alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7974 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require labeling 

of food products containing insects, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 12, 2024 

Mrs. MILLER of Illinois introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 

require labeling of food products containing insects, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MISBRANDED FOOD WITH RESPECT TO INSECT 

4 INGREDIENTS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 403 of the Federal Food, 

6 Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 343) is amended by 

7 adding at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(z) If the food contains one or more insects, insect 

9 parts, or products derived from insects as an ingredient 

10 and the front label of such food does not clearly state in 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7974 IH

1 a prominent manner that such food contains such ingredi2 ents.’’. 

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

4 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to food introduced 

5 or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce on 

6 or after the date that is 180 days after the date of the 

7 enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
# C_2014184EN.01003601.xml

| 16.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/36

---

Action brought on 11 April 2014 — iNET24 Holding v OHIM (IDIRECT24)

(Case T-225/14)

2014/C 184/58

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: iNET24 Holding AG (Feusisberg, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Kirschstein-Freund, B. Breitinger and V. Dalichau, lawyers)

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 Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 February 2014 in Case R 1867/2013-5; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 February 2014 in Case R 1867/2013-5;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Designation of the European Union for the international registration of the word mark ‘IDIRECT24’ for goods and services in classes 9, 36, 38 and 42 — International registration No 1 145 181

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Application refused

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

Pleas in law:

| — | Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
02/07/201 1 09:2 8 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + OM S a 001/00 3 •PsRTMENTO

F UNITED STATE S DEPARTMEN T OFTRANSPORTATIO N ^: iPQRTATJON ' FEDERAL AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N ^iZ'^ ^ 'CiiS Complainant , V . Sun Ques t Executiv e Ai r

Charter , Inc . Respondent . -" 1 ~< . \ Federal Aviatio n Admin i strat i on » 

### r: 3 

### 0 ^ 

### 2:: i FAA Docke t

N o CPOSWSo'OOi " (Civi l Penalt

y Action ) DM S No . FAA-2008-023 8 Complainant' s Reques t

fo r a30-Da y Extensio n o f

Time T o Submi t

Supplemental Brie f 1 , I'h e FA

A Decisionmaker , b

y Order Requestin g Further

Briefing , date dJanuar

y 5 , 2011 , aske dtha

t th e partie s submi t

brief s regardin g some issues . 2 , Complainant , b

y counsel , hereb y request s a30-da y extensio n o f

time withi n whic h t o file suc h abrie f 3 , Th e issue s raise dby th e FA A Decisionmaker

requir e extensiv e coordinatio n withi n th e agenc y t o make sure tha t assertion s mad e i n th e Complainant' s Supplemental Brie f hav e th e suppor

t o f th e appropriat e expert s aji

dmanager s i n th e agency ." -•••''J|i?v«|W ' t^l i

• >\ .

;*it ' *^"~ ^ .iVi^ :

'rtif j •'{-'i"'f^-'"'-' i ^^'•i^- . / r . n • I •u-u:,'^tt^ i ^'•• - • \->- . •^li^rf f vJ«rt:J. : 'Vn;(;j"; < li,'i.irSllfc*;i;-ir.(r ' ^'fd . f}-:m>^^^^^' , at:^j'- :02/07/201 1 09:2 8 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + QM S 0002/00 3

4 . Complainant' s counse l obtaine dRespondent' s counse l agreemen t t o a 30-da y extensio n fo

r both briefs . Respectfull y submitted , Peter . LLync h Assistan t Chie f Counse l fo

r Enforcement , AGC-30 0 

# -y^^^^^^ ^ Byx^osep h A . Conte L-'-Counse l fo

r Complainan t Enforcemen t

Division , AGC-30 0 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washingto n D C 2059 1 20 2 26 7 738 1

r^;; k•'*t ' *'K" I

t rr.,-:-Mmi : c:i,< . l^J ^

} • .:--;.m^-/^r- -



### '^n >02/07/201 1 09:2 8 FA X 202493514 2 FA A • * DM S @I003/00 3
Certificate o f

Servic e I hereb y certif

y tha t o n thi s date I hand-delivere dth e original o f th e attache ddocumen t

