alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1.1033(c)-1 Disposition of excess property within irrigation project deemed to be involuntary conversion. ( a ) The sale, exchange, or other disposition occurring in a taxable year to which the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 applies, of excess lands lying within an irrigation project or division in order to conform to acreage limitations of the Federal reclamation laws effective with respect to such project or division shall be treated as an involuntary conversion to which the provisions of section 1033 and the regulations thereunder shall be applicable. The term *excess lands* means irrigable lands within an irrigation project or division held by one owner in excess of the amount of irrigable land held by such owner entitled to receive water under the Federal reclamation laws applicable to such owner in such project or division. Such excess lands may be either ( 1 ) lands receiving no water from the project or division, or
( 2 ) lands receiving water only because the owner thereof has executed a valid recordable contract agreeing to sell such lands under terms and conditions satisfactory to the Secretary of the Interior.
( b ) If a disposition in order to conform to the acreage limitation provisions of Federal reclamation laws includes property other than excess lands (as, for example, where the excess lands alone do not constitute a marketable parcel) the provisions of section 1033(d) shall apply only to the part of the disposition that relates to excess lands.
( c ) The provisions of § 1.1033(a)-2 shall be applicable in the case of dispositions treated as involuntary conversions under this section. The details in connection with such a disposition required to be reported under paragraph (c)(2) of § 1.1033(a)-2 shall include the authority whereby the lands disposed of are considered *excess lands,* as defined in this section, and a statement that such disposition is not part of a plan contemplating the disposition of all or any nonexcess land within the irrigation project or division.
( d ) The term *involuntary conversion,* where it appears in subtitle A of the Code or the regulations thereunder, includes dispositions of excess property within irrigation projects described in this section. (See, e.g., section 1231 and the regulations thereunder.)
[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 11910, Nov. 26, 1960; 25 FR 14021, Dec. 31, 1960. Redesignated and amended by T.D. 7625, 44 FR 31013, May 30, 1979]
Editorial Note on Part 892
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 892 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 892.1990 Transilluminator for breast evaluation. ( a ) *Identification.* A transilluminator, also known as a diaphanoscope or lightscanner, is an electrically powered device that uses low intensity emissions of visible light and near-infrared radiation (approximately 700-1050 nanometers (nm)), transmitted through the breast, to visualize translucent tissue for the diagnosis of cancer, other conditions, diseases, or abnormalities.
( b ) *Classification.* Class III (premarket approval).
( c ) *Date premarket approval (PMA) or notice of completion of product development protocol (PDP) is required.* A PMA or notice of completion of a PDP is required to be filed with FDA by April 17, 2014, for any transilluminator for breast evaluation that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or that has, by April 17, 2014, been found to be substantially equivalent to any transilluminator for breast evaluation that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976. Any other transilluminator for breast evaluation shall have an approved PMA or declared completed PDP in effect before being placed in commercial distribution.
[60 FR 36639, July 18, 1995, as amended at 79 FR 3094, Jan. 17, 2014]
Editorial Note on Part 878
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 878 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 878.4430 Microneedling device for aesthetic use. ( a ) *Identification.* A microneedling device for aesthetic use is a device using one or more needles to mechanically puncture and injure skin tissue for aesthetic use. This classification does not include devices intended for transdermal delivery of topical products such as cosmetics, drugs, or biologics.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are: ( 1 ) The technical specifications and needle characteristics must be identified, including needle length, geometry, maximum penetration depth, and puncture rate.
( 2 ) Non-clinical performance data must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. The following performance characteristics must be tested: ( i ) Accuracy of needle penetration depth and puncture rate;
( ii ) Safety features built into the device to protect against cross-contamination, including fluid ingress protection; and
( iii ) Identification of the maximum safe needle penetration depth for the device for the labeled indications for use.
( 3 ) Performance data must demonstrate the sterility of the patient-contacting components of the device.
( 4 ) Performance data must support the shelf life of the device by demonstrating continued sterility, package integrity, and device functionality over the intended shelf life.
( 5 ) Performance data must demonstrate the electrical safety and electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) of all electrical components of the device.
( 6 ) Software verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be performed for all software components of the device.
( 7 ) The patient-contacting components of the device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.
( 8 ) Performance data must validate the cleaning and disinfection instructions for reusable components of the device.
( 9 ) Labeling must include the following: ( i ) Information on how to operate the device and its components and the typical course of treatment;
( ii ) A summary of the device technical parameters, including needle length, needle geometry, maximum penetration depth, and puncture rate;
( iii ) Validated methods and instructions for reprocessing of any reusable components;
( iv ) Disposal instructions; and
( v ) A shelf life.
( 10 ) Patient labeling must be provided and must include: ( i ) Information on how the device operates and the typical course of treatment;
( ii ) The probable risks and benefits associated with use of the device; and
( iii ) Postoperative care instructions.
[83 FR 26577, June 8, 2018]
Editorial Note on Part 874
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 874 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 874.3400 Tinnitus masker. ( a ) *Identification.* A tinnitus masker is an electronic device intended to generate noise of sufficient intensity and bandwidth to mask ringing in the ears or internal head noises. Because the device is able to mask internal noises, it is also used as an aid in hearing external noises and speech.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II. The special control for this device is patient labeling regarding: ( 1 ) Hearing health care professional diagnosis, fitting of the device, and followup care,
( 2 ) Risks,
( 3 ) Benefits,
( 4 ) Warnings for safe use, and
( 5 ) Specifications.
[51 FR 40389, Nov. 6, 1986, as amended at 65 FR 17145, Mar. 31, 2000]
# C_2014245EN.01003002.xml

| 28.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/30

---

Action brought on 2 June 2014 — Marcuccio v Court of Justice

(Case T-409/14)

