alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 876.1400 Stomach pH electrode. ( a ) *Identification.* A stomach pH electrode is a device used to measure intragastric and intraesophageal pH (hydrogen ion concentration). The pH electrode is at the end of a flexible lead which may be inserted into the esophagus or stomach through the patient's mouth. The device may include an integral gastrointestinal tube.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I. The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter.
[48 FR 53023, Nov. 23, 1983, as amended at 61 FR 1122, Jan. 16, 1996]
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                    -----------------------------------------




We consent to the use in this  registration  statement  of our report dated June
17, 2002 on the financial  statements for Rub A Dub Soap,  Inc. as of the period
from  inception  (September  28, 2001) to May 31, 2002, and to references to our
firm as accounting and auditing experts in the prospectus.


Denver, Colorado
April 10, 2003

                                                          /s/Comiskey & Company
                                                       PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Editorial Note on Part 888
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 888 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 888.3680 Shoulder joint glenoid (hemi-shoulder) metallic cemented prosthesis. ( a ) *Identification.* A shoulder joint glenoid (hemi-shoulder) metallic cemented prosthesis is a device that has a glenoid (socket) component made of alloys, such as cobalt-chromium-molybdenum, or alloys with ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene and intended to be implanted to replace part of a shoulder joint. This generic type of device is limited to those prostheses intended for use with bone cement (§ 888.3027).
( b ) *Classification.* Class III.
( 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 shoulder joint glenoid (hemi-shoulder) metallic cemented prosthesis 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 a shoulder joint glenoid (hemi-shoulder) metallic cemented prosthesis that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976. Any other shoulder joint glenoid (hemi-shoulder) metallic cemented prosthesis shall have an approved PMA or a declared completed PDP in effect before being placed in commercial distribution.
[52 FR 33702, Sept. 4, 1987, as amended at 61 FR 50711, Sept. 27, 1996]
Editorial Note on Part 878
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 878 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 878.4930 Suture retention device. ( a ) *Identification.* A suture retention device is a device, such as a retention bridge, a surgical button, or a suture bolster, intended to aid wound healing by distributing suture tension over a larger area in the patient.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in § 878.9.
[53 FR 23872, June 24, 1988, as amended at 59 FR 63010, Dec. 7, 1994; 66 FR 38803, July 25, 2001]
§ 1.1081-9 Requirements with respect to order of Securities and Exchange Commission. The term *order of the Securities and Exchange Commission* is defined in section 1083(a). In addition to the requirements specified in that definition, section 1081(f) provides that, except in the case of a distribution described in section 1081(c)(2), the provisions of section 1081 shall not apply to an exchange, expenditure, investment, distribution, or sale unless each of the following requirements is met: ( a ) The order of the Securities and Exchange Commission must recite that the exchange, expenditure, investment, distribution, or sale is necessary or appropriate to effectuate the provisions of section 11(b) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (15 U. S. C. 79k (b)).
( b ) The order shall specify and itemize the stocks and securities and other property (including money) which are ordered to be acquired, transferred, received, or sold upon such exchange, acquisition, expenditure, distribution, or sale and, in the case of an investment, the investment to be made, so as clearly to identify such property.
( c ) The exchange, acquisition, expenditure, investment, distribution, or sale shall be made in obedience to such order and shall be completed within the time prescribed in such order.
These requirements were not designed merely to simplify the administration of the provisions of section 1081, and they are not to be considered as pertaining only to administrative matters. Each one of the three requirements is essential and must be met if gain or loss is not to be recognized upon the transaction.
§ 582.1425 Magnesium carbonate. ( a ) *Product.* Magnesium carbonate.
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7892 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to rename master promissory 

notes for loans made under part D to student loan contracts. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 9, 2024 

Ms. UNDERWOOD (for herself, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. TRONE, Ms. CLARKE of New 

York, Mr. DAVIS of North Carolina, and Mr. THANEDAR) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the 

Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to rename 

master promissory notes for loans made under part D 

to student loan contracts. 

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 ‘‘Student Loan Contract 

5 Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. STUDENT LOAN CONTRACT AND LOAN DISCLO7 SURES. 

