alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 880
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 880 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 880.6060 Medical disposable bedding. ( a ) *Identification.* Medical disposable bedding is a device intended for medical purposes to be used by one patient for a period of time and then discarded. This generic type of device may include disposable bedsheets, bedpads, pillows and pillowcases, blankets, emergency rescue blankets, or waterproof sheets.
( 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 § 880.9. If the device is not labeled or otherwise represented as sterile, it is also 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 69682, Oct. 21, 1980, as amended at 59 FR 63011, Dec. 7, 1994; 66 FR 38805, July 25, 2001]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheets and statements of operations found on page 2 and 4 of the
Company's Form 10-Q for the year to date, and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                    3,267,496
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                             1,256,939
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                               1,009,719
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          6,150,142
<PP&E>                                    4,495,971
<DEPRECIATION>                                    0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           11,129,051
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       570,893
<BONDS>                                           0
<COMMON>                                  9,760,214
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                  369,956
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             11,129,051
<SALES>                                   8,666,770
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          8,666,770
<CGS>                                     5,339,683
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             5,339,683
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          2,853,917
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             570,231
<INCOME-TAX>                                228,092
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         342,139
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                342,139
<EPS-BASIC>                                   .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   .18

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99.3
 EverQ GmbH, Thalheim
 Cash Flow Statement
for the period from December 20, 2006 to December 31, 2006
 December 20 toDecember 31,2006Net Income
    
    
    1,190,337.21Depreciation and amortization
    
    
    231,764.35Reversal of grants
    
    
    -164,433.68Decrease in accrued expenses
    
    
    -2,704,763.70Increase in inventories, receivables and other assets
    
    
    -3,671,515.34Increase in other current liabilities
    
    
    1,153,753.24Net cash used by operating activities
    
    
    -3,964,857.92Acquisition of fixed assets
    
    
    -2,951,396.84Net cash used by investing activities
    
    
    -2,951,396.84Repayments of long-term liabilities to banks
    
    
    -500,000.00Repayments of short-term liabilities to banks
    
    
    -6,800,000.00Net cash used by financing activities
    
    
    -7,300,000.00Net reduction in cash
    
    
    -14,216,254.76Cash at the beginning of period
    
    
    58,719,483.24Cash at the end of period
    
    
    44,503,228.48
#### § 56.105 Waiver of IRB requirement.

On the application of a sponsor or sponsor-investigator, the Food and Drug Administration may waive any of the requirements contained in these regulations, including the requirements for IRB review, for specific research activities or for classes of research activities, otherwise covered by these regulations.
Exhibit 32.2

# SECTION 1350
CERTIFICATION

| | In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Penn Treaty
American Corporation (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Mark Cloutier, Senior Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 that to the best of my knowledge:
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (1) | the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
               period ended June 30, 2005 fairly presents, in all material respects, the
               Companys financial condition and results of operations.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

``

|                            |  |                                                                                                     
|--------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date:    September 26, 2005 |  | /s/  Mark Cloutier
      Mark Cloutier
      Senior Vice President and
      Chief Financial Officer

---
# C_2016027EN.01007602.xml

| 25.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/76 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/76

---

Order of the General Court of 11 November 2015 — salesforce.com v OHIM (MARKETINGCLOUD)

(Case T-389/14) (1)

1

(2016/C 027/97)

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.

1

---
# C_2014112EN.01005801.xml

| 14.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/58

---

Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Aceitera General Deheza v Council

(Case T-115/14)

2014/C 112/75

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Aceitera General Deheza SA (General Deheza, Argentina) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis and R. Luff, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2), insofar as it concerns the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2), insofar as it concerns the applicant; and

| — | Order the defendant to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Institutions have committed a manifest error in the appreciation of the facts by concluding that there was a distortion of the prices of soya beans and soybean oil justifying the application of the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation (1). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Institutions have committed a manifest error in the appreciation of the facts by concluding that there was a distortion of the prices of soya beans and soybean oil justifying the application of the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation (1).

1

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Antidumping Regulation, as construed by the Institutions in the present case, may not be applied to imports from a WTO member as it is inconsistent with the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Antidumping Regulation, as construed by the Institutions in the present case, may not be applied to imports from a WTO member as it is inconsistent with the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement.

Third plea in law, alleging that the injury assessment fails to take into consideration factors that break the causal link between the alleged injury and the allegedly dumped imports in violation of Article 3(7) of the Basic-Anti-dumping Regulation.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51)

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 868
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 868 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 868.5115 Device to relieve acute upper airway obstruction. ( a ) *Identification.* The device is a raised, rounded pad that, in the event of choking on a foreign body, can be applied to the abdomen and pushed upward to generate expulsion pressure to remove the obstruction to relieve acute upper airway obstruction.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls) (“Class II Special Control Guidance Document for Acute Upper Airway Obstruction Devices”). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to § 868.9.
[65 FR 39099, June 23, 2000; 65 FR 47669, Aug. 3, 2000]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2265

DAVID E. HARMON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA94-2390-DKC)

Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 20, 1997

Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David E. Harmon, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Joseph Flaherty, HUNTON

& WILLIAMS, McLean, Virginia; Michael Patrick McQuillen, MANOR

CARE, INCORPORATED, Gaithersburg, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

David E. Harmon appeals the district court's order granting

summary judgment to Defendant on Harmon's claim for disability

benefits from his employer. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Harmon v.

Hewlett-Packard, Inc., No. CA-94-2390-DKC (D. Md. Aug. 5, 1996).

