article 47 of the Charter be interpreted as meaning that the principle of the right to a fair trial set out therein allows proceedings for the adoption of provisional protective measures to limit the economic rights of a person who has not been a party to the proceedings, if provision is made to the effect that any person who is affected by the decision on the provisional protective measures is to have the right at any time to request the court to vary or discharge the judgment, in a situation in which it is left to the applicants to notify the decision to the persons concerned? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, must Article 47 of the Charter be interpreted as meaning that the principle of the right to a fair trial set out therein allows proceedings for the adoption of provisional protective measures to limit the economic rights of a person who has not been a party to the proceedings, if provision is made to the effect that any person who is affected by the decision on the provisional protective measures is to have the right at any time to request the court to vary or discharge the judgment, in a situation in which it is left to the applicants to notify the decision to the persons concerned?

---
§ 347.10 Skin protectant active ingredients. The active ingredients of the product consist of any of the following, within the concentration specified for each ingredient: ( a ) Allantoin, 0.5 to 2 percent.
( b ) Aluminum hydroxide gel, 0.15 to 5 percent.
( c ) Calamine, 1 to 25 percent.
( d ) Cocoa butter, 50 to 100 percent.
( e ) Cod liver oil, 5 to 13.56 percent, in accordance with § 347.20(a)(1) or (a)(2), provided the product is labeled so that the quantity used in a 24-hour period does not exceed 10,000 U.S.P. Units vitamin A and 400 U.S.P. Units cholecalciferol.
( f ) Colloidal oatmeal, 0.007 percent minimum; 0.003 percent minimum in combination with mineral oil in accordance with § 347.20(a)(4).
( g ) Dimethicone, 1 to 30 percent.
( h ) Glycerin, 20 to 45 percent.
( i ) Hard fat, 50 to 100 percent.
( j ) Kaolin, 4 to 20 percent.
( k ) Lanolin, 12.5 to 50 percent.
( l ) Mineral oil, 50 to 100 percent; 30 to 35 percent in combination with colloidal oatmeal in accordance with § 347.20(a)(4).
( m ) Petrolatum, 30 to 100 percent.
( n ) [Reserved]
( o ) Sodium bicarbonate.
( p ) [Reserved]
( q ) Topical starch, 10 to 98 percent.
( r ) White petrolatum, 30 to 100 percent.
( s ) Zinc acetate, 0.1 to 2 percent.
( t ) Zinc carbonate, 0.2 to 2 percent.
( u ) Zinc oxide, 1 to 25 percent.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

     In connection with the quarterly report of Avitar,  Inc. (the "Company") on
Form10-QSB for the period ending  December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter P. Phildius,
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, to
my knowledge, that:

     (1) The Report  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of  Section  13(a)
or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date: February 13, 2004

                                                      /s/ Peter P. Phildius
                                                      ---------------------
                                                      Peter P. Phildius Chief
                                                      Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                    EXHIBIT 21.1




                            SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY


MIT Unsecured, Inc., a California corporation, doing business in Tennessee as
"Metroplex Real Estate Co. (California)" and elsewhere as "MIT Unsecured, Inc."

MIT Secured, Inc., a California corporation, doing business as "MIT Secured,
Inc."

MJV III Corp., a California corporation, doing business as "MJV III Corp."

MJV IV Corp., a California corporation, doing business as "MJV IV Corp."

MIT-ULP, Inc., a California corporation, doing business as "MIT-ULP, Inc."

MIT-SLP, Inc., a California corporation, doing business as "MIT-SLP, Inc."


                                     - 43 -
Exhibit 10.1







Sport Endurance, Inc.


222 Broadway, 19th Floor


New York, NY 10038












May 1, 2017

















Re:          Sport Endurance, Inc. / Forbearance on Senior Secured Promissory Notes







Dear Sirs:







This letter agreement (the “Agreement”) acknowledges that in exchange for Sport Endurance, Inc. (the “Company”) paying ______________  $10 and other good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is acknowledged, ____ extends the due date of  the 10% Senior Secured Promissory Note (the “Senior Note”), to and including 5:00 pm on June 2, 2017, the “Due Date”).







Without modifying or amending the terms of the Senior Note, the Security Agreement or the Purchase Agreement, ____ agrees to forebear and not to seek collection against the Company of any amounts due under the Senior Note, Security Agreement or Purchase Agreement through and until the Due Date. The period of forbearance provided in this Agreement shall terminate on the Due Date if the amount due under the Senior Note is not paid within that period.







Except as modified by this Agreement, the Company hereby ratifies and confirms the terms and provisions of the Senior Note, the Security Agreement and the Purchase Agreement. The Senior Note, Security Agreement, Purchase Agreement and all other agreements, instruments and other documents executed in connection with the obligations of the Company under the Senior Note are legal, valid, binding and enforceable against the Company in accordance with their terms.







Any number of counterparts of this Agreement may be signed and delivered, each of which shall be considered an original and all of which, together, shall constitute one and the same instrument.







Please sign below evidencing your agreement to be bound by this Agreement and return to us.





















Very truly yours,












_________________________


David Lelong


President and CEO







We hereby agree to the foregoing:







______________________________












By:
# C_2016287EN.01002001.xml

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/20

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2016 — Peri v EUIPO (Shape of a formwork coupler)

(Case T-656/14) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Application for three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a formwork coupler - Absolute ground for refusal - Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of the product required to obtain a technical result - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 287/24)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Peri GmbH (Weißenhorn, Germany) (represented by A. Bognár and M. Eck, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 June 2014 (Case R 1178/2013-1), concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a formwork coupler as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Peri GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Peri GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 388, 3.11.2014.

1

---