alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 866
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 866 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 866.3336 John Cunningham Virus serological reagents. ( a ) *Identification.* John Cunningham Virus serological reagents are devices that consist of antigens and antisera used in serological assays to identify antibodies to John Cunningham Virus in serum and plasma. The identification aids in the risk stratification for the development of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy in multiple sclerosis and Crohn's disease patients undergoing natalizumab therapy. These devices are for adjunctive use, in the context of other clinical risk factors for the development of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special control for this device is the FDA guideline document entitled “Class II Special Controls Guideline: John Cunningham Virus Serological Reagents.” For availability of the guideline document, see § 866.1(e).
[79 FR 3740, Jan. 23, 2014]
#### § 601.21 Products under development.

A biological product undergoing development, but not yet ready for a biologics license, may be shipped or otherwise delivered from one State or possession into another State or possession provided such shipment or delivery is not for introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce, except as provided in sections 505(i) and 520(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended, and the regulations thereunder (21 CFR parts 312 and 812).

[64 FR 56451, Oct. 20, 1999]
§ 876.5920 Protective garment for incontinence. ( a ) *Identification.* A protective garment for incontinence is a device that consists of absorbent padding and a fluid barrier and that is intended to protect an incontinent patient's garment from the patient's excreta. This generic type of device does not include diapers for infants.
( 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 § 876.9. 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, regarding general requirements concerning records, and § 820.198, regarding complaint files.
[48 FR 53023, Nov. 23, 1983, as amended at 54 FR 25050, June 12, 1989; 66 FR 38802, July 25, 2001]
# C_2017309EN.01000401.xml

| 18.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 July 2017 — Council of the European Union v Hamas, European Commission

(Case C-79/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Fight against terrorism - Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities - Freezing of funds - Common Position 2001/931/CFSP - Article 1(4) and (6) - Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 - Article 2(3) - Retention of an organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts - Conditions - Factual basis of the decisions to freeze funds - Decision taken by a competent authority - Obligation to state reasons))

(2017/C 309/04)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen, G. Étienne and M. Bishop, Agents)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Hamas (represented by: L. Glock, avocate), European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, M. Konstantinidis and R. Tricot, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Intervener in support of the appellant: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas, F. Fize and G. de Bergues, Agents)

Intervener in support of the appellant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1 | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 17 December 2014, Hamas v Council (T-400/10, EU:T:2014:1095); |
| --- | --- |

1

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 17 December 2014, Hamas v Council (T-400/10, EU:T:2014:1095);

| 2 | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

| 3 | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**DANIEL GALLAGHER,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 571 EAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 10th day of December, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of** 

**Appeal is** DENIED

**.**
Editorial Note on Part 878
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 878 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 878.5910 Pneumatic tourniquet. ( a ) *Identification.* A pneumatic tourniquet is an air-powered device consisting of a pressure-regulating unit, connecting tubing, and an inflatable cuff. The cuff is intended to be wrapped around a patient's limb and inflated to reduce or totally occlude circulation during surgery.
( 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 61 FR 1123, Jan. 16, 1996; 66 FR 38803, July 25, 2001]
#### Louise R. Hendrix et al. *v.*Clifford R. Hendrix, Jr.

*Peter M. Ryan,*in support of the motion.

Submitted November 17

decided November 25, 1969

The motion by the defendant for a clarification of the order of this court dated November 6, 1969, and for an extension of time to comply with that order is denied.
#### CONLON *v.*WAYNE CIRCUIT JUDGE.

Partition — Costs—Soucitor’s Fees — Mandamus—Attorney and Ciient.

No lien is given by statute *to the*solicitor of one of tbe parties in a partition suit, or to tbe clients (3 Comp. Laws, § 11080; 5 How. Stat. [2d Ed.] §13277), and bence mandamus will not lie to require tbe co,urt to determine tbe amount of solicitor’s fees and award a lien upon a fund obtained from tbe sale of tbe real property, and to create wbicb bis services did not contribute.

Mandamus proceedings by Thomas A. Conlon against George P. Codd, one of the circuit judges for the county of Wayne to compel respondent to vacate an order denying relator an attorney’s lien upon funds in the hands of the court.