(Complainant' s Reques t

fo r a30-Day Extensio n o f Time t o Fil e Supplemental Brief ) i n th e Matte r

o f Sun Ques t

Executiv e Ai r Charter , Inc. , Docke t

N o CP08WP000 4 an d2 copies , addresse dto : Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washington , D C 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbur Wrigh t Buildin g Suit e 2W100 0 And , I hereb y certif

y that acop y o f that documen t

wa s sent b y FA X an d certifie dUnite dState s Mail , postage-prepaid , t o Arthu r Wasserman , Esq . Wassenna n & Mille r 1638 0 Rosco e Blvd. , Suite 12 0 VanNuys , C A 91406-122 1 FA X 81 8 89 5 067 5 Dated : Februar

y 4 , 20 1 I

^v ^

### •Ilw.illipll. p •' ; 'K Y

i , 'li - 'S-'i - •

"•u'":'xtk !

•!^l^ : : .

I , 

## i m
#### Odus H. LeMAY *v.*TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH et al

5-5145

450 S. W. 2d 297

Opinion delivered February 23, 1970

*Branscum, Schmidt & Mazzanti,*for appellant.

*Harley Cox, George Holmes*and *Charles Goldberger,*for appellee.

*120Carleton Harris, Chief Justice.

This case represents another effort to persuade this court to discard and repudiate the doctrine of charitable immunity to tort actions. Properties belonging to Trinity Lutheran Church, one of the appellees herein, and Odus H. Le-May, appellant, adjoin each other, being located within a residential section of Pine Bluff. According to the complaint filed by LeMay against the church and Peter Smykla, Jr., Chairman of the Board of Trustees, a large oak tree, located on the church property, fell on appellant’s house, damaging same in the amount of $6,872.56. It was alleged that notice had been given that the tree was leaning toward appellant’s home, and was dangerous and hazardous to person and property because of its decayed and defective condition; nonetheless, appellee negligently failed to remove it. Judgment was sought in the amount heretofore mentioned. The church and Smykla filed separate demurrers, setting out that Trinity Lutheran Church is an eleemosynary or religious institution, and, as such, was not liable for negligence. The church further asserted that the acts alleged to be negligent in the complaint were with respect to properties owned in connection with religious activities, non-proprietary in nature. Smykla asserted that, being sued in his representative capacity, there was no liability. On hearing, the demurrers were sustained by the Jefferson County Circuit Court, and from the judgment so entered, appellant brings this appeal.

Appellant argues that charitable' immunity as a defense in a tort action is no longer supported by public policy, and, although a “rule of property,” should no longer be allowed by this court; further, that charitable immunity is not recognized as a defense in any foreign country, and is rapidly dying in the United States. Though a creditable brief in support of his position is presented, we see no need to again discuss this question, since the issue, and our cases on the subject were thoroughly reviewed in *Williams*v. *Jefferson Hospital Association, Inc.,*246 Ark. 1200, 442 S. W. 2d 243, this opinion being handed down just eight months ago *121(June 9, 1969). We reiterate what was there said.

There is no allegation in the complaint that the activities of appellees are other than religious activities, and we agree that the trial court properly sustained the demurrers.

Affirmed.
Editorial Note on Part 868
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 868 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 868.2600 Airway pressure monitor. ( a ) *Identification.* An airway pressure monitor is a device used to measure the pressure in a patient's upper airway. The device may include a pressure gauge and an alarm.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
§ 884.3900 Vaginal stent. ( a ) *Identification.* A vaginal stent is a device used to enlarge the vagina by stretching, or to support the vagina and to hold a skin graft after reconstructive surgery.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA TRINDAD RODRIGUEZFREGOSO, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-72895 

Agency No. A201-289-483 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 17, 2022**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Maria Trinidad Rodriguez-Fregoso, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions 

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her 

motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAY 20 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-72895 

Oyeniran v. Holder, 672 F.3d 800, 806 (9th Cir. 2012). We deny the petition for 

review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rodriguez-Fregoso’s motion 

to reopen where she failed to demonstrate that the evidence she sought to offer was 

not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former 

hearing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); Guzman v. I.N.S., 318 F.3d 911, 913 (9th 

Cir. 2003) (no abuse of discretion where evidence was previously available and 

capable of discovery prior to former hearing).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the 

mandate.

