alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
October 19, 2015

Mr. Bryce Witkowski

12918 77th Avenue East

Puyallup, WA 98373

Dear Mr. Witkowski:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

sections of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot

process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We received your exemption request filed in Docket No. FAA−2015−3071, but we are unable 

to process your request any further. Your petition does not comply with the requirements of

§ 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of 

the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosures
3
4
March 12, 1999

Ms. Heidi Sanders
Pinacor

3001 South Priest Drive
Tempe, AZ 85282-3492

Subject:  Contract Extension

Dear Heidi,

The Authorized Apple Wholesale U.S. Sales Agreement between Apple Computer, Inc.
and Pinacor will expire on March 31, 1999.  Apple would like to offer Pinacor an
extension of this agreement through March 31, 2000.

Any order placed by Pinacor under your Authorized Apple Wholesaler  status after
March 31, 1999 will be construed as acceptance of this offer.

Sincerely,


Apryl Lane
Sr. Contract Specialist
Bids & Contracts Management
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 By Notice dated October 16, 2009, and published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     on October 28, 2009, (74 FR 55587), Cayman Chemical Company, 1180 East Ellsworth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedule I: Drug
ScheduleMarihuana (7360)
ITetrahydrocannabinols (7370)
I
 The company plans to manufacture small quantities of marihuana derivatives for research purposes. In reference to drug code 7360 (Marihuana), the company plans to bulk manufacture cannabidiol. In reference to drug code 7370 (Tetrahydrocannabinols), the company will manufacture a synthetic THC. No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration. No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Cayman Chemical Company to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Cayman Chemical Company to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed. Dated: February 24, 2010. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. 2010-4401 Filed 3-2-10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

Notice is hereby given that, on January 29, 2010, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 (“the Act”), Information Card Foundation has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Novell, Waltham, MA; and Intel, Hillsboro, OR have withdrawn as parties to this venture.

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Information Card Foundation intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On June 2, 2008, Information Card Foundation filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on July 16, 2008 (73 FR 0883)                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on September 25, 2009. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on October 27, 2009 (74 FR 55257)                

Patricia A. Brink,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2010-5036 Filed 3-9-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
# C_2015056EN.01002201.xml

| 16.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 56/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/22

---

Order of the General Court of 28 November 2014 — Quanzhou Wouxun Electronics v OHMI — Locura Digital (WOUXUN)

(Case T-345/14) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - Time-limit for bringing proceedings - Out of time - No unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2015/C 056/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Quanzhou Wouxun Electronics Co. Ltd (Quanzhou, China) (represented by: A. Sebastião and J. Pimenta, 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 of OHIM: Locura Digital, SL (Granollers, Spain)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 February 2014 (Case R 407/2013-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign WOUXUN as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Quanzhou Wouxun Electronics Co. Ltd shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Quanzhou Wouxun Electronics Co. Ltd shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.

1

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

§ 874.5370 Tongs antichoke device. ( a ) *Identification.* A tongs antichoke device is a device that is intended to be used in an emergency situation to grasp and remove foreign objects that obstruct a patient's airway to prevent asphyxiation of the patient. This generic type of device includes a plastic instrument with serrated ends that is inserted into the airway in a blind manner to grasp and extract foreign objects, and a stainless steel forceps with spoon ends that is inserted under tactile guidance to grasp and extract foreign objects from the airway.
( 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 tongs 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 tongs antichoke device that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976. Any other tongs 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]
Editorial Note on Part 864
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 864 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 864.5300 Red cell indices device. ( a ) *Identification.* A red cell indices device, usually part of a larger system, calculates or directly measures the erythrocyte mean corpuscular volume (MCV), the mean corpuscular hemoglobin (MCH), and the mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration (MCHC). The red cell indices are used for the differential diagnosis of anemias.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
[45 FR 60597, Sept. 12, 1980]
Editorial Note on Part 866
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 866 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 866.6010 Tumor-associated antigen immunological test system. ( a ) *Identification.* A tumor-associated antigen immunological test system is a device that consists of reagents used to qualitatively or quantitatively measure, by immunochemical techniques, tumor-associated antigens in serum, plasma, urine, or other body fluids. This device is intended as an aid in monitoring patients for disease progress or response to therapy or for the detection of recurrent or residual disease.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). Tumor markers must comply with the following special controls: ( 1 ) A guidance document entitled “Guidance Document for the Submission of Tumor Associated Antigen Premarket Notifications (510(k)s) to FDA,” and
( 2 ) voluntary assay performance standards issued by the National Committee on Clinical Laboratory Standards.
[62 FR 66005, Dec. 17, 1997]
# C_2017022EN.01003302.xml

| 23.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/33

---

Order of the General Court of 1 December 2016 — Europower v Commission

(Case T-383/14) (1)

