alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 58.219 Reinstatement of a disqualified testing facility.

A testing facility that has been disqualified may be reinstated as an acceptable source of nonclinical laboratory studies to be submitted to the Food and Drug Administration if the Commissioner determines, upon an evaluation of the submission of the testing facility, that the facility can adequately assure that it will conduct future nonclinical laboratory studies in compliance with the good laboratory practice regulations set forth in this part and, if any studies are currently being conducted, that the quality and integrity of such studies have not been seriously compromised. A disqualified testing facility that wishes to be so reinstated shall present in writing to the Commissioner reasons why it believes it should be reinstated and a detailed description of the corrective actions it has taken or intends to take to assure that the acts or omissions which led to its disqualification will not recur. The Commissioner may condition reinstatement upon the testing facility being found in compliance with the good laboratory practice regulations upon an inspection. If a testing facility is reinstated, the Commissioner shall so notify the testing facility and all organizations and persons who were notified, under § 58.213 of the disqualification of the testing facility. A determination that a testing facility has been reinstated is disclosable to the public under part 20 of this chapter.
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.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration # 12057 and # 12058]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of North Dakota (FEMA—1879—DR), dated 02/26/2010. *Incident:*
                         Severe Winter Storm. *Incident Period:*
                         01/20/2010 through 01/25/2010. *Effective Date:*
                         02/26/2010. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         04/27/2010. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         11/26/2010.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 02/26/2010, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:* Adams, Barnes, Billings, Bowman, Burke, Dickey, Dunn, Emmons, Golden Valley, Grant, Hettinger, Logan, McIntosh, McKenzie, Mercer, Morton, Mountrail, Oliver, Ransom, Renville, Sioux, Slope, Stark, Steele, Walsh, and the Standing Rock Indian Reservation. The Interest Rates are: PercentFor Physical Damage:Non-Profit Organizations With Credit Available Elsewhere
3.625Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.000For Economic Injury:Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 12057B and for economic injury is 12058B. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) James E. Rivera, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. 2010-4933 Filed 3-8-10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Editorial Note on Part 880
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 880 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 880.6785 Manual patient transfer device. ( a ) *Identification.* A manual patient transfer device is a device consisting of a wheeled stretcher and a mechanism on which a patient can be placed so that the patient can be transferred with minimal disturbance in a horizontal position to the stretcher.
( 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. The device 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 66 FR 38807, July 25, 2001]
News from
Yellowave Corp.
-----------------------------------

For Immediate Release

                    Yellowave Corp. and Shareholders Move to

                         Rescind Newtech Broadwidth Deal

LOS ANGELES,  August 21, 2000 -- Yellowave Corp. (AMEX: YW) announced today that
the company and three of its  principal  shareholders  have obtained a temporary
restraining  order in U.S.  District  Court and filed a complaint  that seeks to
rescind a transaction  between the company and Newtech  Broadwidth  Ltd. and its
shareholders.

The temporary restraining order, granted by Judge Ronald Lew, is based on claims
that the transaction with Newtech Broadwidth involved misrepresentations made by
Prosper  Abitbol and several of his  associates.  The order bars Mr. Abitbol and
his  associates  from taking any actions in the  company's  name.  Yellowave  is
seeking  to  resolve  the  matter  amicably,  and  discussions  to that end have
commenced.

Laura Ballegeer,  the company's Chief Operating  Officer,  said that the company
will delay a  previously-announced  50% stock dividend to  shareholders,  in the
form  of a  3-for-2  stock  split,  which  was to  have  been  paid  Aug.  31 to
shareholders of record on Aug. 24.

The  temporary  restraining  order  was  sought  by  Yellowave  Corp.  and Laura
Ballegeer, Ron Oren and Shera Corp., major shareholders.

An  incubator  of  high-tech  companies,  Yellowave  is  committed  to acquiring
companies with leading-edge technologies and operating revenues. Yellowave has a
special focus on companies  emerging from the very active science and technology
community  in Israel,  and is currently  in advanced  negotiations  with several
Israeli wireless and telecommunications companies.

