alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Kenneth E. Going *v.*Cromwell Fire District, Fire Department, et al.

Submitted July 16

decided July 16, 1969

The petition by Jay W. Jackson for leave to file a brief and to argue before this court in the reservation from the Superior Court in Middlesex County as amicus curiae is denied except to the extent of permitting him to file a brief.
§ 821.2 Exemptions and variances. ( a ) A manufacturer, importer, or distributor may seek an exemption or variance from one or more requirements of this part.
( b ) A request for an exemption or variance shall be submitted in the form of a petition under § 10.30 of this chapter and shall comply with the requirements set out therein, except that a response shall be issued in 90 days. The Director or Deputy Directors, CDRH, or the Director or Principal Deputy Director of the Office of Product Evaluation and Quality, CDRH, shall issue responses to requests under this section. The petition shall also contain the following: ( 1 ) The name of the device and device class and representative labeling showing the intended use(s) of the device;
( 2 ) The reasons that compliance with the tracking requirements of this part is unnecessary;
( 3 ) A complete description of alternative steps that are available, or that the petitioner has already taken, to ensure that an effective tracking system is in place; and
( 4 ) Other information justifying the exemption or variance.
( c ) An exemption or variance is not effective until the Director or Deputy Directors, CDRH, or the Director or Principal Deputy Director of the Office of Product Evaluation and Quality, CDRH, approves the request under § 10.30(e)(2)(i) of this chapter.
[58 FR 43447, Aug. 16, 1993, as amended at 59 FR 31138, June 17, 1994; 67 FR 5951, Feb. 8, 2002; 72 FR 17399, Apr. 9, 2007; 85 FR 18443, Apr. 2, 2020; 86 FR 17065, Apr. 1, 2021]
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7657 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7657

    To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to revise a certain 
 directive of the Veterans Health Administration of the Department of 
                           Veterans Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 13, 2024

 Mr. Finstad introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to revise a certain 
 directive of the Veterans Health Administration of the Department of 
                           Veterans Affairs.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Healthcare Freedom for VHA Volunteer 
Drivers Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. REVISION TO CERTAIN DIRECTIVE OF VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION 
              OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS REQUIRED.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall revise VHA 
Directive 1193.01(1) titled ``Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination 
Program for Veterans Health Administration Health Care Personnel'' and 
published on January 27, 2022 (as amended on December 1, 2022) to 
ensure that a covered individual may, subject to such conditions as the 
Secretary determines appropriate, volunteer to transport a veteran to a 
medical facility of the Department of Veterans Affairs for the purposes 
of receiving health care.
    (b) Covered Individual Defined.--In this section, the term 
``covered individual'' means an individual who has not received a 
vaccination against COVID-19.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT





The Board of Directors
Harbinger Corporation:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No.
333-30219), (No. 33-96774), (No. 333-42959) and (No. 333-03247) on Form S-8 of
Harbinger Corporation of our reports dated February 14, 1998, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of Harbinger Corporation as of December 31, 1997 and
1996, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders'
equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 1997, and the related financial statement schedule, which reports
appear in the 1997 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Harbinger Corporation.

Our reports dated February 14, 1998, which included references to other auditors
with respect to 1996 and 1995, as they relate to the 1996 and 1995 consolidated
financial statements of Premenos Technology Corp. and subsidiaries, and to the
1995 combined financial statements of Supply Tech, Inc. and Supply Tech
International, LLC which are included in the consolidated financial statements
of Harbinger Corporation, are based solely on the reports of the other auditors
as it relates to the amounts included for Premenos Technology Corp. and
subsidiaries for 1996 and 1995, and for Supply Tech, Inc. and Supply Tech
International, LLC for 1995.





                                             KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP




Atlanta, Georgia
March 26, 1998








                                       78
#### § 720.9 Misbranding by reference to filing or to statement number.

The filing of Form FDA 2512 or assignment of a number to the statement does not in any way denote approval by the Food and Drug Administration of the firm or the product. Any representation in labeling or advertising that creates an impression of official approval because of such filing or such number will be considered misleading.

