alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 872
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 872 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 872.3840 Endodontic silver point. ( a ) *Identification.* An endodontic silver point is a device made of silver intended for use during endodontic therapy to fill permanently the root canal of a tooth.
( 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 § 872.9.
[52 FR 30097, Aug. 12, 1987, as amended at 54 FR 13830, Apr. 5, 1989; 66 FR 38798, July 25, 2001]
(logo)LNR

          Partners, LLC

 

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

 

OF

 

LNR PARTNERS, LLC

 

 

The undersigned, Job Warshaw,being the President of LNR Partners, LLC (the “Special Servicer”), as specialservicer under the applicable Pooling and Servicing Agreement for thetransactions listed on Schedule I hereto, hereby certifies, subject toany limitations listed on Schedule I hereto, as of the date hereof, onbehalf of the Special Servicer, solely in his capacity as an authorized officerof the Special Servicer and not in his individual capacity, as follows:

 

1.            A review ofthe activities performed by the Special Servicer during the period commencingon January 1, 2018 and ending on December 31, 2018 (or any other shorter periodset forth on Schedule I hereto) (the “'Reporting Period”), and of theSpecial Servicer’s performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement hasbeen made under my supervision; and

 

2.            To the bestof my knowledge, based on such review and using the applicable servicingcriteria under Item 1122 of Regulation AB, the Special Servicer has fulfilledall of its obligations under the applicable Pooling and Servicing Agreement inall material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

LNR PARTNERS, LLC,

a Florida limited liabilitycompany

 

 

By: /s/ Job Warshaw

Job Warshaw

President

 

 

Dated: February 19, 2019

 

 

1601 Washington Avenue • Suite 700 • Miami Beach,Florida 33139-3164

Telephone: (305) 695-5600 • Fax: (305) 695-5601

 

 

 

**Schedule I**

 

 

MSBAM 2015-C24

Morgan Stanley Bank of AmericaMerrill Lynch Trust 2015-C24, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,Series 2015-C24

 

Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc.

1221 Avenue of the Americas

New York NY 10020

James Y. Lee

 

Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc.

1585 Broadway

New York NY 10036

Stephen Holmes

 

Park Bridge Lender ServicesLLC

600 Third Avenue, 40th Floor

Att: MSBAM 2015-C24

New York NY 10016

Group

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

9062 Old Annapolis Road

Columbia MD 21045

Group Notices
**Exhibit31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Robert Kerris, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Ebix, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
| Date:  October  31, 2007 | /s/ Robert  Kerris                                          |
|------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|
|                               | Robert Kerris                                               |
|                               | Chief Financial  Officer & Principal Accounting Officer |

 

----
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7983 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to define the term free trade 

agreement for purposes of the clean vehicle credit. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 15, 2024 

Mrs. FISCHBACH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to define 

the term free trade agreement for purposes of the clean 

vehicle credit. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stop Executive Over5 reach on Trade Agreements’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT DEFINED FOR PURPOSES 

7 OF CLEAN VEHICLE CREDIT. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 30D(e)(1) of the Internal 

9 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 

10 the following new subparagraph: 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7983 IH

1 ‘‘(C) FREE TRADE AGREEMENT.—For pur2 poses of subparagraph (A)(i)(II), the term ‘free 

3 trade agreement’ means an international agree4 ment approved by Congress that eliminates du5 ties and other restrictive regulations of com6 merce on substantially all the trade between the 

7 United States and 1 or more other countries.’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 this subsection shall apply to vehicles placed in service 

10 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
§ 884.5920 Vaginal insufflator. ( a ) *Identification.* A vaginal insufflator is a device used to treat vaginitis by introducing medicated powder from a hand-held bulb into the vagina through an open speculum.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I. The device is 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 54 FR 25052, June 12, 1989; 66 FR 38809, July 25, 2001]
Editorial Note on Part 882
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 882 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 882.4305 Powered compound cranial drills, burrs, trephines, and their accessories. ( a ) *Identification.* Powered compound cranial drills, burrs, trephines, and their accessories are bone cutting and drilling instruments used on a patient's skull. The instruments employ a clutch mechanism to disengage the tip of the instrument after penetrating the skull to prevent plunging of the tip into the brain.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 795 

