alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 884.5900 Therapeutic vaginal douche apparatus. ( a ) *Identification.* A therapeutic vaginal douche apparatus is a device that is a bag or bottle with tubing and a nozzle. The apparatus does not include douche solutions. The apparatus is intended and labeled for use in the treatment of medical conditions except it is not for contraceptive use. After filling the therapeutic vaginal douche apparatus with a solution, the patient uses the device to direct a stream of solution into the vaginal cavity.
( b ) *Classification.* ( 1 ) Class II (performance standards).
( 2 ) Class I if the device is operated by gravity feed. Devices subject to this paragraph (b)(2) are exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in § 884.9.
[45 FR 12684, Feb. 26, 1980, as amended at 61 FR 1124, Jan. 16, 1996; 66 FR 38809, July 25, 2001]
Need to return call by / at/between and . Signature:

Project No.: 0317.02.005.510 Page 1 of 1

Project Name: DMR2013 CBI?

Yes

No

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD

Incoming

Outgoing

Date: 11/14/14 Time: 2:00 am

pm

Company Name: Montana DEQ ERG Staff Name: Kimberly Bartell

Contact Name: Gina Self Contact Phone Number: (406) 444-0574

General Subject: 2013 DMR Arsenic Discharges for Decker Coal Co in Decker, MT

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

Tom Reid: 406-444-5329, toreid@state.mt.us (supervisor in the water quality discharge permits section)

Gina Self: 406-444-0574

On November 14th, I called Mr. Reid and left a message. 

On November 25th, I called Mr. Reid and left a message. 

On November 26th, Gina Self returned my call and confirmed the arsenic discharges and flow values for the 

facility. We are missing a BDL indicator for the Dec 2013 arsenic discharges. 

Outfall 002

12/31/13: Flow = 1.83 MGD

Arsenic Concentration = <5 mg/L
# C_2014078EN.01001501.xml

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/15

---

Action brought on 21 January 2014 — Pfizer v Commission and EMA

(Case T-48/14)

2014/C 78/30

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Pfizer Ltd (Sandwich, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Bacon and M. Schaefer, Barristers, I. Dodds-Smith, C. Stothers and J. Mulryne, Solicitors)

Applicant:

Defendants: European Commission and European Medicines Agency

Defendants:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Commission and of EMA contained in the letters of 11 November 2013 and of 15 November 2013 not to issue the compliance statement; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Commission and of EMA contained in the letters of 11 November 2013 and of 15 November 2013 not to issue the compliance statement; and

| — | Order the Commission and EMA to bear the costs of the application. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission and EMA to bear the costs of the application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that in contending that the compliance statement, for the applicant’s marketing authorisation of medicinal product Vfend, cannot be issued until the studies set out in the paediatric investigation plan (‘PIP’) have been assessed for the purposes of the new prophylaxis indication, the EMA has misinterpreted Article 28(3) of the Paediatric Regulation (1).

1

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on medicinal products for paediatric use and amending Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, Directive 2001/20/EC, Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (OJ L 378, p.1).

1

---
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Louis Reed

*Louis Reed,*pro se, in support of the motions.

Submitted November 1

decided November 7, 1968

The motion by the defendant protesting the brief filed for him in the appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County and any further action on that appeal is denied.

In view of the fact that the defendant is represented by competent counsel, the motion by the defendant for additional counsel in the appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County is denied.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 11180]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-5104]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreements Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following 
agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may 
submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime 
Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within ten days of the date this 
notice appears in the Federal Register. Copies of the agreements are 
available through the Commission's Web site (http://www.fmc.gov) or by 
contacting the Office of Agreements at (202) 523-5793 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0c787e6d68696d626d60757f657f4c6a616f226b637a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="86f2f4e7e2e3e7e8e7eafff5eff5c6e0ebe5a8e1e9f0">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Agreement No.: 011730-003.
    Title: GWF/Dole Space Charter and Sailing Agreement.
    Parties: Dole Ocean Cargo Express, Inc. and Great White Fleet (US) 
Ltd.
    Filing Party: Wade S. Hooker, Esq., 211 Central Park West, New 
York, NY 10024.
    Synopsis: The amendment adds Colombia to the geographic scope of 
the agreement. The parties have requested expedited review.