This news release contains forward-looking  statements within the meaning of the
Private  Securities  Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The company's actual results
could  differ  materially  from  those   anticipated  in  such   forward-looking
statements.

                                       end

Contacts:   Laura Ballegeer, Yellowave Corporation
            310-979-8055

            Alexander Auerbach,  Auerbach & Co. Public Relations
            800-871-2583 or auerbach@aapr.com

                         ALEXANDER AUERBACH & CO., INC.
                   PUBIC RELATIONS o MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS
              3887 DIXIE CANYON AVE. o SHERMAN OAKS, CA 91423-4389
           TEL: (800) 871-2583 o FAX: (818) 501-7825 o www.AAPR.COM:
Editorial Note on Part 868
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 868 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 868.2450 Lung water monitor. ( a ) *Identification.* A lung water monitor is a device used to monitor the trend of fluid volume changes in a patient's lung by measuring changes in thoracic electrical impedance (resistance to alternating current) by means of electrodes placed on the patient's chest.
( b ) *Classification.* Class III (premarket approval).
( c ) *Date PMA or notice of completion of a PDP is required.* A PMA or a notice of completion of a PDP for a device is required to be filed with the Food and Drug Administration on or before July 12, 2000, for any lung water monitor that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or that has, on or before July 12, 2000, been found to be substantially equivalent to a lung water monitor that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976. Any other lung water monitor device shall have an approved PMA or declared completed PDP in effect before being placed in commercial distribution.
[47 FR 31142, July 16, 1982, as amended at 52 FR 17735, May 11, 1987; 65 FR 19834, Apr. 13, 2000]
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 3, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-30059

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RENIFER JOHN MCFADDEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 02-CR-149-ALL

 

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Renifer John McFadden appeals from his sentence entered after

a guilty plea conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) and for making a

false statement as to a fact material to the lawfulness of the sale

of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(6) and

924(a)(1)(B). He argues that the district court erred in denying
1 See United States v. Solis, 299 F.3d 420, 458 (5th Cir.

2002) (“While we generally review a district court’s factual

finding under the Guidelines for clear error, [a] district court’s

determination of whether a defendant is entitled to a reduction of

his offense level for acceptance of responsibility is reviewed with

even more deference than the pure clearly erroneous standard. As

such, [w]e will affirm a sentencing court’s decision not to award

a reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 unless it is without

foundation.” (footnote and internal quotation marks omitted)).

2

an offense level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under

U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. However, the district court provided several

reasons supporting its doubt of McFadden’s true acceptance of

responsibility.1 Giving great deference to the district court’s

decision to deny sentencing leniency under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, we

AFFIRM.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 44 (Monday, March 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 10476]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4824]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket ID DOD-2010-OS-0021]


Privacy Act of 1974; Systems of Records

AGENCY: Defense Logistics Agency, DoD.

ACTION: Notice to delete a system of records.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Logistics Agency proposes to delete a system of 
records notice in its existing inventory of records systems subject to 
the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.

DATES: This proposed action will be effective without further notice on 
April 7, 2010 unless comments are received which result in a contrary 
determination.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by dock number and 
title, by any of the following methods:
    <bullet> Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    <bullet> Mail: Federal Docket Management System Office, 1160 
Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1160.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and docket number for this Federal Register document. The general 
policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is 
to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet 
at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, 
including any personal identifiers or contact information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jody Sinkler at (703) 767-5045.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Defense Logistics Agency systems of 
records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as 
amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available 
from the Chief Privacy and FOIA Officer, Headquarters Defense Logistics 
Agency, ATTN: DGA, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Suite 1644, Fort Belvoir, 
VA 22060-6221.
    The Defense Logistics Agency is proposing to delete a system of 
records notice from its existing inventory of records systems subject 
to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a) as amended. The proposed 
deletion is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act 
of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a 
new or altered system report.

