alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 640.84 Labeling. In addition to the labeling requirements of §§ 610.60, 610.61, and 610.62 of this chapter, the container and package labels shall contain the following information: ( a ) The osmotic equivalent in terms of plasma, and the sodium concentration in terms of a value or a range in milliequivalents per liter;
( b ) The cautionary statement placed in a prominent position on the label, “Do Not Use if Turbid. Do Not Begin Administration More Than 4 Hours After the Container Has Been Entered.”;
( c ) The need for additional fluids when 20 percent or 25 percent albumin is administered to a patient with marked dehydration;
( d ) The protein concentration, expressed as a 4 percent, 5 percent, 20 percent, or 25 percent solution.
[42 FR 27582, May 31, 1977, as amended at 49 FR 2244, Jan. 19, 1984; 64 FR 26286, May 14, 1999]
###### Editorial Note on Part 570

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part appear at 88 FR 45066, July 14, 2023.

#### § 570.13 Indirect food additives resulting from packaging materials prior sanctioned for animal feed and pet food.

Regulations providing for the use of food packaging materials as prior sanctioned in part 181 of this chapter are incorporated in Subchapter E as applicable to packaging materials used for animal feed and pet food.

[42 FR 14091, Mar. 15, 1977]
Editorial Note on Part 862
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 862 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 862.1035 Albumin test system. ( a ) *Identification.* An albumin test system is a device intended to measure the albumin concentration in serum and plasma. Albumin measurements are used in the diagnosis and treatment of numerous diseases involving primarily the liver or kidneys.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7417 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7417

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 135 West Spring Street in Titusville, Pennsylvania, as the ``Edwin 
                    L. Drake Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 20, 2024

 Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Meuser, 
    Mr. Reschenthaler, Mr. Smucker, Mr. Joyce of Pennsylvania, Mr. 
 Cartwright, Ms. Dean of Pennsylvania, Ms. Houlahan, Mr. Deluzio, Mr. 
  Boyle of Pennsylvania, Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Perry, Ms. 
    Scanlon, and Ms. Wild) introduced the following bill; which was 
       referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 135 West Spring Street in Titusville, Pennsylvania, as the ``Edwin 
                    L. Drake Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. EDWIN L. DRAKE POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 135 West Spring Street in Titusville, Pennsylvania, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Edwin L. Drake Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Edwin L. 
Drake Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6254
MICHAEL WARREN BANNAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-1168-R) Submitted: July 10, 1997 Decided: July 23, 1997 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Warren Bannan, Appellant Pro Se. Wirt Peebles Marks, IV, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994) (current version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probablecause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Bannan v. Angelone , No. CA-95-1168-R (W.D. Va. Jan. 23, 1997). See Lindh v. Murphy , 521 U.S. ___, 1997 WL 338568 (U.S.June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2015221EN.01001802.xml

| 6.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/18

---

Order of the General Court of 30 April 2015 — ERTICO — ITS EUROPE v Commission

(Case T-499/14) (1)

1

((Recommendation 2003/361/EC - Criteria for defining micro, small and medium-sized enterprises in European Union policies - Decision of the Validation Panel of the Commission - Withdrawal of the decision - Action becoming devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 221/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Road Transport Telematics Implementation Coordination Organisation — Intelligent Transport & Services Europe (ERTICO — ITS EUROPE) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Wellinger and K. T’Syen, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and M. Clausen, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Validation Panel of the European Commission of 15 April 2014 declaring that the applicant cannot be qualified as a micro, small or medium-sized enterprise within the meaning of Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ 2003 L 124, p. 36).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1) | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action. |
| --- | --- |

1)

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

| 2) | The European Commission shall bear its own costs and those incurred by European Road Transport Telematics Implementation Coordination Organisation - Intelligent Transport Systems & Services Europe (ERTICO — ITS EUROPE). |
| --- | --- |

2)

The European Commission shall bear its own costs and those incurred by European Road Transport Telematics Implementation Coordination Organisation - Intelligent Transport Systems & Services Europe (ERTICO — ITS EUROPE).

---

(1)  OJ C 380, 27.10.2014.

1

---
BEFORE THE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C.

) 

Application of )

) 

PRIVILEGE STYLE, S.A. )

) Docket No. OST-2010-0148 

for a Part 212 Statement of Authorization )

(U.S. – EU open skies codesharing) )

)

) 

Joint Application of )

) 

DELTA AIR LINES, INC. )

and ) Docket No. OST-2011-0160

AIR EUROPA LINEAS AEREAS, S.A.U. )

) 

for Statements of Authorization ) 

pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 212 )

)

NOTICE OF CESSATION OF AIR EUROPA/PRIVILEGE STYLE

JFK-MADRID WET-LEASE/CODE-SHARE SERVICES

Communications with respect to this document should be addressed to:

Aaron A. Goerlich 

Garofalo Goerlich Hainbach PC 

1200 New Hampshire Ave NW 

Washington DC 20036-6802 

AGoerlich@ggh-airlaw.com 

202 776-3974

Counsel for Air Europa Lineas Aereas, S.A.U.