Submitted April 27, 1915.

(Calendar No. 26,510.)

Writ denied June 7, 1915.

*Neal M. Hebinger,*for relator.

*A. G. Pitts,*for respondent.

Per Curiam.

A certain fund arising out of the sale of lands in partition proceedings is in the hands of or under control of the circuit court. Respondent, one of the judges of the court, denied relator an order fixing his fees as solicitor for some of the parties interested in the fund and giving him a lien upon the fund. He applies to this court for a writ of mandamus to compel the setting aside of the order refusing him relief. The return of respondent, which must be taken as true, and which is, in fact, supported by the record, shows that relator, while he has undoubtedly performed services for parties to whom portions of the fund belong, performed no services in the creation of the fund. The sum which either of relator’s clients owes him is in dispute.

*355The statute (3 Comp. Laws, § 11080 [5 How. Stat. (2d Ed.) § 13277]), gives no lien to relator’s clients upon the fund. The fund is not a judgment obtained by the services of relator. See *Greusel*v. *Smith,*85 Mich. 574 (48 N. W. 616); *Barbour*v. *Patterson,*145 Mich. 459 (108 N. W. 973). We are therefore of opinion that the court was right in refusing to fix the amount of relator’s demand and in denying his right to a lien.
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.                  

###### Arctic Research Commission

          - [USARC 10-018]

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Arctic Research Commission will hold its 92nd meeting in Miami, FL, on March 15, 2010. The business session, open to the public, will convene at 8:30 a.m.

*The Agenda items include:*

(1) Call to order and approval of the agenda.

(2) Approval of the minutes from the 91st meeting.

(3) Commissioners and staff reports.

(4) Discussion and presentations concerning Arctic research activities.

The focus of the meeting will be reports and updates on programs and research projects affecting the Arctic.

Any person planning to attend this meeting, who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission of those needs in advance of the meeting.

Contact person for further information: John Farrell, Executive Director, U.S. Arctic Research Commission, 703-525-0111 or TDD 703-306-0090.

John Farrell,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 2010-4685 Filed 3-5-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
NO. 07-05-0305-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	FEBRUARY 27, 2006

	______________________________

	In the Estate of GRIMES E. PEARSON, Deceased

	_________________________________

	FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

	NO. 2003-769,230; HON. PAULA LANEHART, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

	ON MOTION TO DISMISS

	________________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

	Appellants Sharon Brown, individually and as successor trustee of the Grimes Pearson Trust and the Ruth Pearson Trust, David Pearson and Michael Pearson, and appellee Loretta L. Pearson, individually and as independent executor of the estate of Grimes E. Pearson, deceased, by and through their attorneys, have filed a joint motion to dismiss this appeal.  Without passing on the merits of the case, we grant it pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(2) and dismiss the appeal.  Having dismissed the appeal at the parties’ request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.  							

							Brian Quinn

						          Chief Justice
EERE Information Center Search Help More Search Options

Printable Version 

## Electric Motors Test Procedures Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Public Meeting This page presents meeting materials and information on how to submit comments for the test procedures notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) public meeting for electric motors.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is proposing new test procedures to measure the efficiency of certain single-phase and polyphase small electric motors; revise and expand the scope of test procedures for 1–200 horsepower electric motors to apply also to 201–500 horsepower motors; and update the list of standards incorporated by reference in title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 431. The purpose of this public meeting is to discuss and receive comments, data, and information about test procedures for small electric motors, the updates to test procedures for electric motors, the definitions concerning these test procedures, and any other issues affecting this rulemaking.
The following documents are available as Adobe Acrobat PDFs. Download Adobe Reader

. 

### Meeting Materials Test Procedures for Electric Motors, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register, 73 FR 78220, December 22, 2008 ( PDF 372 KB ) Agenda ( PDF 92 KB ) Presentation ( PDF 312 KB ) Transcript ( PDF 340 KB )



### How to Submit Comments You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or by courier. Wherever possible, comments in the electronic format should carry the electronic signature of the author. Absent an electronic signature, comments submitted electronically must be authenticated by submitting a signed original paper document.

E-mail: small_electric_motors_tp.rulemaking@hq.doe.gov

. Include Docket Number EERE-2008-BT-TP-0008 in the subject line of the message.

Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards DATE: January 29, 2009

TIME: 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. EST

LOCATION: U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Room 1E-245 Washington, DC 20585 

### Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards: Electric Motors Test ... http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial...

1 of 2 2/12/2009 9:34 A MU.S. Department of Energy Building Technologies Program 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Mailstop EE-2J Washington, DC 20585
Please include a signed original.
Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards U.S. Department of Energy Building Technologies Program 950 L'Enfant Plaza, 6th Floor Washington, DC 20024 Telephone: (202) 586-2945
Please include a signed original.

Comments should clearly identify docket number EERE-2008-BT-TP-0008 . The deadline for submitting comments is March 9, 2009

. 

### Contact Information James Raba Project Manager (202) 586-8654

Printable Version

Building Technologies Program Home | EERE Home | U.S. Department of Energy Webmaster | Web Site Policies | Security & Privacy | USA.gov

Content Last Updated: 02/11/2009 

### Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards: Electric Motors Test ... http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial...

2 of 2 2/12/2009 9:34 A M
§ 884.1100 Endometrial brush. ( a ) *Identification.* An endometrial brush is a device designed to remove samples of the endometrium (the mucosal lining of the uterus) by brushing its surface. This device is used to study endometrial cytology (cells).
( b ) *Classification.* Class II. The special controls for this device are: ( 1 ) FDA's: ( i ) “Use of International Standard ISO 10993 ‘Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices—Part I: Evaluation and Testing,’ ” and
( ii ) “510(k) Sterility Review Guidance of 2/12/90 (K90-1),”
( 2 ) Labeling: ( i ) Indication: Only to evaluate the endometrium, and
( ii ) Contraindications: Pregnancy, history of uterine perforation, or a recent cesarean section, and
( 3 ) Design and testing: ( i ) The sampling component is covered within the vagina, and
( ii ) For adherence of the bristles and brush head.
[45 FR 12684, Feb. 26, 1980, as amended at 52 FR 17741, May 11, 1987; 65 FR 17146, Mar. 31, 2000]
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 10.2


December 13, 2002

Gary McGee
President
Whip Industries, Inc.
7711 Wyatt Dr.
Ft Worth, TX  76108

Dear Gary,

We look forward to a long and mutually beneficial relationship with Whip.  As we
discussed, there are some details that need to be committed to paper.  This
document, signed by both Whitco and Whip, serves as an agreement between our
companies as to the ongoing nature of our relationship and any restrictions that
may apply during and after the relationship.

Whitco agrees to utilize Whip as a primary supplier of manufacturing for painted
poles, as long as service, quality and price requirements are met.  We
anticipate the monthly volume of poles manufactured by Whip to be 300 to 800 per
month, in a variety of sizes and types.  As the relationship matures it is
possible, but in no way guaranteed, that the number of poles per month could
grow substantially.

Effective immediately, Whip agrees not to manufacture lighting pole products for
any customer other than Whitco for a period extending from today to one year
beyond the time that Whip no longer manufactures for Whitco.  In addition,
effective immediately and for a period extending one year beyond the time that
Whip no longer manufactures for Whitco, Whip will not enter into the sales,
marketing, manufacturing or engineering of lighting pole products into any
market.  Whitco agrees not to enter into, in any way, non-pole markets served by
Whip.

Whip agrees to treat all communication and information regarding sales volume,
cost, pricing, engineering data, markets, etc. as confidential, in perpetuity.
Whip senior management accepts responsibility for this confidentiality for all
Whip employees.   In like fashion, Whitco agrees to the same confidentiality
restrictions regarding Whip.

                                                                     Page 1 of 2


<PAGE>

Whitco reserves the right to restrict suppliers to Whip, as they relate to pole
production, regarding the suppliers' possible relationships with other pole
companies.  In particular, Whitco insists that Whip not use a painter who paints
poles for other companies.  We would like a copy of a restrictive document
between Whip and your painter(s) as soon as possible.

If Whitco chooses to end the relationship Whitco agrees to purchase existing raw
and work in process inventory relating to poles from Whip.  The price Whitco
pays for the inventory will be the price Whip paid plus reasonable manufacturing
costs incurred, if any.  No warehousing fees will be applicable.


