alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION • IN THE 

OF MARYLAND • COURT OF APPEALS 

• OF MARYLAND 

Petitioner, 

V. 

STEPHEN ROWE JONES • Misc. Docket AG 

Respondent. • No. 3 

• September Term, 2016 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

ORDER 

Upon consideration of the Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action filed by Petitioner 

pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-721(a)(2) and 19-738 and no response having been filed by 

the Respondent to the Show Cause Order, it is 1st day of May , 2017, by 

the Court of Appeals of Maryland; 

ORDERED, that the Respondent, Stephen Rowe Jones, be and hereby is temporarily 

suspended from the practice of law in the State of Maryland pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-

738(d) until further order of this Court; and it is further 

ORDERED, that the Clerk of this Court shall remove the name of Stephen Rowe Jones 

from the register of attorneys in the Court and certify that fact to the Client Protection Fund of 

the Bar of Maryland and all Clerks of all judicial tribunals in this State in accordance with 

Maryland Rule 19-761(6). 

/s/ Clayton Greee Jr. 

Senior Judge 

6
§ 522.2120 Spectinomycin hydrochloride. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each milliliter of solution contains 100 milligrams (mg) spectinomycin hydrochloride (as spectinomycin dihydrochloride pentahydrate).
( b ) *Sponsors.* See sponsors in § 510.600(c) of this chapter: ( 1 ) Nos. 016592 and 054771 for use as in paragraph (d)(1) of this section; and
( 2 ) No. 058198 for use as in paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
( c ) *Related tolerances.* See § 556.600 of this chapter.
( d ) *Conditions of use.* It is administered as follows: ( 1 ) *Turkeys (1- to 3-day-old poults) and chickens (newly hatched chicks)* — ( i ) *Amounts and indications for use.* ( A ) Administer 5 mg per poult subcutaneously as an aid in the control of chronic respiratory disease (CRD) associated with *Escherichia coli* in 1- to 3-day-old turkey poults.
( B ) Administer 10 mg per poult as a single subcutaneous injection in the nape of the neck as an aid in the control of airsacculitis associated with *Mycoplasma meleagridis* sensitive to spectinomycin in 1- to 3-day-old turkey poults.
( C ) Administer 2.5 to 5 mg per chick as an aid in the control of mortality and to lessen severity of infections caused by *M. synoviae, Salmonella typhimurium, S. infantis,* and *E. coli.*
( ii ) *Limitations.* For use only in 1- to 3-day-old turkey poults and newly hatched chicks. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
( 2 ) *Dogs* — ( i ) *Amount.* Administer 2.5 to 5.0 mg per pound of body weight by intramuscular injection twice daily. Treatment may be continued for 4 days.
( ii ) *Indications for use.* For treatment of infections caused by gram-negative and gram-positive organisms susceptible to spectinomycin.
( iii ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[86 FR 14820, Mar. 19, 2021, as amended at 88 FR 27700, May 3, 2023]
- USGS Home
- Contact						   USGS
- Search USGS
-     - USGS Publications Warehouse
  - Contact
  - Explore recent publications     by USGS							   Authors
  - Browse all of Pubs Warehouse     by							   Publication type and year
  - FAQS
  - Web     Service Documentation
  - Other     Resources
  - Descriptions of US     Geological Survey Report							   Series 
- USGS Publications   Warehouse
- Explore    - Explore recent publications     by USGS							   Authors
  - Browse all of Pubs Warehouse     by							   Publication type and year 
- Documentation    - FAQS
  - Web     Service Documentation
  - Other     Resources
  - Descriptions of US     Geological Survey Report							   Series 
- Contact
Search:					    				    			                                             The Kaiparowits Region: A Geographic and Geologic Reconnaissance of Parts of Utah and ArizonaProfessional Paper 164- By:
- Herbert Ernest   Gregory and Raymond Cecil Moore                         
TweetLinks- Document:  Document                                   (35012 pdf)                             
- Plates:
Plate 1                                     (5785 pdf)                             
Plate 2                                     (7187 pdf)                             
Plate 17                                     (2921 pdf)                             

- Download citation as:   RIS
AbstractAdditional publication details- Publication type:
- Report
- Publication Subtype:
- USGS Numbered Series
- Title:
- The Kaiparowits Region: A Geographic and Geologic Reconnaissance of Parts   of Utah and Arizona
- Series title:
- Professional Paper
- Series number:
- 164
- Edition:
- -
- Year Published:
- 1931
- Language:
- ENGLISH
- Publisher:
- Geological Survey (U.S.)
- Contributing office(s):
- U.S. Geological Survey
- Description:
- vii, 161 p. incl. tables, diagrs. 31 pl. (incl. maps (part fold.) fold   diagrs.) 29 cm.

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found here.

