alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,476,227
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  428,526
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      29,563,726
<DEPRECIATION>                              15,279,030
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              34,424,298
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,659,884
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (9,453,031)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                34,424,298
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            16,887,376
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               14,992,737
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,607,539
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,053,933)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,053,933)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
§ 582.3798 Sodium sulfite. ( a ) *Product.* Sodium sulfite.
( 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.
Editorial Note on Part 868
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 868 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 868.1 Scope. ( a ) This part sets forth the classification of anesthesiology devices intended for human use that are in commercial distribution.
( b ) The identification of a device in a regulation in this part is not a precise description of every device that is, or will be, subject to the regulation. A manufacturer who submits a premarket notification submission for a device under part 807 may not show merely that the device is accurately described by the section title and identification provisions of a regulation in this part, but shall state why the device is substantially equivalent to other devices, as required by § 807.87.
( c ) To avoid duplicative listings, an anesthesiology device that has two or more types of uses (e.g., used both as a diagnostic device and as a therapeutic device) is listed only in one subpart.
( d ) References in this part to regulatory sections of the Code of Federal Regulations are to chapter I of title 21, unless otherwise noted.
( e ) Guidance documents referenced in this part are available on the Internet at *http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm .*
[52 FR 17734, May 11, 1987, as amended at 67 FR 76681, Dec. 13, 2002; 78 FR 18233, Mar. 26, 2013]
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 38 (Friday, February 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 8920]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4049]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1664]


Grant of Authority for Subzone Status; IKEA Distribution Services 
(Distribution of Home Furnishings and Accessories); Baltimore, MD

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of 
June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade 
Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones Act provides for ``* * * the 
establishment * * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the 
United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for 
other purposes,'' and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant 
to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade 
zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border Protection ports of 
entry;
    Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR Part 400) provide for the 
establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities 
cannot serve the specific use involved, and when the activity results 
in a significant public benefit and is in the public interest;
    Whereas, the Maryland Department of Transportation, grantee of 
Foreign-Trade Zone 73, has made application to the Board for authority 
to establish a special-purpose subzone at the warehouse and 
distribution facility of IKEA Distribution Services, located in 
Perryville, Maryland, (FTZ Docket 26-2009, filed July 2, 2009);
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment has been given in the 
Federal Register (74 FR 33415, July 13, 2009) and the application has 
been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; 
and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the 
public interest;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby grants authority for subzone 
status for activity related to home furnishings and accessories 
warehousing and distribution at the facility of IKEA Distribution 
Services, located in Perryville, Maryland (Subzone 73C), as described 
in the application and Federal Register notice, subject to the FTZ Act 
and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28.

    Signed at Washington, DC, February 5, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Alternate 
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-4049 Filed 2-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
# C_2014339EN.01002401.xml

| 29.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 339/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 339/24

---

Action brought on 25 July 2014 — Messi Cuccittini v OHIM — J.M.-E.V. e hijos (MESSI)

(Case T-554/14)

2014/C 339/29

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Lionel Andrés Messi Cuccittini (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. L. Rivas Zurdo and M. Toro Gordillo, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: J.M.-E.V. e hijos, SRL (Granollers, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 April 2014 in Case R 1553/2013-1, in which it dismissed the applicant’s appeal and affirmed the decision of the Opposition Division upholding Opposition No B 1 9 38  458 and rejecting in part Community trade mark application No 1 0 1 81  154‘MESSI’ (figurative); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 April 2014 in Case R 1553/2013-1, in which it dismissed the applicant’s appeal and affirmed the decision of the Opposition Division upholding Opposition No B 1 9 38  458 and rejecting in part Community trade mark application No 1 0 1 81  154‘MESSI’ (figurative);

| — | order the party or parties opposing the action to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the party or parties opposing the action to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark including the word element ‘MESSI’ for goods in classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 1 81  154

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word marks ‘MASSI’ for goods in classes 9, 25 and 28

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

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

Pleas in law:

---
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**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 theQuarterly Report of Ebix, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterlyperiod ended March 31, 2004, as amended by Amendment No.1 thereto filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (as so amended the“Report”), I, Richard J. Baum, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

1. The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

2. The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 
| By:                      | /s/ Richard  J. Baum |   |
|--------------------------|----------------------|--------|
|                     |                 |
| Name:                    | Richard J.  Baum     |   |
|                     |                 |
| Chief  Financial Officer |                 |
|                     |                 |
| May 20, 2005             |                 |
|                          |                      |        |  |

 