Signed:

/s/ Henry Glover                                   12-13-02
----------------------------                 -------------------
Henry Glover
Whitco Company, LLP



                                       Date:
/s/ Gary McGee                                       12-13-02
---------------------------                 --------------------
Gary McGee
Whip Industries, Inc.


                                                                     Page 2 of 2

<PAGE>
§ 884.2660 Fetal ultrasonic monitor and accessories. ( a ) *Identification.* A fetal ultrasonic monitor is a device designed to transmit and receive ultrasonic energy into and from the pregnant woman, usually by means of continuous wave (doppler) echoscopy. The device is used to represent some physiological condition or characteristic in a measured value over a period of time (e.g., perinatal monitoring during labor) or in an immediately perceptible form (e.g., use of the ultrasonic stethoscope). This generic type of device may include the following accessories: signal analysis and display equipment, electronic interfaces for other equipment, patient and equipment supports, and component parts. This generic type of device does not include devices used to image some relatively unchanging physiological structure or interpret a physiological condition, but does include devices which may be set to alarm automatically at a predetermined threshold value.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
Editorial Note on Part 870
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 870 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 870.1200 Diagnostic intravascular catheter. ( a ) *Identification.* An intravascular diagnostic catheter is a device used to record intracardiac pressures, to sample blood, and to introduce substances into the heart and vessels. Included in this generic device are right-heart catheters, left-heart catheters, and angiographic catheters, among others.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
Editorial Note on Part 888
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 888 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 888.3085 Intervertebral body graft containment device. ( a ) *Identification.* An intervertebral body graft containment device is a non-rigid, implanted spinal device that is designed to contain bone graft within its internal cavity. The device is inserted into the intervertebral body space of the spine and is intended as an adjunct to intervertebral body fusion.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are: ( 1 ) Clinical performance testing must include an assessment of any adverse events observed during clinical use, as well as intervertebral body fusion, and compare this to a clinically acceptable fusion rate.
( 2 ) Non-clinical performance testing must demonstrate the mechanical function and durability of the implant, as well as the ability of the device to be inserted, deployed, and filled with bone graft consistently.
( 3 ) Device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.
( 4 ) Validation testing must demonstrate the cleanliness and sterility of, or the ability to clean and sterilize, the device components, and device-specific instruments.
( 5 ) Design characteristics of the device, including engineering schematics, must ensure that the geometry and material composition are consistent with the intended use.
( 6 ) Labeling must bear all information required for the safe and effective use of the device, specifically including the following: ( i ) A clear description of the technological features of the device including identification of device materials, compatible components in the fusion construct, and the principles of device operation;
( ii ) Intended use and indications for use, including levels of fixation;
( iii ) Identification of magnetic resonance (MR) compatibility status;
( iv ) Cleaning and sterilization instructions for devices and instruments that are provided nonsterile to the end user; and
( v ) Detailed instructions of each surgical step, including device removal.
[89 FR 71158, Sept. 3, 2024]
# C_2014151EN.01003001.xml

| 19.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/30

---

Action brought on 20 March 2014 — Sonova Holding v OHIM (Flex)

(Case T-187/14)

2014/C 151/38

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sonova Holding AG (Stäfa, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Hawkes, Solicitor)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 December 2013 given in Case R 357/2013-2. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 December 2013 given in Case R 357/2013-2.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Flex’ for goods in Class 10 — Community trade mark application No 10 866 887

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Found the trade mark applied for not eligible for registration

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(2) CTMR.

Pleas in law:

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

§ 866.5890 Inter-*alpha* trypsin inhibitor immunological test system. ( a ) *Identification.* An inter-*alpha* trypsin inhibitor immunological test system is a device that consists of the reagents used to measure by immunochemical techniques the inter-*alpha* trypsin inhibitor (a protein) in serum and other body fluids. Measurement of inter-*alpha* trypsin inhibitor may aid in the diagnosis of acute bacterial infection and inflammation.
( 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 § 866.9.
[47 FR 50823, Nov. 9, 1982, as amended at 53 FR 11253, Apr. 6, 1988; 65 FR 2313, Jan. 14, 2000]