2014/C 245/42

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision, whatever the form in which it was adopted, by which the defendant rejected the request of 22 January 2014 submitted by the applicant to Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision, whatever the form in which it was adopted, by which the defendant rejected the request of 22 January 2014 submitted by the applicant to Court of Justice.

| — | Order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 25  000, or such other greater or lesser sum as the General Court may deem to be fair and equitable, by way of compensation for the harm suffered by the applicant as a result of the unreasonable duration of the legal proceedings brought by the applicant, or by way of an indemnity on account of the unreasonable duration of the proceedings in question. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 25  000, or such other greater or lesser sum as the General Court may deem to be fair and equitable, by way of compensation for the harm suffered by the applicant as a result of the unreasonable duration of the legal proceedings brought by the applicant, or by way of an indemnity on account of the unreasonable duration of the proceedings in question.

| — | Order the defendant to pay all the costs, fees and other expenses incurred in these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay all the costs, fees and other expenses incurred in these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The subject-matter of the present action is the harm which the applicant claims that he suffered as a result of what he claims to be the excessive duration of the proceedings in Case T-236/02 Marcuccio v Commission.

Marcuccio

Commission

In support of the action, the applicant relies on 2 pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging absolute failure to state reasons, including on the ground of absolute failure to carry out a preliminary investigation and breach of the duty of sound administration. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging absolute failure to state reasons, including on the ground of absolute failure to carry out a preliminary investigation and breach of the duty of sound administration.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of law and manifest error of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of law and manifest error of assessment.

---
# C_2015089EN.01003201.xml

| 16.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/32

---

Action brought on 24 December 2014 — August Brötje v OHIM (HydroComfort)

(Case T-845/14)

(2015/C 089/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: August Brötje GmbH (Rastede, Germany) (represented by: S. Pietzcker and C. Spintig, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘HydroComfort’ — Application No 12 233 763

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 October 2014 in Case R 1302/2014-5

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

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

—

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

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

—

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

---
<Page>

                                                                          [LOGO]

                      INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the use in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 11 to Registration
Statement No. 033-63935 of Fortis Benefits Insurance Company Variable Account
D of our report dated February 28, 2003, relating to the financial statements
of Fortis Benefits Insurance Company Variable Account D, appearing in the
Statement of Additional Information, which is part of such Registration
Statement, and to the reference to us under the heading "Independent Public
Accountants" in such Statement of Additional Information.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Hartford, Connecticut

April 7, 2003
Editorial Note on Part 882
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 882 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 882.5705 Digital therapy device to reduce sleep disturbance for psychiatric conditions. *(a) Identification.* A digital therapy device to reduce sleep disturbance for psychiatric conditions is a prescription device that is intended to provide stimulation using a general purpose computing platform to reduce sleep disturbance in patients who experience this symptom due to psychiatric conditions such as nightmare disorder or post-traumatic stress disorder.
*(b) Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are: ( 1 ) Clinical performance testing under the labeled conditions for use must evaluate the following: ( i ) The ability of the device to provide therapy for patients with sleep disturbance due to psychiatric conditions, using a validated measure;
( ii ) Worsening of any condition-specific symptoms using a validated measure for assessment of the particular condition; and
( iii ) Increase in symptoms of disturbed sleep or sleepiness using a validated measure.
( 2 ) Software must clearly describe all features and functions of the software implementing the digital therapy. Software verification, validation, and hazard analysis must also be provided.
( 3 ) The labeling must include the following: ( i ) Patient and physician labeling must include instructions for use, including images that demonstrate how to interact with the device;
( ii ) Patient and physician labeling must list the minimum operating system and general purpose computing requirements that support the software of the device;
( iii ) Patient and physician labeling must include a warning that the digital therapy device is not intended for use as a stand-alone therapeutic device;
( iv ) Patient and physician labeling must include a warning that the digital therapy device does not represent a substitution for the patient's medication; and
( v ) Physician labeling must include a summary of the clinical performance testing conducted with the device.
[88 FR 2223, Jan. 13, 2023]
Comment Info: ================= General Comment:Business Council for Sustainable Engery Petition for Reconsideration
Editorial Note on Part 892
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 892 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 892.1670 Spot-film device. ( a ) *Identification.* A spot-film device is an electromechanical component of a fluoroscopic x-ray system that is intended to be used for medical purposes to position a radiographic film cassette to obtain radiographs during fluoroscopy.
( 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 the limitations in § 892.9.
[48 FR 53047, Nov. 23, 1983, as amended at 84 FR 71818, Dec. 30, 2019]
Filed 12/4/13 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2013 ND 223

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Kary Gene Kling, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20130103

Appeal from the District Court of Divide County, Northwest Judicial District, the Honorable Joshua B. Rustad, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Elizabeth L. Pendlay, State’s Attorney, P.O. Box 289, Crosby, N.D. 58730- 0289, for plaintiff and appellee.