1

----
Editorial Note on Part 870
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 870 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 870.2870 Catheter tip pressure transducer. ( a ) *Identification.* A catheter tip pressure transducer is a device incorporated into the distal end of a catheter. When placed in the bloodstream, its mechanical or electrical properties change in relation to changes in blood pressure. These changes are transmitted to accessory equipment for processing.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
Editorial Note on Part 866
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 866 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 866.3220 *Entamoeba histolytica* serological reagents. ( a ) *Identification. Entamoeba histolytica* serological reagents are devices that consist of antigens and antisera used in serological tests to identify antibodies to *Entamoeba histolytica* in serum. Additionally, some of these reagents consist of antisera conjugated with a fluorescent dye (immunofluorescent reagents) used to identify *Entamoeba histolytica* directly from clinical specimens. The identification aids in the diagnosis of amebiasis caused by the microscopic protozoan parasite *Entamoeba histolytica* and provides epidemiological information on diseases caused by this parasite. The parasite may invade the skin, liver, intestines, lungs, and diaphragm, causing disease conditions such as indolent ulcers, an amebic hepatitis, amebic dysentery, and pulmonary lesions.
( 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 § 866.9.
[47 FR 50823, Nov. 9, 1982; 47 FR 56846, Dec. 21, 1982, as amended at 63 FR 59226, Nov. 3, 1998]
### Regu latory Evaluation

DocketNo. FAA- Directorate Identifier:

- AD

((y ou mak e c hanJ;eS to the value s in th e table b elow

. you musl e n s ur<! th e total s upd<il e a cc ording ly. (I' !h ey do n o t, click ( or Tah ) in to and th l!n out (?( the c hange d cell

. Estimate d Costs: Ac t ion Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, eng ine , (e.g., I nspection, propeller, app liance) Work

- hours Labor Parts Cost T otal Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor + 

# u.s. for U.S

. Fleet Do not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85 /h parts) Registered and close-up) our) Products Inspection 

### ' ' 110.0 

### . ( 

## 343
1', ') 1\t I )I Modification!Repai i. 4,650.0 ..**,~** 

## . . ' ' 

## 343 r 

### ,,


### ,,,, 'I Window comer 

### 582 ., 

## 343 ,,, inspection '
I ' I / 

# .. ( Ill tl 1\t i l. I 

# . ' !1 'Ht I •tltft


### ,, I• lit! ., II, 't ' 

## ,, ·l

. tl Hi) f I) 

### '•l f IJ II(! I " 1i 1\j I II ,.; I 1' I •};] The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for 

### U.S. fleet: $155 ,746 , 010 Costs covered under warranty 

### (if known) $
On

- Cond i tion Costs : , . Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cos t Cost pe r Product (e.g

. , I nspection , (includ e access , ( @$ 85 / hour) testing, and close- replacement) up)

### Repairs outside SB limits (S ize of repair will determine workhours and part costs , these numbers cannout be pre-determined) Window corner repmr 338.0 

### 343 Window belt skin 

# l

# ~ I 

### replacement 795.0 I 

### 343 (optiona l) I 

# I
Specia l considerations fo•· Ec onomic Analysis (Use thisjie ld to explain anything i11 the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might n o t be obv ious. This.fleld can also b e used to expl a in warrant y c osts): 

### Information obtai ned from Bo e ing and their databa s e indicates a total of398 N-Registered airplanes

. Ofthese airplanes, 204 are shown to h ave 50 ,00 0 or more total t1igh t cycl e s and should have accomplished the required modification. In addition , this m odif icatio n was mandated in 2002 by AD 2002-07-08, so the costs for the**modificat~** 

### are not a new burden to operators. \o'I'\.S 

### Exewtive Order 12866: l!f:Jh 

### Cou ld the 

### AD be considered a ·'si gn ifica nt regulato ry**ac tion'·** **~**

# -

. 

### *Explanation: D0 1f 

### R.egulato 1 -y Polici e s 

### attd P roce dm· · E·s : 

### I s th e 

### AD s ignificant ? 

## @ *Explanation: Regula tory Flexibi l ity Act : 

### YES* 

# D NO 

### [J

YES* 

# D NO 

### [J

W ill the 

### AD ha ve 

### a s ign if ic ant econo mi c impact on a subs tant ial number of small en t itie s ? Explain for either 

### a Yes or No answ e r.

# ~ YESD NO[J Explanation: Intt·astate Aviation in Alaska: 

### Thi s 

### AD could affect intrastate aviatio n in Alaska. 

### I s it app r op r iate to include specific requirements for aircra ft o perated in A las ka w he re aviat io n might b e the only 

### mod e of t ransp o rtation ?

# ~ YES* 

# D NO[J
* Explanat ion:
* Pursuant to Local 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-20493 

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

WILSON VIDES CASTILLO,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-92-CR-255-1

- - - - - - - - - -

April 12, 1996

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Wilson Vides Castillo appeals the denial of his motion for

relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Castillo argues that the

evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because he

could not be convicted of conspiring with government informant

agents, an uncorroborated informant's tip was inadmissible

hearsay and insufficient to support his conviction, and there was

no evidence that he knowingly conspired with his codefendant,

Hector Rocero. He also argues that the search of Rocero's car

was illegal because the officer's lacked probable cause, the

search followed a pretextual stop, and Castillo lacked standing 
No. 95-20493

-2-

to consent to the search of Rocero's home. Castillo contends

that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object that

Castillo could not be convicted for conspiring with a government

informant agent, that Rocero's incriminating, inconsistent,

perjurious hearsay statements were inadmissible, that the search

was illegal. Castillo also argues his sentence should be

remanded because he disputed the hearsay statements of government

informant agents, thus there was no evidence in the presentence

report (PSR) of Castillo's guilt, and the district court failed

to make findings regarding the disputed facts as required by Fed.

