alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order filed April 21 , 2015

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 15

- 00102

- CV

____________ CHARLIE JONES , Appellant

V.
SOUTH WEST PAINT & B ODY SHOP LP, B & B M AIN ST AUTO

STORAGE, CITY OF BEL LAIRE, Appellee

On Appeal from Co unty Civil C our t at Law No

. 4

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1056216



### O R D E R
The notice of appeal in this case was filed February 2, 2015

. To date, the filing fee of $19 5.00 has not been paid. No evidence that appellant has established indigence has been filed. See Tex. R. App. P

. 20.1. Therefore, the court issues the following order.
Appellant is ordered to pay the filing fee in the amount of $1 9 5.00 to the

c lerk of th is court on or before May 6, 2015

. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. If appellantfails to timely pay the filing fee in accordance with this order, the appeal will be

dismissed.

PER CURIAM
Editorial Note on Part 888
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 888 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 888.3220 Finger joint metal/polymer constrained cemented prosthesis. ( a ) *Identification.* A finger joint metal/polymer constrained cemented prosthesis is a device intended to be implanted to replace a metacarpophalangeal or proximal interphalangeal (finger) joint. The device prevents dislocation in more than one anatomic plane, and consists of two components which are linked together. This generic type of device includes prostheses that are made of alloys, such as cobalt-chromium-molybdenum, and ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene, and is limited to those prostheses intended for use with bone cement (§ 888.3027).
( b ) *Classification.* Class III.
( c ) *Date PMA or notice of completion of a PDP is required.* A PMA or a notice of completion of a PDP is required to be filed with the Food and Drug Administration on or before December 26, 1996 for any finger joint metal/polymer constrained cemented prosthesis that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or that has, on or before December 26, 1996 been found to be substantially equivalent to a finger joint metal/polymer constrained cemented prosthesis that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976. Any other finger joint metal/polymer constrained cemented prosthesis shall have an approved PMA or a declared completed PDP in effect before being placed in commercial distribution.
[52 FR 33702, Sept. 4, 1987, as amended at 61 FR 50709, Sept. 27, 1996]
Document Headings

                    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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

# ACTION:

Correction notice.

                    On March 2, 2010 the National Institutes of Health published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     (75 FR 9418) with a 30-day comment period seeking public comment for an information collection entitled “Request for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Line to be Approved for Use in NIH Funded Research”.                

                    In the second paragraph of the notice entitled, “Proposed Collection,” the annual reporting burden reflected in the notice is corrected to read: “                    *Estimated Number of Respondents:*                     100;                     *Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent:*                     1;                     *Average Burden Hours Per Response:*                     3; and                     *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours Requested:*                     300. The estimated annualized cost to respondents is $10,500.”                

All other information in the notice is correct and remains unchanged.

Dated: March 2, 2010.

Mikia Currie,

Office of Policy for Extramural Research Administration, OD, National Institutes of Health.

[FR Doc. 2010-5020 Filed 3-9-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Editorial Note on Part 870
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 870 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 870.2450 Medical cathode-ray tube display. ( a ) *Identification.* A medical cathode-ray tube display is a device designed primarily to display selected biological signals. This device often incorporates special display features unique to a specific biological signal.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
# C_2015016EN.01004201.xml

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/42

---

Action brought on 18 October 2014 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dinamiki v Parliament

(Case T-733/14)

(2015/C 016/66)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicants: European Dynamics (Luxembourg (Luxembourg) and Evropaïki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: E. Veletsanou and M. Sfiri, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision of the Parliament D(2014)38802 dated 18 September 2014, whereby the Parliament rejected the applicants’ tender for Lot 3 in the open procurement procedure 2014/S 066-111912 titled ‘PE/ITEC-ITS14 — External provision of IT services’; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision of the Parliament D(2014)38802 dated 18 September 2014, whereby the Parliament rejected the applicants’ tender for Lot 3 in the open procurement procedure 2014/S 066-111912 titled ‘PE/ITEC-ITS14 — External provision of IT services’; and

| — | order the European Parliament to pay all the applicants’ costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay all the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments in support of annulment

In support of the action the applicants rely on the following:

In the opinion of the applicants, the contested decision should be annulled, under Article 263 TFEU, on the ground of the Parliament’s breach of the obligation to state reasons, since the Parliament provided an inadequate statement of reasons with regard to the applicants’ technical offer, with which they participated in the procurement procedure at issue.