8 (a) STUDENT LOAN CONTRACT.—Section 

9 432(m)(1)(D) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7892 IH

1 U.S.C. 1082(m)(1)(D)) is amended by adding at the end 

2 the following: 

3 ‘‘(iv) STUDENT LOAN CONTRACT.— 

4 ‘‘(I) IN GENERAL.—Any master 

5 promissory note form described in this 

6 subparagraph that is developed or 

7 used for loans made under part D for 

8 periods of enrollment beginning on or 

9 after the date of enactment of the 

10 Student Loan Contract Act of 2024 

11 shall be referred to as a ‘student loan 

12 contract’. 

13 ‘‘(II) CLARIFICATION ON USE.— 

14 A student loan contract for loans 

15 made under part D for a student shall 

16 only be used with respect to loans 

17 made under part D for the periods of 

18 enrollment that are in the same award 

19 year for which the initial loans for 

20 which the contract is used were 

21 made.’’. 

22 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 

23 485(l)(2)(B) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 

24 U.S.C. 1092(l)(2)(B)) is amended by inserting before the 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7892 IH

1 period at the end the following: ‘‘or the student loan con2 tract’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

** S i tt i ng by desi gn at i on fr om the D i stri ctof A ri zona. T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** * w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T D ERRI CK LEE BI LLU PS, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. A . RA M I REZ; J . H I LLER; CO LLI ER; GR E E NL Y, D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 16309 D. C . No . 1 : 0 7 - c v - 0 0 0 6 2 - C KJ ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia C i ndyK . J or ge ns on, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng ** S ubm i tt e d A ugus t10, 2010 *** B efo re: H A W K IN S , M cK E O W N , an dIK U T A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. D erri ck B i l l up s, a C al i forni a s t at e pri soner, appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct court ’ s s um m ary j ud gm entand o rderdenyi ng hi s m ot i on t o rec on si der s um m ary 

# FI LED AU G 27 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 16309 2 j udgm e ntf

orD e f e nda nt s i n hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i on. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o s u m m a ryju d g m e n t, L ovel l v. Cha nd ler , 30 3 F . 3d 10 39 , 10 52 (9th C i r. 20 02 ), and for abuse of di sc re t i on a deni al of a m ot i on t o rec on si der, Sc h. D is t. N o. 1J , Mul tnom ah C ount

y, O r . v . A CandS, Inc. , 5 F. 3 d1 2 5 5 , 1 2 6 2 ( 9 th Ci r . 1 9 9 3 ) . W e a f f i rm. B i l l ups doe s notc ha l l e nge i n hi s ope ni ng br i e f the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s c onc l us i on th a t th e u s e o f

f o r c e w a s n o t e x c e s s iv e , a n dth e r e f o r e w a iv e s th is is s u e o n ap p e a l. Se e M a r t i n ez - Se rr a n o v . I

NS , 94 F . 3d 1256, 1259- 60 ( 9th C i r . 1996) ( i s s ue s not s p e c if ic a llyr a is e da n da r g u e din ap a rty ’s o p e n in g b r ie f a r e w a iv e d ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n b yd e n y in g B illup s ’ m o tio n to re consi der. B i l l up s di d n otexpl ai n w hy he w as chal l engi ng for the fi rs tt i m e D r. D o u g lass ’s an dD r. L ee ’s m ed ical re p o rts n o r w h y h e f ailed to o ff

erD r. F lyn n ’s m e d ic a l r e p o rt d u r in g th e s u m m a ryju d g m e n t p r o c e e d in g s . See A Can dS , Inc. , 5 F . 3d a t1263. F in a lly , w e d o n o t c o n s id e rth e e v id e n c e a tta c h e dto B illup s ’s “M o tio n to A dm i s s i on of

V a l i d M e di c a l R e c or d” be c aus e thi s e vi de nc e w a s notbe f or e the d is tr ic t c o u rt. Se e Ki rs h n e rv . Un i de n C o r p . o f A m. , 84 2 F . 2d 10 74 , 10 77 (9th C i r. 1988) . W e de nythe m ot i on. AF F I RME D.
### NPDES Comments Hank Uhden to: Jack Faulk 01/25/2010 05:07 PM

Jack: I attached your original document w/ our comments, along w/ a letter of comments from Lars Baker, who is the Supervisor of the Fremont County Weed & Pest and a member of my pesticides in groundwater committee. First however are some general comments: 1. Please add a definition of "aquatic weeds". 2. As an overall comment, we feel that the EPA through the 6th Circuit Court ruling is trying to expand their authority beyond the Clean Water Act, by stating "waters of the U.S." and not using the CWA definition of navigable.