Erin M. Conroy, P.O. Box 137, Bottineau, N.D. 58318, for defendant and appellant.

State v. Kling

No. 20130103

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Kary Kling appealed from a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of disorderly conduct.  On appeal, Kling argues the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction and his conviction was based on speech protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.  We conclude Kling’s speech was not constitutionally protected under the circumstances and there was sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction.  We affirm the judgment under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7).  See In re A.R., 2010 ND 84, ¶¶ 9, 12, 781 N.W.2d 644 (fighting words are not protected speech and conduct accompanying speech should be considered); State v. Bornhoeft, 2009 ND 138, ¶ 11, 770 N.W.2d 270 (a violation of the disorderly conduct statute does not depend only on the content of the speech, but on the behavior and circumstances). 

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Dale V. Sandstrom

Daniel J. Crothers

Mary Muehlen Maring

Carol Ronning Kapsner
# C_2015127EN.01002802.xml

| 20.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/28

---

Action brought on 18 August 2014 — Monster Energy v OHIM (Representation of a peace symbol)

(Case T-633/14)

(2015/C 127/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, United States of America) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark (Representation of a peace symbol) — Application for registration No 11 363 611

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 December 2013 in Case R 1285/2013-1

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea(s) in law

Plea(s) in law

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

—

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

---
# C_2014351EN.01002001.xml

| 6.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 351/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 351/20

---

Action brought on 1 August 2014 — Birkenstock Sales v OHIM (representation of a surface pattern)

(Case T-579/14)

2014/C 351/25

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Birkenstock Sales GmbH (Vettelschoß, Germany) (represented by C. Menebröcker and V. Töbelmann, 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 First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 May 2014 in Case R 1952/2013-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 May 2014 in Case R 1952/2013-1;

| — | 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: the international registration of the figurative mark representing a surface patter for goods in Classes 10, 18 and 25 — International registration No 1 1 32742

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application for registration

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Plea in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

Plea in law:

---
- USGS Home
- Contact						   USGS
- Search 
USGS

- mobile menu barsUSGS Publications Warehouse
    Contact
    Explore recent 
    publications by USGS Authors
    Browse all of Pubs 
    Warehouse by Publication type and year
    FAQS
    Web 
    Service Documentation
    Other 
    Resources
    Descriptions of US Geological Survey Report Series
- USGS Publications Warehouse
- Contact
- Explore recent 
    publications by USGS Authors
- Browse all of Pubs 
    Warehouse by Publication type and year
- FAQS
- Web 
    Service Documentation
- Other 
    Resources
- Descriptions of US Geological Survey Report Series

- USGS Publications 
  Warehouse
- Explore					    
  Explore recent 
    publications by USGS Authors
    Browse all of Pubs 
    Warehouse by Publication type and year
- Explore recent 
    publications by USGS Authors
- Browse all of Pubs 
    Warehouse by Publication type and year
- Documentation					    
  FAQS
    Web 
    Service Documentation
    Other 
    Resources
    Descriptions of US Geological Survey Report Series
- FAQS
- Web 
    Service Documentation
- Other 
    Resources
- Descriptions of US Geological Survey Report Series
- Contact

### Correlation and foraminifera of the Monmouth Group (Upper 
Cretaceous), Long Island, New York

#### Professional Paper 483-I

Tweet


#### Links

- Document: **Document**                                
  (pdf)
- Plates:
- **Plate 7**                                 
    (988 pdf)
- **Plate 8**                                 
    (1319 pdf)
- Paper 
  version: **USGS Store**
- Download citation as:  RIS

#### Abstract

#### Additional publication details

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable 
Document Format (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it 
is recommended that you download the documents to your computer and open them 
with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your browser may not display or 
print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe 
Reader, free of charge. More information about viewing, downloading, and 
printing report files can be found here.

Accessibility
				    FOIA				    Privacy				    Policies and 
Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior				    | 				    
U.S. Geological 
Survey				    				   URL: http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp483I 
                   				    				   Page Contact Information: Pubs 
Warehouse Contact Page				    				   Page Last Modified: February 02, 
2012 00:05:51
TAILORING STEP 3

SUBJECT: Met with John Holmes (representing Intel and SIA) to discuss PAL regulatory language

DATE: 4/19/2012

TIME: 10:30am

ATTENDEES: John Holmes, Lynn Hutchinson (EPA), Michael Brooks (EPA), and Jennifer Snyder (EPA)