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 

authorize the use of grant amounts for providing training and resources 

for first responders on the use of containment devices to prevent secondary exposure to fentanyl and other potentially lethal substances, and 

purchasing such containment devices for use by first responders. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2023 

Mr. JOYCE of Ohio (for himself, Mr. TRONE, Mr. FITZPATRICK, Ms. TENNEY, 

Ms. SCHRIER, Mr. D’ESPOSITO, Ms. DEAN of Pennsylvania, and Mr. 

PHILLIPS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 

Act of 1968 to authorize the use of grant amounts 

for providing training and resources for first responders 

on the use of containment devices to prevent secondary 

exposure to fentanyl and other potentially lethal substances, and purchasing such containment devices for 

use by first responders. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 795 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting First Re3 sponders from Secondary Exposure Act of 2023’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PROVIDING TRAINING AND RESOURCES FOR FIRST 

5 RESPONDERS ON THE USE OF CONTAINMENT 

6 DEVICES TO PREVENT SECONDARY EXPO7 SURE TO FENTANYL AND OTHER POTEN8 TIALLY LETHAL SUBSTANCES, AND PUR9 CHASING SUCH CONTAINMENT DEVICES FOR 

10 USE BY FIRST RESPONDERS. 

11 Section 3021(a) of the Omnibus Crime Control and 

12 Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10701(a)) is amend13 ed by inserting after paragraph (3) the following, and re14 designating succeeding paragraphs accordingly: 

15 ‘‘(4) Providing training and resources for first 

16 responders on the use of containment devices to pre17 vent secondary exposure to fentanyl and other poten18 tially lethal substances, and purchasing such con19 tainment devices for use by first responders.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
#### George W. Miller et al. *v.*Madlyn Porter et al.

*Allan R. Johnson,*in support of the motion.

Submitted February 20

decided March *5,*1969

The motion by the defendants for this court to review the clerk’s taxation of costs in the appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County is denied.
<PAGE>   1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRONTIER FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES                       EXHIBIT 11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                For Six Months Ended June 30,
                                                   1999               1998
                                               -----------        -----------

<S>                                            <C>                <C>
Net Income                                     $12,367,601        $10,417,927
                                               ===========        ===========

Computation of average
shares outstanding

            Shares outstanding at
            beginning of year                    8,697,261          8,144,461

            Additional shares deemed
            outstanding because of
            stock dividends                             --            516,035

            Additional shares deemed
            outstanding because of
            stock splits                         8,758,499          8,671,967

            Shares issued during the
            year times average time
            outstanding during the year             64,444             11,471
                                               -----------        -----------

Average basic shares outstanding                17,520,204         17,343,934
                                               -----------        -----------

Dilutive shares                                     98,733            222,001

                                               -----------        -----------
Average diluted shares outstanding              17,618,937         17,565,935
                                               -----------        -----------

Basic earnings per share                       $      0.71        $      0.60
                                               ===========        ===========


Diluted earnings per share                     $      0.70        $      0.59
                                               ===========        ===========


</TABLE>
#### TOWNSEND *et al. v.*CARTER *et al.*

*760No. 8768.

April 16, 1932.

*Chastain & Henson*and *T. J.*Townsend, for plaintiffs.

*C. A.*Williams, for defendants.

Gilbert, J.