    Dated: March 2, 2010.
Mitchell S. Bryman,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
S360.20

System name:
    Civilian Personnel Data System (October 9, 2001; 66 FR 51405).

Reason:
    System notice is no longer necessary. Records are covered under the 
existing DoD-wide notice, DPR 34, entitled ``Defense Civilian Personnel 
Data System'' (April 21, 2006; 71 FR 20649).

[FR Doc. 2010-4824 Filed 3-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7847 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to remove the exclusion of the 

State of Minnesota from certain contracting for engineering and design 

services requirements. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2024 

Mr. STAUBER (for himself, Mr. FINSTAD, Ms. CRAIG, Mr. PHILLIPS, and Mrs. 

FISCHBACH) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to remove the exclusion of the State of Minnesota from certain contracting 

for engineering and design services requirements. 

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 ‘‘Parity in Engineering 

5 Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 7847 IH

1 SEC. 2. CONTRACTING FOR ENGINEERING AND DESIGN 

2 SERVICES. 

3 Section 112(b)(2)(F) of title 23, United States Code, 

4 is amended by striking ‘‘the States of West Virginia or 

5 Minnesota’’ and inserting ‘‘the State of West Virginia’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### Collins *et al. v.*Rebb *et al.*

Russell, G. J.

I. Having' occupied a tract of land of the same dimensions as that purchased, even though its location was not exactly that described in the deed, for more than seven years, a plaintiff in ejectment would be estopped to eject the owner of an adjoining lot purchased from the same common grantor, when the plaintiff’s predecessor in title had erected a building with the acquiescence of the grantor upon a coterminous boundary line and occupied with his building all the space, *251both in width and depth, embraced in the grantor’s deed. Civil Code (1910), § 3821; *Catoosa Springs Co.*v. *Webb,*123 *Ga.*34 (50 S. E. 942) ; *Sapp*v. *Odom,*165 *Ga.*437 (6) (141 S. E. 201).

No. 8444.

January 16, 1932.

Rehearing denied March 2, 1932.

2. While it is true, as a general rule, that the owner of land does not lose title and right of possession even though he may erect a fence or construct a building within his boundary line, nevertheless, under the facts of this ease, the jury were authorized to find that a boundary line between the lots of plaintiff and defendant was established by agreement and acquiescence between the common grantor and the plaintiff’s predecessor in title sixteen years before the defendant purchased his' lot, and that the plaintiff and her predecessors in title are, and ever since their original purchase have been, in possession of the exact quantity of land conveyed by the deed of the common grantor, the location of which does not vary substantially from that contended for by the plaintiff. The only variance in location is that the corners in the rear of the lot, which front on a ten-foot alley, are from one and four-tenths to one and fifty-five hundredths feet further east than the points which the plaintiff claims to be the true corners.

3. The excerpts from the charge of the court to which exceptions are taken were fairly and properly adjusted to the pleadings and evidence, and none of them are erroneous for any reason assigned.

4. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Jusiioes concur.*

*254
      *H. G.*Holbrook, for plaintiffs.

*Louis II.*Foster, for defendants.
#### § 822.34 What must I do with the records if the sponsor of the plan or an investigator in the plan changes?

If the sponsor of the plan or an investigator in the plan changes, you must ensure that all records related to the postmarket surveillance have been transferred to the new sponsor or investigator and notify us within 10 working days of the effective date of the change. You must provide the name, address, and telephone number of the new sponsor or investigator, certify that all records have been transferred, and provide the date of transfer.
EX-99

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

                        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
               SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                          (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of W-J International,
Ltd. ("Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to his 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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request