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and					   Notices

U.S. Department of the					   Interior |				    U.S. Geological Survey				   URL: http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp164                     				   Page Contact Information: Pubs Warehouse Contact				   Page				   Page Last Modified: February 02, 2012 00:10:19
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 Pursuant to § 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on November 6, 2009, Mallinckrodt Inc., 3600 North Second Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63147, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedules I and II: Drug
ScheduleTetrahydrocannabinols (7370)
ICodeine-N-oxide (9053)
IDihydromorphine (9145)
IDifenoxin (9168)
IMorphine-N-oxide (9307)
INormorphine (9313)
INorlevorphanol (9634)
IAmphetamine (1100)
IIMethamphetamine (1105)
IIMethylphenidate (1724)
IINabilone (7379)
IICodeine (9050)
IIDiprenorphine (9058)
IIEtorphine HCl (9059)
IIDihydrocodeine (9120)
IIOxycodone (9143)
IIHydromorphone (9150)
IIDiphenoxylate (9170)
IIEcgonine (9180)
IIHydrocodone (9193)
IILevorphanol (9220)
IIMeperidine (9230)
IIMethadone (9250)
IIMethadone Intermediate (9254)
IIMetopon (9260)
IIDextropropoxyphene, bulk (9273)
IIMorphine (9300)
IIOripavine (9330)
IIThebaine (9333)
IIOpium extracts (9610)
IIOpium fluid extract (9620)
IIOpium tincture (9630)
IIOpium, powdered (9639)
IIOpium, granulated (9640)
IILevo-alphacetylmethadol (9648)
IIOxymorphone (9652)
IINoroxymorphone (9668)
IIAlfentanil (9737)
IIRemifentanil (9739)
IISufentanil (9740)
IIFentanyl (9801)
II
 The firm plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances for internal use and for sale to other companies. Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such substances, may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a). Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no later than May 4, 2010. Dated: February 26, 2010. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. 2010-4717 Filed 3-4-10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
§ 510.209 Establishment, denial, or amendment of an import tolerance. ( a ) If an import tolerance is established or amended, the Commissioner will provide public notification of the action, which will be effective from the date of public notification. A copy of the notification will be sent to any requestor at the time the information is made available to the public.
( b ) If a request to establish or amend an import tolerance is denied, a notification of the denial will be made publicly available, and a copy of the denial letter, including the reasons for such action, will be sent to the requester.
( c ) A tolerance established in an approved NADA or conditionally approved CNADA will supersede an existing import tolerance. In the event the conditionally approved CNADA is not renewed or is withdrawn, or such drug does not achieve approval under section 512 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act within 5 years following the date of the conditional approval, the Agency will reinstate the import tolerance unless § 510.210(a)(1) or (a)(2) is applicable at that time.
607 P.2d 34

#### The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Camacho Hoton BERNAL, Appellant.

No. 2 CA-CR 1913.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2.

Feb. 8, 1980.

*52Robert K. Corbin, Atty. Gen. by William J. Schafer III and Barbara A. Jarrett, Asst. Attys. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.

Joseph J. DePrancesco, Bisbee, for appellant.

OPINION

RICHMOND, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of second degree burglary and grand theft with a prior conviction. On appeal he challenges the composition of the jury that convicted him and the manner in which it was selected. We find no reversible error.

The attack on the jury panel is identical to the position rejected in *State v. Lujan,*124 Ariz. 365, 604 P.2d 629. It is directed to the underrepresentation of Mexican-Americans on the panel. Appellant’s contention that the use of voter lists demonstrates a systematic exclusion of Mexican-Americans because they do not register to vote is unsupported by evidence establishing a prima facie violation of his right to trial by a jury chosen from a fair cross section of his community. *See Duren v. Missouri,*439 U.S. 357, 99 S.Ct. 664, 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979). No statistics were offered regarding voter registration or any jury lists other than the list drawn for appellant’s trial.

Appellant contends the panel selection was not public, as required by A.R.S. § 21-312, because (1) there was no notice of the drawing of names; (2) the drawing took place in an area behind the counter in the superior court clerk’s office and the public is not allowed behind the counter; and (3) the deputy clerk who drew the names did not call them aloud. The statute requires none of the foregoing, only that the jury commissioner shall “publicly draw” the number of names designated by the presiding judge. The names were publicly drawn.

Affirmed.

HATHAWAY, C. J., and HOWARD, J., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 888
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 888 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 888.3720 Toe joint polymer constrained prosthesis. ( a ) *Identification.* A toe joint polymer constrained prosthesis is a device made of silicone elastomer or polyester reinforced silicone elastomer intended to be implanted to replace the first metatarsophalangeal (big toe) joint. This generic type of device consists of a single flexible across-the-joint component that prevents dislocation in more than one anatomic plane.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
Editorial Note on Part 880
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 880 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 880.5100 AC-powered adjustable hospital bed. ( a ) *Identification.* An AC-powered adjustable hospital bed is a device intended for medical purposes that consists of a bed with a built-in electric motor and remote controls that can be operated by the patient to adjust the height and surface contour of the bed. The device includes movable and latchable side rails.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to § 880.9.
[45 FR 69682, Oct. 21, 1980, as amended at 63 FR 59229, Nov. 3, 1998]
In the Missouri Court of Appeals

Eastern District

JANUARY 20, 2015

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 

84.16(b) OR RULE 30.25(b).