    Agreement No.: 011914-003.
    Title: HLAG/CCNI Med-Gulf Space Charter Agreement.
    Parties: Hapag-Lloyd AG and Compania Chilena de Navegacion 
Interoceanica.
    Filing Party: Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Sher & Blackwell LLP; 1850 M 
Street, NW., Suite 900, Washington, DC 20036.
    Synopsis: The amendment would expand the scope to include all 
countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea, adjust the amount of space 
chartered to CCNI, and provide future adjustments to the slot 
allocation within defined limits.

    Agreement No.: 012032-004.
    Title: CMA CGM/MSC/Maersk Line North and Central China-US Pacific 
Coast Two-Loop Space Charter, Sailing and Cooperative Working 
Agreement.
    Parties: A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S, CMA CGM S.A., and Mediterranean 
Shipping Company S.A.
    Filing Party: Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Sher and Blackwell LLP; 1850 M 
Street, NW., Suite 900; Washington, DC 20036.
    Synopsis: The amendment reflects the addition of a sixth vessel to 
a service loop, and makes adjustments to the space allocations among 
the parties.


    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

    Dated: March 5, 2010.
Rachel E. Dickon,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-5104 Filed 3-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2016392EN.01002802.xml

| 24.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2016 — Tri-Ocean Trading v Council

(Case T-709/14) (1)

1

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Error of assessment))

(2016/C 392/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Tri-Ocean Trading (George Town, Cayman Islands) (represented by: B. Kennelly, Barrister, P. Saini QC, and N. Sheikh, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and A. Vitro, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2014/488/CFSP of 22 July 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2014 L 217, p. 49) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 793/2014 of 22 July 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2014 L 217, p. 10), insofar as those measures concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Implementing Decision 2014/488/CFSP of 22 July 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 793/2014 of 22 July 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as they concern Tri-Ocean Trading; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Implementing Decision 2014/488/CFSP of 22 July 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 793/2014 of 22 July 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as they concern Tri-Ocean Trading;

| 2. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Tri-Ocean Trading. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Tri-Ocean Trading.

---

(1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.

1

---
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1
 Certification Pursuant To
Rules 13a-14(a) And 15d-14(a) Under The Securities Exchange Act Of 1934, As Amended
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Biopure Corporation (the Registrant);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented
in this report;4.
    
    The Registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The Registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date: March 19, 2007
    /s/ Zafiris G. ZafirelisZafiris G. ZafirelisChairman of the Board,
President and Chief Executive Officer
AMENDMENT #5 TO 2001 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN



 



Exhibit 10.11 (f)


AMENDMENT FIVE

TO THE

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

2001 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN



     This Amendment to the Charter Communications, Inc. 2001 Stock Incentive
Plan, as amended through the date hereof (the “Plan”), is effective as of
January 27, 2003.


1.     Article 5 of the Plan is hereby amended by adding the following section
after Section 5.5:



		
	 	     Section 5.6 Option Repricing. Notwithstanding anything contained in
this Plan to the contrary, the Committee may, in its sole discretion,
approve an Option repricing. For the purposes of the preceding sentence,
an “Option repricing” shall include reducing the exercise price per share
of any outstanding Option, permitting the cancellation, forfeiture or
tender of outstanding Options in exchange for other Awards or for new
Options with a lower exercise price per Share, by any other method
repricing or replacing any outstanding Option, or taking any other action
deemed to be a “repricing” under the rules of the national securities
exchange or other market on which the Shares are listed or admitted to
trading.



The terms of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect without
modification or amendment except as expressly set forth herein.
39327.

#### TRACY’S AUTO PARTS, INC. v. TURNER.

Decided February 23, 1962.

*Gowen, Conyers, Fendig & Dickey, Chris B. Conyers,*for plaintiff in error.

*Anthony A. Alaimo,*contra.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

The usual general grounds of the *419defendant’s motion for new trial having been abandoned, the sole question presented is whether the trial court erred in permitting the plaintiff to withdraw his cross-examination adduced while taking the deposition of a witness and not allowing the defendant to read all of such deposition to the jury.

In support of such position the defendant relies on the following excerpt of the act of 1959 (Ga. L. 1959, pp. 425, 428; *Code Ann.*§ 38-2101 (d) (5)): “If only part of a deposition is offered in evidence by a party, an adverse party may require him to introduce all of it which is relevant to the part introduced, and any party may introduce any other parts.” No cases have been cited by counsel for either party construing the last portion of such sentence, and this court has located none, yet in the case of *Williams v. Kelsey & Halsted,*6 Ga. 365, decided in 1849, the Supreme Court held: “Where a witness is examined by commission, the party cross examining may withdraw his cross questions if he chooses—the other-party having the liberty to read them at his option.” See also *Bond v. Carter,*14 Ga. 697 (2). However, it appears obvious that such reference to the introduction of any other part of the deposition must have reference to such parts as would otherwise be relevant and admissible under the rules of evidence, and not to such parts as would be inadmissible and subject to proper objection.