July 3, 2014
BEFORE THE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C.

) 

Application of )

) 

PRIVILEGE STYLE, S.A. )

) Docket No. OST-2010-0148 

for a Part 212 Statement of Authorization )

(U.S. – EU open skies codesharing) )

)

) 

Joint Application of )

) 

DELTA AIR LINES, INC. )

and ) Docket No. OST-2011-0160

AIR EUROPA LINEAS AEREAS, S.A.U. )

) 

for Statements of Authorization ) 

pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 212 )

)

NOTICE OF CESSATION OF AIR EUROPA/PRIVILEGE STYLE

JFK-MADRID WET-LEASE/CODE-SHARE SERVICES

Air Europa Lineas Aereas, S.A.U. hereby notifies the Department that Air Europa 

and Privilege Style, S.A. have ceased the wet-lease/code-share services between New 

York (JFK) and Madrid, Spain, authorized by the Notice of Action Taken issued May 6, 

2014 in the above dockets. This notification is given pursuant to condition (b) of the May 

6 Notice.

This notification does not affect the continuing code-share services 

involving Air Europa and Delta Air Lines, Inc. authorized by the Department’s 

Notice dated September 21, 2011 in Docket DOT-OST-2011-0160. Nor does it 

affect the continuing intra-Europe wet-lease/code-share services involving Air 

Europa, Delta and Privilege Style authorized by the Department’s Notice dated 
January 30, 2013, in the above dockets.

Respectfully submitted,

Aaron A. Goerlich 

Garofalo Goerlich Hainbach PC 

Counsel for Air Europa Lineas Aereas, S.A.U.

July 3, 2014
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-10-00313-CV

RONALD CALVIN,

Appellant

v.

JIM L. BEARD,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 2

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 4898-B

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Ronald Calvin appeals the judgment rendered against him in an eviction suit for 

a commercial tenancy. The suit was originally tried in the justice court which granted 

judgment for possession to Jim L. Beard. Calvin appealed to the County Court at Law 

#2. Judgment was rendered by that court in favor of Beard. 

Beard filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that a final judgment of a 

county court in an eviction suit may not be appealed on the issue of possession unless 

the premises in question are being used for residential purposes only. TEX. PROP. CODE 

ANN. § 24.007 (Vernon 2000). Calvin asked to mediate the appeal. We granted his 
Calvin v. Beard Page 2

request, referred the appeal to mediation, and suspended the appeal. Beard objected to 

the referral. 

We sustain Beard’s objection and lift the suspension of the appeal.

We agree with Beard that according to section 24.007 of the Texas Property Code, 

Calvin has no right to appeal. Id. In coming to this conclusion, we do not address the 

merits of any issue, specifically including res judicata or the proper construction of the 

settlement agreement. We simply do not have jurisdiction of this appeal.

Accordingly, we grant Beard’s motion to dismiss, and this appeal is dismissed. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Reyna, and

Justice Davis

Objection sustained

Motion granted

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed November 3, 2010

[CV06]
RULE 2:5

- Cancellation of**Applic~tions.**



### a. An Authority to Construct shall expire and the application shall be canceled t'tso (2) years·from the date of issuance of the Authority to Construct.

b. An application for Permit to Operate existing equipment shall be cancel<!d 

### tvto (2) years from the·date of filing of the application.the size and location of the sampling platform; the access to the sampling platfonn; and the utilities for operating the sarrpling and testing equipment. The platform and access shali be constructed in accordancewith the Eneral Industry SafetyOrder of the Stateof California.

c. In acting upon aPermit to Operate, if the Ai1· Pollution Control Officer finds that the articles, machine, equipment or othercontrivance has been constructed not in accordance with the Authority to Construct, he shall deny the Permit to Operate. The Air Pollution Control Officer shall.notaccept any further application for Permit to Operate the**~rticle,** machine,**equipm~nt** or othercontrivance so**con~tructed** until he finds**th~t** the article, machine equipment or otherconstrivance has bc(n reconstructed in accordclnce with theAuthot"ity to Construct.

d. The granting ofa pennit does not exempt the holder from present and future regulations of the Air Pollution Control District.
132 STAT. 4428 PUBLIC LAW 115–311—DEC. 13, 2018 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 1207: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: 

Vol. 163 (2017): Nov. 15, considered and passed House. 

Vol. 164 (2018): Mar. 7, considered and passed Senate, amended. 

Nov. 29, House concurred in Senate amendment. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–311 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 306 River 

Street in Tilden, Texas, as the ‘‘Tilden Veterans Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. TILDEN VETERANS POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 306 River Street in Tilden, Texas, shall be known 

and designated as the ‘‘Tilden Veterans Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Tilden Veterans Post Office’’. 

Approved December 13, 2018. 

Dec. 13, 2018 

[H.R. 1207] 


dkrause on DSKBC28HB2PROD with PUBLAWS
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.2
                         CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 33-80927) pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan, the 1995 Employee Stock
Purchase Plan and the 1995 Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan of our report
dated April 3, 1997, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Summit Medical Systems, Inc. for the two years ended December 31,
1996, included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.