Dated:  May 21, 2003                   By: /s/  Edward H. Webb
                                       Edward H. Webb, President
Editorial Note on Part 862
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 862 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 862.1350 Continuous glucose monitor secondary alarm system. ( a ) *Identification.* A continuous glucose monitor (CGM) secondary alarm system is identified as a device intended to be used as a secondary alarm for a CGM to enable immediate awareness for potential clinical intervention to help assure patient safety.
( 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 the limitations in § 862.9. The special controls for this device are: ( 1 ) Devices being marketed must include appropriate measures to protect against unauthorized access to data and unauthorized modification of data.
( 2 ) The labeling must prominently and conspicuously display a warning that states “Dosing decisions should not be made based on this device. The user should follow instructions on the continuous glucose monitoring system.”
( 3 ) The labeling for the device must include a statement that reads “This device is not intended to replace self-monitoring practices as advised by a physician.”
[82 FR 13550, Mar. 14, 2017, as amended at 84 FR 71796, Dec. 30, 2019; 86 FR 20283, Apr. 19, 2021]
##### 








---



##### 



info@lifeway.net http://www.lifeway.net
  (Unaudited){Three Months Ended
    
    
    Year EndedMarch 31,
    
    
    December 31,2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2006Sales
    
    $
    9,022,244
    
    
    $
    6,003,023
    
    
    $
    27,720,713Cost of goods sold
    
    
    5,449,825
    
    
    
    3,305,643
    
    
    
    17,081,992Gross profit
    
    
    3,572,419
    
    
    
    2,697,380
    
    
    
    10,638,721Selling Expenses
    
    
    770,081
    
    
    
    582,943
    
    
    
    3,065,254General and Administrative
    
    
    1,000,848
    
    
    
    708,065
    
    
    
    3,343,341Total Operating Expenses
    
    
    1,770,929
    
    
    
    1,291,008
    
    
    
    6,408,595Income from operations
    
    
    1,801,490
    
    
    
    1,406,372
    
    
    
    4,230,126Other income (expense):Interest and dividend income
    
    
    65,799
    
    
    
    86,235
    
    
    
    388,339Rental Income
    
    
    8,600
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    11,401Interest expense
    
    
    (109,529
    )
    
    
    (50,226
    )
    
    
    (345,525
    )Gain (loss) on sale of marketable
securities, net
    
    
    14,137
    
    
    
    (36,878
    )
    
    
    355,767Gain on marketable securities
classified as trading
    
    
    608
    
    
    
    512
    
    
    
    791Total other income (Expense)
    
    
    (20,385
    )
    
    
    (357
    )
    
    
    410,773Income before provision for
income taxes
    
    
    1,781,105
    
    
    
    1,406,015
    
    
    
    4,640,899Provision for income taxes
    
    
    645,774
    
    
    
    511,352
    
    
    
    1,745,075Net income
    
    $
    1,135,331
    
    
    $
    894,663
    
    
    $
    2,895,824Basic and diluted earnings per
common share
    
    
    0.07
    
    
    
    0.05
    
    
    
    0.17Weighted average number of
shares outstanding
    
    
    16,895,351
    
    
    
    16,792,378
    
    
    
    16,829,601
  info@lifeway.net
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

RICKY LAND,

Petitioner

v.

PIKE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S 

OFFICE,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 96 MM 2023

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 17th day of November, 2023, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DISMISSED.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-20948 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANTONIO MEDINA,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-98-CR-61-2

- - - - - - - - - -

June 17, 1999

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Antonio Medina appeals from his conviction by guilty plea of

illegal importation of Freon. Medina contends that the

Government breached his plea agreement by failing to recommend

sentencing at the low end of the guideline range.

Medina did not raise his contention in the district court;

his contention is reviewed for plain error. United States v.

Cerverizzo, 74 F.3d 629, 631 (5th Cir. 1996). Whether Medina

provided the cooperation necessary to obtain the Government’s
recommendation is a factual issue that could have been resolved

by the district court upon proper objection; Medina therefore

cannot demonstrate plain error. United States v. AlvaradoSaldivar, 62 F.3d 697, 700 (5th Cir. 1995).

AFFIRMED.