The applicants claim that the reasons stated for the ranking which was given to their technical offer and to that of the other tenderers for Lot 3 of the procurement procedure at issue, with regard to each defined award criterion, did not enable them to understand either the reasons for the ranking which their tender achieved nor the characteristics and advantages of the tenders submitted by other tenderers. The applicants claim that, if an adequate statement of reasons for the ranking of their technical offer were available to them, they would be better able to state their defence.

The applicants also submit that the Parliament infringed the contractual documents (the tender specifications and supplementary guidelines), which the Parliament had itself drawn up, in relation to the method for the evaluation of the financial offers submitted by the tenderers, and which were binding on it. In so acting, the Parliament infringed both the Financial Regulation and the rules for its application, under which the contracting authority is to conduct a procurement procedure in accordance with the contractual documents and with due regard to the general principles of EU law.

---
§ 520.540b Dexamethasone tablets and boluses. ( a ) ( 1 ) *Specifications.* Each bolus is half-scored and contains 10 milligrams of dexamethasone.
( 2 ) *Sponsor.* See No. 000061 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( 3 ) *Conditions of use in cattle and horses* — ( i ) *Amount.* Administer orally 5 to 10 milligrams on the first day, then 5 milligrams per day as required.
( ii ) *Indications for use.* As supportive therapy following parenteral steroid administration for management or inflammatory conditions such as acute arthritic lameness, and for various stress conditions where corticosteroids are required while the animal is being treated for a specific condition.
( iii ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian. A withdrawal period has not been established for this product in preruminating calves. Do not use in calves to be processed for veal. Do not use in horses intended for human consumption.
( b ) ( 1 ) *Specifications.* Each tablet contains 0.25 milligram of dexamethasone.
( 2 ) *Sponsors.* See Nos. 000061 and 061133 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( 3 ) *Conditions of use in dogs and cats* — ( i ) *Amount.* Dogs: Administer orally 0.25 to 1.25 milligrams per day for up to 7 days. Cats: Administer orally 0.125 to 0.5 milligrams per day for up to 7 days.
( ii ) *Indications for use.* As an anti-inflammatory agent.
( iii ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[40 FR 26273, June 23, 1975, as amended at 44 FR 7130, Feb. 6, 1979; 50 FR 49372, Dec. 2, 1985; 52 FR 7832, Mar. 13, 1987; 55 FR 8461, Mar. 8, 1990; 66 FR 14073, Mar. 9, 2001; 68 FR 4914, Jan. 31, 2003; 70 FR 16934, Apr. 4, 2005; 79 FR 28819, May 20, 2014; 84 FR 8972, Mar. 13, 2019]
5600

6600

6000

5800

5200

6200

5600

5800

6200

6200

5400

5500

6400

6400

6200

5600

6400

5900

6000

5200

5200

5800

5600

6200

6200

6000

6400

6600

5800

5600

6600

6400

6000

6000

6000

6000

5600

6000

6000

6200

6600

5600

5800

5800

338

338

338

338

338

338

Birch

Creek

Cornelius Tank

Eicks

Tank

Tumblinson

Tank

Mailbox

Tank

Red Hill Dirt Tank

Summit

Tank

Juniper

Tank

Red Hill

Cement Tank

Rattlesnake

Tank

Schoolhouse

Tank

Kitchens Tank

Miner Tank

San Luis Pass Tank

Eicks

Tank

Taylor

Draw

Foster Draw

Red Hill

San

Luis

A

nim

a

s

M

o

u

ntain

s

Animas

Valley

San

Luis

Mountains

Fitzpatricks

Lang

Canyon Whitewater

Creek

Animas

Peak

Clanton

Draw

San

Luis

Pass Fitzpatricks Black

Point

Guadalupe

Pass

Center

Peak

7

000 FEET 7

34

34

2

34

85

34

34

84

34

400

000 FEET

79

08

34

7

82

04 7 E

86

7

76

34

27'