[57 FR 3130, Jan. 28, 1992]
Editorial Note on Part 862
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 862 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 862.1615 Pregnenolone test system. ( a ) *Identification.* A pregnenolone test system is a device intended to measure pregnenolone (a precursor in the biosynthesis of the adrenal hormone cortisol and adrenal androgen) in serum and plasma. Measurements obtained by this device are used in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases of the adrenal cortex or the gonads.
( 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 § 862.9.
[52 FR 16122, May 1, 1987, as amended at 65 FR 2308, Jan. 14, 2000]
# C_2016156EN.01004302.xml

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/43

---

Order of the General Court of 11 March 2016 — International Gaming Projects v OHIM — Sky (Sky BONUS)

(Case T-840/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a Community figurative mark Sky BONUS - Earlier national word mark SKY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Restriction of the goods designated in the trade mark application - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Inadmissibility))

(2016/C 156/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: International Gaming Projects Ltd (Valletta, Malta) (represented by: M. Garayalde Niño, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Sky plc, formerly British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Barry, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 October 2014 (Case R 2040/2013-4), relating to opposition proceedings between British Sky Broadcasting Group plc and International Gaming Projects Ltd.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as being inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

| 2. | International Gaming Projects Ltd shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

International Gaming Projects Ltd shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.

1

---
§ 807.35 Notification of registrant. ( a ) The Food and Drug Administration will assign each device establishment a registration number after verifying the initial establishment registration information that has been submitted. The owner or operator of the establishment will also be assigned an identifying number. Both numbers will be sent to the official correspondent by email, or by postal mail if the owner or operator has been granted a waiver from the requirement to file registration and listing information electronically.
( b ) Owners or operators of device establishments who also manufacture or process biological products (including devices licensed under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act) or drug products at the same establishment must also register and list those products under part 607 or part 207 of this chapter, as appropriate. Registration and listing for human blood and blood products, devices licensed under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act, and licensed biological products used in the manufacture of a device licensed under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act, are subject to part 607 of this chapter; registration and listing for all other drug products (including other biological products that are also regulated as drug products) are subject to part 207 of this chapter.
( c ) Although establishment registration and device listing are required to engage in the device activities described in § 807.20, validation of registration and the assignment of a device listing number in itself does not establish that the holder of the registration is legally qualified to deal in such devices and does not represent a determination by the Food and Drug Administration as to the status of any device.
[69 FR 11312, Mar. 10, 2004, as amended at 77 FR 45943, Aug. 2, 2012]
§ 582.3739 Sodium bisulfite. ( a ) *Product.* Sodium bisulfite.
( b ) [Reserved]
( c ) *Limitations, restrictions, or explanation.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice, except that it is not used in meats or in food recognized as source of vitamin B1.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7377 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7377

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 to 
 improve the management of royalties from oil and gas leases, and for 
                            other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Royalty Resiliency Act''.

SEC. 2. DETERMINATION OF ALLOCATIONS OF PRODUCTION FOR UNITS AND 
              COMMUNITIZATION AGREEMENTS.

    Section 111(j) of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 
1982 (30 U.S.C. 1721(j)), as amended by the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty 
Simplification and Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-185), is 
amended to read as follows:
    ``(j) The Secretary shall issue all determinations of allocations 
of production for units and communitization agreements within 120 days 
of a request for determination. Until the Secretary issues the 
determination, the lessee or its designee of a lease in a unit or 
communitization agreement shall report and pay royalties on oil and gas 
production for each production month in accordance with the terms of 
the proposed allocation of production for the unit or communitization 
agreement. After the Secretary issues the determination, the lessee or 
its designee shall, as necessary, correct such reports and the amount 
of royalties paid on oil and gas production under the unit or 
communitization agreement by not later than the end of the third month 
following the month in which the lessee or its designee receives the 
determination from the Secretary. Subject to the full and timely 
monthly payment of royalties to all parties in accordance with the 
terms of the proposed allocation of production for the unit or 
communitization agreement, the Secretary shall waive interest due on 
obligations subject to the determination until the end of the third 
month following the month in which the lessee or its designee receives 
the determination from the Secretary. This subsection shall not apply 
to unit or communization agreements containing Indian lands.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 22, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 7377