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

§ 886.4275 Intraocular fluid. ( a ) *Identification.* An intraocular fluid is a device consisting of a nongaseous fluid intended to be introduced into the eye to aid performance of surgery, such as to maintain anterior chamber depth, preserve tissue integrity, protect tissue from surgical trauma, or function as a tamponade during retinal reattachment.
( b ) *Classification.* Class III.
( c ) *Date PMA or notice of completion of a PDP is required.* As of May 28, 1976, an approval under section 515 of the act is required before this device may be commercially distributed. See § 886.3.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8010 

To modify designations of beneficiary countries under the Generalized System 

of Preferences. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 15, 2024 

Mr. STEUBE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To modify designations of beneficiary countries under the 

Generalized System of Preferences. 

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 ‘‘Preserving America’s 

5 Interests and Security in Trade Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MODIFICATIONS TO DESIGNATIONS OF BENE7 FICIARY COUNTRIES. 

8 Section 502(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 

9 2462(c)) is amended as follows: 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8010 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (6)(B), by striking ‘‘; and’’ 

2 and inserting a semicolon; 

3 (2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at 

4 the end and inserting a semicolon; and 

5 (3) by adding at the end the following new 

6 paragraphs: 

7 ‘‘(8) the extent to which such country allows, 

8 after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, 

9 construction of military bases by a covered nation 

10 (as such term is defined in section 4872 of title 10, 

11 United States Code); 

12 ‘‘(9) the extent to which such country is deep13 ening its economic, diplomatic, and military relations 

14 with covered nations (as such term is defined in sec15 tion 4872 of title 10, United States Code); and 

16 ‘‘(10) whether such country engages in activi17 ties that undermine United States national security 

18 or foreign policy interests.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Editorial Note on Part 868
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 868 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 868.5120 Anesthesia conduction catheter. ( a ) *Identification.* An anesthesia conduction catheter is a flexible tubular device used to inject local anesthetics into a patient and to provide continuous regional anesthesia.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
<Page>

                                                                          [LOGO]

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the use in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 14 to the
registration statement on Form N-4 (No. 033-71688) (the "Registration
Statement") of our report dated February 13, 2003, relating to the financial
statements of First Fortis Life Insurance Company, which appears in such
Registration Statement. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading
"Independent Accountants" in such Registration Statement.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
Minneapolis, Minnesota
April 7, 2003
39188.

#### WESTBROOK v. WESTBROOK.

*68Decided December 5, 1961.

*69
      *Ben F. Sweet,*for plaintiff in error.

*Bass, Burger, Kidd & Rich, Casper Rich,*contra.

Felton, Chief Judge.

The condition of the bond is that: “if the said Rudene Westbrook, defendant, shall be forthcoming to answer to the complainant’s claim, or shall abide by the order and decree of the court, then this bond to be void; else of full force and virtue.” The contention of the defendant in error is that, since the defendant Rudene Westbrook, has not at any time failed to be and appear in person in court when so ordered, there has been no breach of the condition of the bond. This contention is erroneous for the reason that the conditions of such a bond are complied with when the principal is present at court or within its jurisdiction and subject to its process. *Swain v. Jaudon,*147 Ga. 773 (95 SE 696). The petition upon which this proceeding is based alleges that the defendant, Rudene Westbrook, was not forthcoming to answer plaintiff’s claim for alimony awarded her and has failed to abide by the contempt and purge order of June 16, 1960. As against a general demur*70rer this allegation is equivalent to an allegation that the principal on the bond had absented himself from the jurisdiction of the court. The fact that Rudene Westbrook has absented -himself from the jurisdiction of the court is a breach of the bond under the foregoing authority. Otherwise the plaintiff would be helpless to enforce the bond because all a principal under such a bond would have to do to avoid the consequences of a breach thereof would be to put himself out of the reach of the processes of the court. The principal on such a bond could never be guilty of being absent from court when required to be present when he put it beyond the power of the court to demand his presence. The court erred in sustaining the general demurrer to the petition.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Bell and Hall, JJ., concur.*
Editorial Note on Part 872
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 872 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 872.6710 Boiling water sterilizer. ( a ) *Identification.* A boiling water sterilizer is an AC-powered device that consists of a container for boiling water. The device is intended to sterilize dental and surgical instruments by submersion in the boiling water in the container.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls).
[55 FR 48439, Nov. 20, 1990, as amended at 66 FR 46952, Sept. 10, 2001]
§ 884.5225 Abdominal decompression chamber. ( a ) *Identification.* An abdominal decompression chamber is a hoodlike device used to reduce pressure on the pregnant patient's abdomen for the relief of abdominal pain during pregnancy or labor.
( b ) *Classification.* Class III (premarket approval).
( c ) *Date PMA or notice of completion of a PDP is required.* A PMA or a notice of completion of a PDP is required to be filed with the Food and Drug Administration on or before December 26, 1996 for any abdominal decompression chamber that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or that has, on or before December 26, 1996 been found to be substantially equivalent to an abdominal decompression chamber that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976. Any other abdominal decompression chamber shall have an approved PMA or a declared completed PDP in effect before being placed in commercial distribution.
[45 FR 12684, Feb. 26, 1980, as amended at 52 FR 17741, May 11, 1987; 61 FR 50709, Sept. 27, 1996]
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.10