R. Cr. P. 32(c)(3)(D). However, this argument merely challenges

the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. 

Castillo's argument that the search was illegal raises a

constitutional issue. Although the district court did not

address the issue, the Government pleaded the procedural bar, and

Castillo has not shown cause for failing to raise this issue on

direct appeal or prejudice. Thus, we refuse to review it. See

United States v. Shaid, 937 F.2d 228, 232 (5th Cir. 1991) (en

banc), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1076 (1992).

We affirm the other issues for essentially the reasons

relied upon by the district court. Castillo does not argue the

application of the sentencing guidelines issues raised in the

district court; those issues are abandoned. Hobbs v. Blackburn,

752 F.2d 1079, 1083 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 838

(1985).

AFFIRMED.
Editorial Note on Part 866
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 866 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 866.3970 Device to detect and identify microbial pathogen nucleic acids in cerebrospinal fluid. ( a ) *Identification.* A device to detect and identify microbial pathogen nucleic acids in cerebrospinal fluid is a qualitative in vitro device intended for the detection and identification of microbial-associated nucleic acid sequences from patients suspected of meningitis or encephalitis. A device to detect and identify microbial pathogen nucleic acids in cerebrospinal fluid is intended to aid in the diagnosis of meningitis or encephalitis when used in conjunction with clinical signs and symptoms and other clinical and laboratory findings.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are: ( 1 ) Premarket notification submissions must include detailed device description documentation, including the device components, ancillary reagents required but not provided, and a detailed explanation of the methodology, including primer/probe sequence, design, and rationale for sequence selection.
( 2 ) Premarket notification submissions must include detailed documentation from the following analytical studies: Analytical sensitivity (limit of detection), inclusivity, reproducibility, interference, cross reactivity, and specimen stability.
( 3 ) Premarket notification submissions must include detailed documentation from a clinical study. The study, performed on a study population consistent with the intended use population, must compare the device performance to results obtained from well-accepted comparator methods.
( 4 ) Premarket notification submissions must include detailed documentation for device software, including, but not limited to, software applications and hardware-based devices that incorporate software.
( 5 ) The Intended Use statement in the device labeling must include a statement that the device is intended to be used in conjunction with standard of care culture.
( 6 ) A detailed explanation of the interpretation of results and acceptance criteria must be included in the device's 21 CFR 809.10(b)(9) compliant labeling.
( 7 ) The device labeling must include a limitation stating that the negative results do not preclude the possibility of central nervous system infection.
( 8 ) The device labeling must include a limitation stating that device results are not intended to be used as the sole basis for diagnosis, treatment, or other patient management decisions.
( 9 ) The device labeling must include a limitation stating that positive results do not mean that the organism detected is infectious or is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.
( 10 ) As part of the risk management activities performed as part of your 21 CFR 820.30 design controls, you must document an appropriate end user device training program that will be offered as part of your efforts to mitigate the risk of failure to correctly operate the instrument.
[82 FR 48763, Oct. 20, 2017]
#### LANGFORD, guardian, *v.*JOHNSON, administratrix, *et al.*

No. 8426.

February 12, 1932.

*351*Joseph M. Lang*and *Porter & Mebane,*for plaintiff.

*Little, Powell, Reid & Goldstein, M. B. Eubanks,*and *James H. Therrell,*for defendants.

Beck, P. J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) We are of the opinion that this court is without jurisdiction to entertain this case. The suit is one at law against the defendants named for a stated sum, and for the amount stated the plaintiff prays for a judgment. Even if the case was originally an equitable suit of such a character as to give this court jurisdiction of the question raised by the demurrer, the equitable features thereof upon which the jurisdiction of this court might be based were removed by the amendments. It is true that a court of equity has concurrent jurisdiction with the court of ordinary over the settlement of accounts of administrators; and it is especially true that where there are involved and complicated accounts, and questions of misconduct and mismanagement of the estate are involved, the court of equity will take jurisdiction of the matter and proceed with .the accounting until the winding up of the estate; and it is therefore true, perhaps, as the petition stood when first filed, that it was an equitable suit, and a bill of exceptions to the ruling of the court in such a case might properly be sued but to this court. But, as we have pointed out above, the question of the settlement of the estate and of accounts was eliminated by the amendments; and so after these amendments the petition is one, in substance, alleging that the principal defendant and the sureties were liable to peti*352tioner in the sum of $18,773.08. The petitioner accepted the return of the administratrix as true, and sued for the amount which that return showed to be in the administratrix’s hands, alleging that certain specified disbursements, the amount of which was fixed, were not lawfully made. We therefore conclude that the case must be transferred to the Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction under the facts alleged in the petition as amended.

*Transferred to Court of Appeals.*

*All the Justices concur, except Hines, J., who dissents.*