1. ED100258 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V CERAL L. ROBINSON, APP

2. ED101014 TODD E. MARBLES, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES

3. ED101186 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V RICHARD T. HUBBARD, APP
# C_2014253EN.01003301.xml

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/33

---

Action brought on 30 April 2014 — Lithomex/OHMI — Glaubrecht Stingel (LITHOFIX)

(Case T-273/14)

2014/C 253/48

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Lithomex ApS (Langeskov, Denmark) (represented by: L. Ullmann, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Glaubrecht Stingel GmbH & Co.KG (Wendlingen, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Overturn decision R 2280/2012-5 of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17/02/2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

Overturn decision R 2280/2012-5 of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17/02/2014;

| — | Amend the contested decision to show that the appeal against Decision No 5589 C of the Cancellation Division of 21/11/2012 is rejected; |
| --- | --- |

—

Amend the contested decision to show that the appeal against Decision No 5589 C of the Cancellation Division of 21/11/2012 is rejected;

| — | Condemn the intervener to pay the costs including the costs incurred during the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Condemn the intervener to pay the costs including the costs incurred during the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark LITHOFIX for goods in Classes 19 and 31 — Community trade mark registration No 7 5 04  368

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Glaubrecht Stingel GmbH & Co. KG

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — International and national word marks ‘LITHOFIN’ for goods in Class 1

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: The declaration of invalidity was rejected

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was upheld and the Community trade mark declared invalid for all the goods in Class 19

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2016-3989 Directorate Identifier: 2014-NM-220-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Tensator spring 

replacement 40.0

$3,400.0

0

$0 $3,400.00 60 $204,000.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $204,000

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
Exhibit 13.B

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 annual report on Form 20-F of Petaquilla Minerals Ltd. for the year ended January 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.  The annual report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.  The information contained in the annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.

Date: October 1, 2007

/s/ Tony M. Ricci, CATony M. Ricci, Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7792 

To direct the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to establish 

a separate, unique North American Industry Classification System code 

for health care facility janitorial services, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 22, 2024 

Mr. SESSIONS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, and in addition to the Committee 

on Small Business, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To direct the Director of the Office of Management and 

Budget to establish a separate, unique North American 

Industry Classification System code for health care facility janitorial services, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Health Care Facility 

5 Janitorial Services Classification and Cap Enhancement 

6 Act of 2024’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7792 IH

1 SEC. 2. SEPARATE NAICS CODE FOR HEALTH CARE FACIL2 ITY JANITORIAL SERVICES. 

3 (a) NAICS CODE.—Not later than 180 days after the 

4 date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office 

5 of Management and Budget shall update the North Amer6 ican Industry Classification System (in this section re7 ferred to as ‘‘NAICS’’) to establish a separate, unique 

8 code for the health care facility janitorial services indus9 try. 

10 (b) SIZE STANDARD.—Not later than 90 days after 

11 the date on which an NAICS code is established under 

12 subsection (a), the Administrator of the Small Business 

13 Administration shall establish a size standard under sec14 tion 3(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)) 

15 for an entity assigned such NAICS code. Such size stand16 ard may not be more than double the size standard for 

17 an entity assigned NAICS code 561720 (relating to jani18 torial services) on the date of enactment of this Act. 

19 (c) HEALTH CARE FACILITY JANITORIAL SERVICES

20 INDUSTRY DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘health 

21 care facility janitorial services industry’’ means an indus22 try that comprises entities primarily engaged in cleaning 

23 interiors of health care facilities, including hospitals, out24 patient facilities, clinical laboratories, or other medical fa25 cilities. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Order entered July 30, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 14 - 00224 - CR No. 05 - 14 - 00225 - CR No. 05 - 14 - 00226 - CR WILLIAM PAUL HUDSON, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 416th Judicial Distric t Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 416 - 82440 - 2011 , 416 - 82442 - 2011, 416 - 82443 - 2011 

### O RDER Appellant’s July 28, 2014 second motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief is GRANTED . The time to file appellant’s brief is EXTENDED t o August 8, 2014

. If appellant fails to file his brief by the extended due date, this case will be abated for a hearing in the trial court regarding why appellant has not filed his brief.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
Editorial Note on Part 872
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 872 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 872.3285 Preformed clasp. ( a ) *Identification.* A preformed clasp or a preformed wire clasp is a prefabricated device made of austenitic alloys or alloys containing 75 percent or greater gold and metals of the platinum group intended to be incorporated into a dental appliance, such as a partial denture, to help stabilize the appliance in the patient's mouth by fastening the appliance to an adjacent tooth.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 872.9.
[52 FR 30097, Aug. 12, 1987, as amended at 59 FR 63008, Dec. 7, 1994; 66 FR 38798, July 25, 2001]