                                   /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 26, 1998
Exhibit 32





SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION



In connection with the quarterly report of InZon Corporation (formerly W-J International, Ltd.) (Registrant) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dated indicated below, hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) that to their knowledge:



1.

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



2.

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





|                      |  |                         
|--------------------- |  | ------------------------
|                      |  |                         
|Dated: March 26, 2007 |  | By: /s/ David F. Levy   
|                      |  | David F. Levy, President





|                      |  |                                     
|--------------------- |  | ------------------------------------
|                      |  |                                     
|Dated: March 26, 2007 |  | By: /s/ Richard Dea                 
|                      |  | Richard Dea, Chief Financial Officer

















1
#### § 822.6 When will you notify me that I am required to conduct postmarket surveillance?

We will notify you as soon as we have determined that postmarket surveillance of your device is necessary, based on the identification of a surveillance question. This may occur during the review of a marketing application for your device, as your device goes to market, or after your device has been marketed for a period of time.
#### § 56.112 Review by institution.

Research covered by these regulations that has been approved by an IRB may be subject to further appropriate review and approval or disapproval by officials of the institution. However, those officials may not approve the research if it has not been approved by an IRB.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 29, 2013

Nos. 04-13-00222-CR, 04-13-00223-CR, 04-13-00224-CR, 04-13-00225-CR

Francisco R. HERNANDEZ,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 2010CR0819, 2011CR2469, 2012CR2586, 2012CR3718A

Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding

ORDER

The trial court’s certification in each of these appeals states that “this criminal case is a 

plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s record filed in each of 

these appeals contains a written plea bargain, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the 

punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant; therefore, the trial 

court’s certifications accurately reflect that the criminal cases are plea-bargain cases. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, “The 

appeal must be dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has a right of appeal has not 

been made part of the record under these rules.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). It is therefore 

ORDERED that these appeals will be dismissed pursuant to rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure unless appellant causes amended trial court certifications to be filed by May 

22, 2013, showing appellant has the right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; see also 

Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Daniels v. State,110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. 

App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.). All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending our 

resolution of the certification issue.

_________________________________

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 29th day of April, 2013.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# C_2014184EN.01004302.xml

| 16.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/43

---

Action brought on 24 March 2014 — ZZ v EEAS

(Case F-27/14)

2014/C 184/72

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision by which the applicant was removed from his post without reduction of his entitlement to a pension, with effect from 1 February 2014, following disciplinary proceedings taken after the indictment of the applicant by the national authorities for European public procurement fraud, forgery and use of forgery, money laundering and corruption.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of 16 January 2014 by which the EEAS removed the applicant from his post, without reduction of his entitlement to a pension; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 16 January 2014 by which the EEAS removed the applicant from his post, without reduction of his entitlement to a pension;

| — | Order the EEAS to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the EEAS to pay the costs.

---
§ 820.150 Storage. ( a ) Each manufacturer shall establish and maintain procedures for the control of storage areas and stock rooms for product to prevent mixups, damage, deterioration, contamination, or other adverse effects pending use or distribution and to ensure that no obsolete, rejected, or deteriorated product is used or distributed. When the quality of product deteriorates over time, it shall be stored in a manner to facilitate proper stock rotation, and its condition shall be assessed as appropriate.
( b ) Each manufacturer shall establish and maintain procedures that describe the methods for authorizing receipt from and dispatch to storage areas and stock rooms.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 June 27, 2017

d0619t

Order 

Clerk

June 27, 2017

154425

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 154425

COA: 331774

Macomb CC: 2009-005130-FC;

DUNCAN LORENZO ALEXANDER, 2009-005132-FC; 

Defendant-Appellant. 2009-005135-FC

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 25, 2016 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the December 17, 2015 opinion and order of the 

Macomb Circuit Court, which denied relief from judgment under MCR 6.502(G), and we 

REMAND this case to the circuit court for reconsideration. The defendant’s motion for a 

new trial and DNA testing sought relief under MCL 770.16 rather than under MCR 

6.508(D). Moreover, the motion was filed with regard to case 2009-005130-FC only, as 

shown on the circuit court’s March 2, 2015 opinion and order denying relief. Under the 

circumstances, the defendant’s subsequent motion for relief from judgment, filed with 

regard to cases 2009-005130-FC, 2009-005132-FC, and 2009-005135-FC, is not barred 

by MCR 6.502(G). On remand, the trial court shall review the defendant’s motion for 

relief from judgment under the standard set forth in MCR 6.508(D). 

We do not retain jurisdiction.

WILDER, J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel.
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATE 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 Annual Report of Independence CommunityBank Corp. (the “Company”) onForm 10-K for theperiod ending December 31, 2005 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Alan H. Fishman, President andChief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:          (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of    Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the    Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and           (2) The information contained in the Report fairly    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and    results of operations of the Company.     /s/ Alan H. Fishman           Alan H. Fishman *President and Chief Executive Officer*March 15, 2006     A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act hasbeen provided to Independence Community Bank Corp. and will beretained by Independence Community Bank Corp. and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.