                     FIFTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

          This Fifth Amendment to Employment Agreement (the "Amendment"), dated
as of the 1st day of January, 2003 by and between COMFORCE Corporation
("COMFORCE") a Delaware corporation, and COMFORCE Operating, Inc. ("COI"), a
Delaware corporation that is wholly-owned by COMFORCE (COMFORCE and COI are
collectively referred to as the "Employer"), and John C. Fanning, a resident of
the State of Florida ("Employee").

          WHEREAS, the parties entered into an Employment Agreement (the
"Employment Agreement") dated as of January 1, 1999 pursuant to which Employer
formalized the terms upon which Employee is employed by Employer, which
Employment Agreement was previously amended as of March 28, 2000, January 23,
2001, September 27, 2001 and July 1, 2002 (as amended, the "Employment
Agreement"); and

          WHEREAS, the parties desire to further amend the Employment Agreement
as herein provided.

          NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual
obligations of the parties contained herein, and for other valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the
parties hereto agree as follows:

          1.   The second sentence of Section 4(a)(ii) of the Employment
Agreement is hereby amended by adding the following additional proviso at the
end thereof: "; and, provided further, that, notwithstanding the foregoing, no
such increase shall be made to Employee's Base Salary for the 2003 calendar
year."

          2.   All other provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in
full force and effect.

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement on
the day and year first above mentioned.

                                        COMFORCE CORPORATION

                                        By:
                                           -------------------------
                                           Its:

                                        COMFORCE OPERATING, INC.

                                        By:
                                           -------------------------
                                           Its:

                                        EMPLOYEE

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

§ 880.6900 Hand-carried stretcher. ( a ) *Identification.* A hand-carried stretcher is a device consisting of a lightweight frame, or of two poles with a cloth or metal platform, on which a patient can be carried.
( 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. 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, with respect to general requirements concerning records, and § 820.198, with respect to complaint files.
[45 FR 69682, Oct. 21, 1980, as amended at 59 FR 63011, Dec. 7, 1994; 66 FR 38807, July 25, 2001]
Editorial Note on Part 890
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 890 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 890.3500 External assembled lower limb prosthesis. ( a ) *Identification.* An external assembled lower limb prosthesis is a device that is intended for medical purposes and is a preassembled external artificial limb for the lower extremity. Examples of external assembled lower limb prostheses are the following: Knee/shank/ankle/foot assembly and thigh/knee/shank/ankle/foot assembly.
( 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 § 890.9.
[48 FR 53047, Nov. 23, 1983, as amended at 63 FR 59231, Nov. 3, 1998]
Editorial Note on Part 888
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 888 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 888.4220 Cement monomer vapor evacuator. ( a ) *Identification.* A cement monomer vapor evacuator is a device intended for use during surgery to contain or remove undesirable fumes, such as monomer vapor from bone cement (§ 888.3027).
( 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 § 888.9.
[52 FR 33702, Sept. 4, 1987, as amended at 53 FR 52954, Dec. 29, 1988; 66 FR 38815, July 25, 2001]
Editorial Note on Part 890
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 890 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 890.3075 Cane. ( a ) *Identification.* A cane is a device intended for medical purposes that is used to provide minimal weight support while walking. Examples of canes include the following: A standard cane, a forearm cane, and a cane with a tripod, quad, or retractable stud on the ground end.
( 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 § 890.9. 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 53047, Nov. 23, 1983, as amended at 66 FR 38816, July 25, 2001]