30"

34

74

52'

7

27'

FEET

34

000

03

81

N

108°

06 7

09

140

25'

30"

000m

22'

34

74

12

47'

83

75

7 11

34

31°

50'

82

108°

87

34

34

7

34

108°

02 13

76

7 7

34

45'

84

31° 07 31°

7

000

77

34

31°

79

000m

30"

08

30"

25'

34

FEET

180

34

7

30" 05

75

52'

45'

78

12

07

34

34

7

34

000m 22'

77

2

50'

7

N

80

09

85

108°

05

30"

11

81

000m

04

30"

10

34

83

34

34

E 30' 30' 430

34

13

7

80

7

7

86

7

47'

7

30"

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

NEW MEXICO

ADJOINING 7.5' QUADRANGLES

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

FITZPATRICKS, NM

2010

Interstate Route State Route

ROAD CLASSIFICATION

Interstate Route US Route State Route

Ramp 4WD

US Route Local Road

FITZPATRICKS QUADRANGLE

NEW MEXICO

7.5-MINUTE SERIES

Zone 12R

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and

1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator,

Produced by the United States Geological Survey

10 000-foot ticks: New Mexico Coordinate System of 1983

(west zone)

Imagery...............................NAIP, January 2005 - May 2009

Roads..............................................©2006-2010 Tele Atlas

Names...............................................................GNIS, 2008

Hydrography.................National Hydrography Dataset, 2005

Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 2001

1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

FEET

This map was produced to conform with version 0.5.10 of the

draft USGS Standards for 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Maps.

A metadata file associated with this product is draft version 0.5.11

SCALE 1:24 000

1 0.5 0 1

MILES

MN

1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2

GN

UTM GRID AND 2010 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET

1° 8 ́

20 MILS

9° 46 ́

174 MILS

U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID

Grid Zone Designation

12R

YV

CONTOUR INTERVAL 40 FEET

NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988
#### Mathews *et al. v.*Blalock.

No. 8515.

February 12, 1932.

Hill, J.

1. Where a testatrix devises certain real property to her several children, with the proviso that if such child or children die without leaving children, his or her share shall go to the other children, such devise conveys a defeasible fee in such property devised; and where the will further devises the right and power to each child to sell his or her share in the estate so devised, and one of such children dies, leaving children, after having exercised the power conferred by the will and sold his share, the purchaser and his transferees have a good title to such share.

2. The court did not err in overruling the demurrer to the petition, and in granting the injunction. *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*381
      *H. J. Kennedy, P. J. Smith, B. B. Weatherly,*and *Claude Christopher,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Dobbs & Dobbs,*contra.
Editorial Note on Part 874
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 874 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 874.5350 Suction antichoke device. ( a ) *Identification.* A suction antichoke device is a device intended to be used in an emergency situation to remove, by the application of suction, foreign objects that obstruct a patient's airway to prevent asphyxiation to the patient.
( b ) *Classification.* Class III.
( c ) *Date PMA or notice of completion of 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 13, 1999 for any suction antichoke device that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or that has, on or before July 13, 1999, been found to be substantially equivalent to a suction antichoke device that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976. Any other suction antichoke device shall have an approved PMA or declared completed PDP in effect before being placed in commercial distribution.
[51 FR 40389, Nov. 6, 1986, as amended at 64 FR 18329, Apr. 14, 1999; 65 FR 2316, Jan. 14, 2000]
Editorial Note on Part 866
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 866 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 866.6030 AFP-L3% immunological test system. ( a ) *Identification.* An AFP-L3% immunological test system is an in vitro device that consists of reagents and an automated instrument used to quantitatively measure, by immunochemical techniques, AFP and AFP-L3 subfraction in human serum. The device is intended for in vitro diagnostic use as an aid in the risk assessment of patients with chronic liver disease for development of hepatocellular carcinoma, in conjunction with other laboratory findings, imaging studies, and clinical assessment.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special control is FDA's guidance document entitled “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: AFP-L3% Immunological Test Systems.” See § 866.1(e) for the availability of this guidance document.
[70 FR 57749, Oct. 4, 2005]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 21, 2014

jam

Order 

Clerk

July 21, 2014

149684 (29)

RAYMOND E. CHASTAIN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 149684

COA: 320340

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________________________

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it 

is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be 

liable for filing fees. 

Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the 

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $78.00, shall submit a copy of this order 

with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned 

with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being 

filed in this Court.

If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly 

payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of 

the deposits made to plaintiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of 

$297.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court.

Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in civil 

actions in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. 

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and 

return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.
Editorial Note on Part 878
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 878 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 878.5900 Nonpneumatic tourniquet. ( a ) *Identification.* A nonpneumatic tourniquet is a device consisting of a strap or tubing intended to be wrapped around a patient's limb and tightened to reduce circulation.
( 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 § 878.9.
[53 FR 23872, June 24, 1988, as amended at 54 FR 13828, Apr. 5, 1989; 59 FR 63010, Dec. 7, 1994; 66 FR 38803, July 25, 2001]
# C_2014245EN.01002701.xml

| 28.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/27

---

Action brought on 30 May 2014 — Ezz v Council

(Case T-377/14)

2014/C 245/36

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz (Giza, Egypt) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, R. Luff, A. Bailleux, Q. Declève, P. Vovan, S. Rowe and A. Yehia, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the action admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the action admissible and well-founded;

| — | annul Decision 2014/153, in so far as it extends until 22 March 2015 the restrictive measures directed against the applicant in Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Decision 2014/153, in so far as it extends until 22 March 2015 the restrictive measures directed against the applicant in Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those raised in Case T-375/14 Al Naggar v Council.

---
# C_2014175EN.01004602.xml

| 10.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/46

---

Action brought on brought on 7 March 2014 — ANKO v Commission.

(Case T-155/14)

2014/C 175/64

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | Declare that the entire amount of EUR 325 823,16 which the Commission seeks to recover as constituting ineligible costs and which it has already paid to the applicant in respect of the PERSONA project and the entire amount of EUR 280 747,45 which the Commission seeks to recover as constituting ineligible costs and which it has already paid in respect of the TERREGOV project constitute eligible costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the entire amount of EUR 325 823,16 which the Commission seeks to recover as constituting ineligible costs and which it has already paid to the applicant in respect of the PERSONA project and the entire amount of EUR 280 747,45 which the Commission seeks to recover as constituting ineligible costs and which it has already paid in respect of the TERREGOV project constitute eligible costs;

| — | Declare that the amount of EUR 6 752,74 constitutes eligible costs incurred by ΑΝΚΟ in the context of the PERSONA project and, consequently that the Commission is under an obligation to make payment to ΑΝΚΟ;· |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the amount of EUR 6 752,74 constitutes eligible costs incurred by ΑΝΚΟ in the context of the PERSONA project and, consequently that the Commission is under an obligation to make payment to ΑΝΚΟ;·

| — | Order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action concerns the liability of the Commission under the contracts (a) 045 459 and (b) 507 749 for the performance of the (a) PERSONA and (b) TERREGOV projects respectively, under Article 272 TFEU.

In particular, the applicant maintains that, although it complied with its contractual obligations, the Commission, in breach of the abovementioned contracts, the principle of good faith, the prohibition of abuse of rights and the principle of proportionality, sought the recovery of sums paid to ΑΝΚΟ as not being eligible costs. For that reason, the applicant maintains, first, that the rejection of the eligibility of almost all the sums which the Commission paid in respect of the PERSONA and TERREGOV projects and the attempt to recover those sums as improperly paid is contrary to the Commission’s contractual obligations to ΑΝΚΟ. Second, the applicant maintains that the attempt to recover the whole of those amounts is disproportionate and abusive.

---
#### Catherine Bonadio *v.*Common Council of the City of Danbury et al.

No appearance for any of the parties.

Decided December 3, 1968

It appearing that the plaintiff in the above-entitled case has failed to prosecute her appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County with proper diligence, it is, under Practice Book § 696, ordered by the Supreme Court, suo motu, that the appeal be and hereby is dismissed.