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To amend the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 to 
 improve the management of royalties from oil and gas leases, and for 
                            other purposes.
```
# C_2015398EN.01004401.xml

| 30.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2015 — Commission v Verile and Gjergji

(Case T-104/14 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Cross appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Pensions - Transfer of national pension rights - Proposals concerning additional pensionable years - Measure not having an adverse effect - Inadmissibility of the action at first instance - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectation - Equal treatment))

(2015/C 398/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, G. Gattinara and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Marco Verile (Cadrezzate, Italy) and Anduela Gjergji (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by: D. de Abreu Caldas, J.-N. Louis and M. de Abreu Caldas, and subsequently by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Full Court) of 11 December 2013, Verile and Gjergji v Commission (F-130/11, ECR, EU:F:2013:195), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Verile and Gjergji

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Full Court) of 11 December 2013 in Verile and Gjergji v Commission (F-130/11); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Full Court) of 11 December 2013 in Verile and Gjergji v Commission (F-130/11);

| 2. | Dismisses the action brought by Mr. Marco Verile and Ms Anduela Gjergji before the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-130/11; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action brought by Mr. Marco Verile and Ms Anduela Gjergji before the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-130/11;

| 3. | Orders Mr. Verile, Ms. Gjergji and the European Commission each to pay their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Mr. Verile, Ms. Gjergji and the European Commission each to pay their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.

1

---
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 the citation 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, McKAY and 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
§ 701.11 Identity labeling. ( a ) The principal display panel of a cosmetic in package form shall bear as one of its principal features a statement of the identity of the commodity.
( b ) Such statement of identity shall be in terms of: ( 1 ) The common or usual name of the cosmetic; or
( 2 ) An appropriately descriptive name or, when the nature of the cosmetic is obvious, a fanciful name understood by the public to identify such cosmetic; or
( 3 ) An appropriate illustration or vignette representing the intended cosmetic use.
( c ) The statement of identity shall be presented in bold type on the principal display panel, shall be in a size reasonably related to the most prominent printed matter on such panel, and shall be in lines generally parallel to the base on which the package rests as it is designed to be displayed.
# C_2015398EN.01004301.xml

| 30.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/43

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2015 — Secolux v Commission

(Case T-90/14) (1)

1

((Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Safety checks - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Award of the contract to another tenderer - Non-contractual liability))

(2015/C 398/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Secolux, Association pour le contrôle de la sécurité de la construction (Capellen, Luxembourg) (represented by: N. Prüm-Carré and E. Billot, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and S. Lejeune, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

First, application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 3 December 2013 rejecting the tenders submitted by the applicant in the context of a call for tenders concerning the provision of safety checks services and, secondly, a claim for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Secolux, Association pour le contrôle de la sécurité de la construction, to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Secolux, Association pour le contrôle de la sécurité de la construction, to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.

1

---
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 19
- 00298
- CV

Tutankhamun Holt, Appellant

v. Michael J. Rogers, Appellee

FROM THE 146TH DISTR ICT COURT OF BELL CO UNTY NO. 242
- 413
- B, THE H ONORABLE JACK WELDON JONES, JUDGE PRESID ING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Tutankhamun Holt, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal on May 2 , 2019, from a final protective order against him for family violence that the district court signed on December 20, 2016

. Also on May 2, 2019, Holt filed a m otion asking the district court to “enter certificates of appealability ” as to the denial of a motion to vacate the final protective order , allegedly filed on June 28, 2018, and the denial of a motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law , allegedly filed on June 15, 2018. The referenced motion to vacate , motion for findings and conclusions , and the orders denying those motions do not appear in this record. However, the filing of such motions with the district court in 2018 to challenge a 2016 final protective order would have been untimely. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 296 (providing twenty

- day deadline for filing request for findings of fact and conclusions of law), 329b (providing thirty

- day deadline for filing motion s for new trial or to modify, correct, or reform judgments )

.2 Further, t he time to file an appeal from the 2016 final protective order has expired. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. Without a final judgment or an otherwise appealable order, we may not exercise appellate jurisdiction. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014; Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp ., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). On June 12, 2019, this Court requested that Holt file a written response demonstrating this Court’s jurisdiction over h is appeal.
H is filed response failed to do so. A ccordingly, we dismiss Holt ’s appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

__________________________________________ Je ff Rose, Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Triana and Smith Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction Filed: July 18, 2019