The exception in this case is to a judgment refusing mandamus absolute. The petition filed by Townsend, Tyre, and Stewart alleged that they had been duly elected members of the- Board of Education of Bacon County for a term of four years, and that their successors had not been duly elected and qualified; that Carter “sought . . to illegally and unlawfully install in their stead as members of said Board of Education the said T. L. Pope, Daniel M. Lee, and Steve B. Jordan,” and had refused to recognize or work with petitioners as members of the board; that commissions issued to Pope, Lee, and Jordan by the Governor were obtained by fraud, in that no sufficient report of such election was made by the grand jury to the court and spread upon the minutes thereof as required by law; and that notwithstanding this the clerk of the superior court had certified to the Governor that Lee, Pope, and Jordan had been duly elected, and thereupon the Governor had issued commissions accordingly for the term ending 1935. After amendment, the petition made Carter, the chairman of the board of education, the only defendant; and the prayer was that the court, by mandamus, require Cart.er to “recognize” petitioners as members of the board. Lee, Pope, and Jordan intervened. Their petition for intervention was admitted over objection, and demurrers thereto were overruled. Exceptions to these judgments were taken. The intervenors set up that at a regular session of the board of education on April 7, 1931, they were inducted into office and had continuously since that date discharged the duties, which fact is sustained by the evidence. After hearing evidence the court denied the prayer for mandamus, and this judgment was excepted to. Other assignments of error are immaterial and can not affect the result.

If the judgment refusing mandamus absolute was proper for any 'legal reason, it will be affirmed, 'notwithstanding the fact that *761other reasons may have moved the court to render such judgment.

The real issue in this case is whether the petitioners or intervenors have title to the office, and title is the sole issue. Under authority of *Stanford*v. *Lynch,*147 *Ga.*518 (94 S. E. 1001), and *Clarke*v. *Long,*152 *Ga.*619 (111 S. E. 31), quo warranto affords an adequate remedy for the trial of title to public office. A member of a county board of education is a public officer. It follows that mandamus was not the proper remedy, and that the judgment refusing mandamus was not erroneous. *Bonner*v. *State,*7 *Ga.*473.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
[No. 37852-0-I.

Division One.

April 14, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Kenneth W. Thomas, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 95-1-03913-4, Linda Lau, J., entered December 18, 1995. *Dismissed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Editorial Note on Part 888
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 888 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 888.1250 Nonpowered dynamometer. ( a ) *Identification.* A nonpowered dynamometer is a mechanical device intended for medical purposes to measure the pinch and grip muscle strength of a patient's hand.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I. The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807.
# C_2015354EN.01003302.xml

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Volkswagen v OHIM (STREET)

(Case T-321/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark STREET - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 354/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Sander, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Poch, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 March 2014 (Case R 2025/2015-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign STREET as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Volkswagen AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Volkswagen AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 886
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 886 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 886.3800 Scleral shell. ( a ) *Identification.* A scleral shell is a device made of glass or plastic that is intended to be inserted for short time periods over the cornea and proximal-cornea sclera for cosmetic or reconstructive purposes. An artificial eye is usually painted on the device. The device is not intended to be implanted.
( 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 § 886.9.
[52 FR 33355, Sept. 2, 1987, as amended at 63 FR 59230, Nov. 3, 1998]
# C_2016279EN.01002602.xml

| 1.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/26

---

Order of the General Court of 10 June 2016 — Pshonka v Council

(Case T-381/14) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Admissibility - Proof that inclusion on the list is justified - Manifestly well-founded action))

(2016/C 279/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Viktor Pavlovych Pshonka (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: C. Constantina and J.-M. Reymond, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Bartelt and D. Gauci, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 26) and of Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 1), in so far as they relate to the applicant.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine are annulled in so far as they relate to Mr Viktor Pavlovych Pshonka. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine are annulled in so far as they relate to Mr Viktor Pavlovych Pshonka.

| 2. | The Council of the European Union shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Mr Pshonka. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Council of the European Union shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Mr Pshonka.

| 3. | The European Commission shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.

1

---
#### § 601.46 Termination of requirements.

If FDA determines after approval that the requirements established in § 601.42, § 601.43, or § 601.45 are no longer necessary for the safe and effective use of a biological product, it will so notify the applicant. Ordinarily, for biological products approved under § 601.41, these requirements will no longer apply when FDA determines that the required postmarketing study verifies and describes the biological product's clinical benefit and the biological product would be appropriate for approval under traditional procedures. For biological products approved under § 601.42, the restrictions would no longer apply when FDA determines that safe use of the biological product can be assured through appropriate labeling. FDA also retains the discretion to remove specific postapproval requirements upon review of a petition submitted by the sponsor in accordance with § 10.30.