1

((Public works contracts - Tendering procedure - Construction of a gas-turbine tri-generation power plant and associated maintenance - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Withdrawal of the contested act - No need to adjudicate))

(2017/C 022/45)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Europower SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: G. Cocco and L. Salomoni, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: L. Cappelletti, F. Moro and L. Di Paolo, and subsequently by L. Di Paolo and F. Moro, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: CPL Concordia Soc. coop. (Concordia Sulla Secchia, Italy) (represented by: A. Penta, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action, first, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of the Commission decision of 3 April 2014 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in the context of the call for tenders JRC IPR 2013 C04 0031 OC, concerning the construction of a gas-turbine tri-generation power plant and associated maintenance (OJ 2013/S 137-237146) on the site of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) at Ispra (Italy), of the Commission decision awarding the contract to CPL Concordia, of any other related prior or subsequent act including the actual decision approving the contract and the contract itself, and of the Commission decision refusing to disclose to the applicant the documents in the call for tenders and, secondly, on the basis of Article 268 TFEU and seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

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. | The form of order sought by CPL Concordia Soc. coop. seeking dismissal of the application for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate is rejected as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The form of order sought by CPL Concordia Soc. coop. seeking dismissal of the application for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate is rejected as manifestly inadmissible.

| 3. | The European Commission shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by Europower SpA, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by Europower SpA, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

| 4. | CPL Concordia shall bear its own costs, relating both to the present proceedings and to the interlocutory proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

4.

CPL Concordia shall bear its own costs, relating both to the present proceedings and to the interlocutory proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 880
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 880 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 880.5110 Hydraulic adjustable hospital bed. ( a ) *Identification.* A hydraulic adjustable hospital bed is a device intended for medical purposes that consists of a bed with a hydraulic mechanism operated by an attendant to adjust the height and surface contour of the bed. The device includes movable and latchable side rails.
( 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.
[45 FR 69682, Oct. 21, 1980, as amended at 66 FR 38804, July 25, 2001]
Editorial Note on Part 880
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 880 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 880.2200 Liquid crystal forehead temperature strip. ( a ) *Identification.* A liquid crystal forehead temperature strip is a device applied to the forehead that is used to indicate the presence or absence of fever, or to monitor body temperature changes. The device displays the color changes of heat sensitive liquid crystals corresponding to the variation in the surface temperature of the skin. The liquid crystals, which are cholesteric esters, are sealed in plastic.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to § 880.9.
[45 FR 69682, Oct. 21, 1980, as amended at 63 FR 59228, Nov. 3, 1998]
* 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

December 10, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50664

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ALEJO RAMIREZ-FLORES,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-03-CR-372-ALL-DB

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

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Alejo Ramirez-Flores appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States

after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Ramirez-Flores contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior

conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element

of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have

been alleged in his indictment. Ramirez-Flores maintains that he
No. 03-50664

-2-

pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry

under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds

the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed

for that offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Ramirez-Flores acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JEFFREY WARREN SHACKELFORD,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 511 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JEFFREY WARREN SHACKELFORD,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 512 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 12th day of February, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause Number: 01-14-00981-CR

Trial Court Cause 

Number: 1421328

Style: David James Chapman

v. The State of Texas

Date motion filed*: July 14, 2015

Type of motion: Motion for extension of time to hold hearing

Party filing motion: Court

Document to be filed: Hearing record and supplemental clerk’s record

Is appeal accelerated? Yes No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date:

Number of previous extensions granted: 0

Date Requested: Additional 30 days to hold hearing as ordered on June 18, 2015 and to 

return the requested records.

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: 30 days after original deadline

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: 

Judge's signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: July 15, 2015
EXHIBIT 99.b



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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Affordable Housing II Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc N. Teal, Sr. Vice President of C&M Management Inc. and Director of Accounting of Boston Capital Corporation, 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, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and                              
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                        
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Partnership.



|                  | American Affordable Housing II Limited Partnership
|----------------- | --------------------------------------------------
|                  |                                                   
|                  | By:                                               
|                  |                                                   
|                  |                                                   
|                  | By:                                               
|                  |                                                   
|                  |                                                   
|                  | By:                                               
|                  |                                                   
|                  |                                                   
|Date:             |                                                   
|February 19, 2003 | By:                                               
|                  |                                                   
|                  |                                                   
|                  |