Additionally, Harmon urges this court to consider evidence and

issues not raised before the Claims Administrator or the district

court. Because these claims were not raised below, we decline to

hear them for the first time on appeal. See Quesinberry v. Life

Ins. Co., 987 F.2d 1017, 1025 (4th Cir. 1993) (decision to admit

evidence not before the plan administrator depends on the applicable standard of review and lies in the discretion of the district

court). Therefore, we deny Harmon's pending motions to supplement

the record. We grant Michael McQuillen's motion to withdraw as

counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2015294EN.01006101.xml

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/61

---

Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Grupa Azoty ATT Polymers v Commission

(Case T-270/14) (1)

1

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 294/74)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Grupa Azoty ATT Polymers GmbH (Guben, Germany) (represented by: H. Janssen and S. Kobes, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by A. Luke and C. Maurer, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

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. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

| 3. | Grupa Azoty ATT Polymers GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Grupa Azoty ATT Polymers GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

| 4. | The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.

1

---
39094.

#### LEE v. CREATY.

Decided September 22, 1961.

*430
      *J. Sidney Lanier,*for plaintiff in error.

*Charles E. Walker, G. W. lessee,*contra.

Nichols, Judge.

The defendant, in his answer, admitted that the vehicle was delivered to him for a “tune-up” on November 3, 1958, and the evidence disclosed that the automobile was in his possession on two occasions, once to have new carburetors of a different design installed, and once to have the new carburetors adjusted. Therefore a finding was authorized that the second delivery took place on November 3,1958.

The delivery was shown, the damage was shown, and since the burden was on the defendant (a bailee for hire), at this juncture to show proper diligence *(Code*§ 12-104; *Wynn v. Johns,*97 Ga. App. 605, 104 SE2d 150), and the evidence not demanding a verdict that proper diligence had been exercised, it cannot be said that a verdict for the plaintiff was not authorized.

In support of his motion for new trial the defendant contends that the amount of the verdict was so at variance with the evidence that a new trial should be granted. The plaintiff, the only witness who testified as to the value of the automobile, testified that the automobile had a fair market value of $2,200 at the time it was delivered to the defendant and after the wreck it had a fair market value of only $800, a difference of $1,400. The verdict was for $1,000. “ ‘A defendant against whom a verdict has been returned cannot complain that the verdict is for a less amount than that which the plaintiff was entitled to recover if entitled to recover at all.’ *Johns v. League, Duvall & Powell, Inc.,*202 Ga. 868 (1) (45 SE2d 211, 174 ALR 757).” *Mabry v. Holcomb,*82 Ga. App. 1 (2) (60 SE2d 411).

The verdict for the plaintiff was authorized by the evidence and the judgment overruling the defendant’s motion for new trial was not error for any reason assigned.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Carlisle, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheets and statements of operations found on page 2 and 4 of the
Company's Form 10-QSB for the year to date, and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                      MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                              3,111,263
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                       1,325,440
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                           958,591
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    6,000,569
<PP&E>                              4,553,488
<DEPRECIATION>                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     11,015,995
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 805,189
<BONDS>                                     0
<COMMON>                            9,086,649
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                            644,097
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       11,015,995
<SALES>                             3,089,179
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    3,089,179
<CGS>                               1,951,985
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       1,951,985
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    1,008,017
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       177,347
<INCOME-TAX>                           70,939
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   106,408
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                          106,408
<EPS-BASIC>                             .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                             .06


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of GVC Venture Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Bernard Zimmerman, Principal Executive Officer and Principal
Financial 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 that, to the best of my
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 Company.
| |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 8, 2007

| | /s/ Bernard Zimmerman
         Bernard Zimmerman, President
         (Principal Executive Officer) and
         Treasurer (Principal Financial and
         Accounting Officer)
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 21-10762 

Richard Louis Butler, Jr., 

Plaintiff—Appellant, 

versus

E. Holmes, Assistant Warden; N. Davis, CMI; Captain Reitsma; 

Mrs. Kline; James V. Allred Unit, 

Defendants—Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 7:18-CV-161 

Before Jones, Duncan, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. 

Per Curiam:*

Richard Louis Butler, Jr., Texas prisoner # 2123250, filed a 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 action against various defendants, challenging the conditions of his 

confinement at the Allred Unit. Following initial screening, the district court 

dismissed Butler’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) 

*

 Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

March 29, 2022 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 21-10762 Document: 00516259197 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/29/2022
No. 21-10762 

2 

because he failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Butler 

has now filed a motion for authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) 

on appeal to challenge this ruling. By moving in this court to proceed IFP, he 

is challenging the district court’s certification that any appeal would not be 

taken in good faith because, for the reasons relied upon in the order of 

dismissal, Butler will not present a nonfrivolous appellate issue. See Baugh v. 

Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). 

Before this court, Butler argues that he is financially eligible to 

proceed IFP, and he makes no challenge to the district court’s conclusion 

that he failed to state a claim for relief. His failure to identify any error in the 

district court’s analysis constitutes an abandonment of such claims. See

Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 

1987). The appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See Howard 

v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it 

is dismissed. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

The district court’s dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a 

claim and the dismissal as frivolous of this appeal each count as a strike under 

§ 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996), 

abrogated in part on other grounds by Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 537 

(2015). Butler is warned that if he accumulates three strikes, he will no longer 

be allowed to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is 

incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of 

serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). 

IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS 

FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED. 

Case: 21-10762 Document: 00516259197 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/29/2022