The cross-examination of the witness, elicited by the plaintiff when the deposition was taken, was offered in whole and as Chief Justice Duckworth said in the case of *Dorsey v. Dorsey,*189 Ga. 662 (4) (7 SE2d 273): “Where testimony of a witness is offered in evidence as a whole, it is not error to disallow the same, where a portion of the proffered testimony is inadmissible.” The cross-examination of the witness covered approximately nine pages in the amended motion for new trial and included, among other things, answers not responsive to questions, answers evincing a lack of ability to answer the question asked, and other answers which would be subject to proper objection, and which the plaintiff could properly ask to be excluded from the jury’s consideration by withdrawing such testimony elicited while cross-examining the deponent. See also as to the right of the trial court to exclude evidence offered in whole where a part is not *420admissible. *Burch v. Swift,*118 Ga. 931 (2) (45 SE 698); *McDaniel v. Richards,*64 Ga. App. 612, 618 (13 SE2d 710); *Ellis v. Poe & Bro.,*109 Ga, 422 (34 SE 567), and citations.

The trial court did not err in overruling the amended motion for new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur.*
Exhibit 32.2

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

 In connection with the Quarterly Report of American HealthChoice, Inc.  (the
 "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed  with
 the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
 John C. Stuecheli, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
 to 18 U.S.C. S 1350, as adopted pursuant to S 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act
 of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

           (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  result  of
           operations of the Company.



 /s/ John C. Stuecheli


 John C. Stuecheli
 Chief Financial Officer

 August 20, 2004
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

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel Medical Rehabilitation Research Resource.                    

*Date:*                         March 26, 2010.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Legacy Hotel and Meeting Center, 1775 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.                     

*Contact Person:*                         Anne Krey, Scientific Review Officer, Division of Scientific Review, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute, of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-6908.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: March 1, 2010.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-4840 Filed 3-5-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Exhibit 99.2

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

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Zarlink Semiconductor Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 28, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jean-Jacques Carrier, Senior Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      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 result of operations
            of the Company.

                                              JEAN-JACQUES CARRIER
                                              --------------------------------
                                              Jean-Jacques Carrier
                                              Senior Vice President of Finance
                                              and Chief Financial Officer
                                              August 12, 2002


                                       26
§ 812.43 Selecting investigators and monitors. ( a ) *Selecting investigators.* A sponsor shall select investigators qualified by training and experience to investigate the device.
( b ) *Control of device.* A sponsor shall ship investigational devices only to qualified investigators participating in the investigation.
( c ) *Obtaining agreements.* A sponsor shall obtain from each participating investigator a signed agreement that includes: ( 1 ) The investigator's curriculum vitae.
( 2 ) Where applicable, a statement of the investigator's relevant experience, including the dates, location, extent, and type of experience.
( 3 ) If the investigator was involved in an investigation or other research that was terminated, an explanation of the circumstances that led to termination.
( 4 ) A statement of the investigator's commitment to: ( i ) Conduct the investigation in accordance with the agreement, the investigational plan, this part and other applicable FDA regulations, and conditions of approval imposed by the reviewing IRB or FDA;
( ii ) Supervise all testing of the device involving human subjects; and
( iii ) Ensure that the requirements for obtaining informed consent are met.
( 5 ) Sufficient accurate financial disclosure information to allow the sponsor to submit a complete and accurate certification or disclosure statement as required under part 54 of this chapter. The sponsor shall obtain a commitment from the clinical investigator to promptly update this information if any relevant changes occur during the course of the investigation and for 1 year following completion of the study. This information shall not be submitted in an investigational device exemption application, but shall be submitted in any marketing application involving the device.
( d ) *Selecting monitors.* A sponsor shall select monitors qualified by training and experience to monitor the investigational study in accordance with this part and other applicable FDA regulations.
[45 FR 3751, Jan. 18, 1980, as amended at 63 FR 5253, Feb. 2, 1998]
# C_2021182EN.01006602.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/66

---

Order of the General Court of 16 March 2021 — Yavorskaya v Council and Others

(Case T-405/14) (1)

(2021/C 182/90)

Language of the case: French

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.

---