Hank Uhden Manager - Technical Services Wyoming Dept. of Agriculture 2219 Carey Avenue Cheyenne, WY 82002-0100 Phone: 307-777-6574 Fax: 307-777-6593 E-Mail to and from me, in connection with the transaction of public business, is subject to the Wyoming Public Records Act and may be disclosed to third parties.
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-111-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
#### Tackett et al. *v.*Stevenson.

[No. 18,961.

Filed November 13, 1900.]

*Injunction.*— Legal *Remedy,*— Counties.—Contracts *of Employment. —Accounts.*— An action by a taxpayer will not lie to enjoin the county commissioners from entering into a contract employing a person to prepare an index to certain county records, since §7853 Burns 1891, provides an adequate legal remedy.

Erom the Decatur Circuit Court.

*Reversed.*

*Cortez Ewing*and *Davison Wilson,*for appellants.

*Hugh Wickens*and *J. E. Osborn,*for appellee.

*408Baker, C. J.

— Appellee, as a taxpayer of Decatur county, began this suit to annul, and "to enjoin appellants from executing, a contract whereby the board of commissioners of Decatur county employed appellant Tackett to prepare a general index of certain records in the office of the clerk of the Decatur Circuit Court. The error assigned is’the overruling of a demurrer to the complaint.

The commissioners were acting, or at least assuming to act, under §7853 Burns 1894, §5766 R. S. 1881 and Horner 1897. That section would require appellant Tackett to file his account with the board at least ten days before, the beginning of the term at which he expected to demand pay for his services, and would afford appellee or any other taxpayer of the county the right to contest the claim, before the board j and the statute providing for appeals from decisions of the board would furnish appellee, if unsuccessful before the board, an opportunity to be heard fully in the circuit court. Inasmuch as a plain and adequate legal remedy is provided by statute, that remedy must be pursued and injunction will not lie. *Board, etc.,*v. *Dickinson,*153 Ind. 682.

Judgment reversed, with directions to sustain the demurrer to the complaint.
EX-31 Rule13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, Anthony Sfarra,certify that:

 

1. I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respectof the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the Wells Fargo CommercialMortgage Trust 2015-LC22 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

 

2. Based on myknowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge,all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to beprovided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included inthe Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4. Based on myknowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report underItem 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Actperiodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under theservicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reportson assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securitiesand their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance withservicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in thisreport in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except asotherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliancedescribed in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving thecertifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me bythe following unaffiliated parties:

 

National CooperativeBank, N.A., as NCB Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as Special Servicer,National Cooperative Bank, N.A., as NCB Special Servicer, Wilmington Trust,National Association, as Trustee, Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as TrustAdvisor, CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc., as Servicing FunctionParticipant, National Tax Search, LLC, as Servicing Function Participant,CWCapital Asset Management LLC, as Special Servicer for the Somerset ParkApartments Mortgage Loan prior to July 5, 2018, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC,as Special Servicer for the Somerset Park Apartments Mortgage Loan on and afterJuly 5, 2018, Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee for theSomerset Park Apartments Mortgage Loan, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as TrustAdvisor for the Somerset Park Apartments Mortgage Loan, CoreLogic CommercialReal Estate Services, Inc., as Servicing Function Participant for the SomersetPark Apartments Mortgage Loan, and National Tax Search, LLC, as ServicingFunction Participant for the Somerset Park Apartments Mortgage Loan.

 

 

 

Dated: March 20, 2019

 

 

/s/ Anthony Sfarra

 

 

President

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
Editorial Note on Part 866
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 866 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 866.4800 Radial immunodiffusion plate. ( a ) *Identification.* A radial immunodiffusion plate for clinical use is a device that consists of a plastic plate to which agar gel containing antiserum is added. In radial immunodiffusion, antigens migrate through gel which originally contains specific antibodies. As the reagents come in contact with each other, they combine to form a precipitate that is trapped in the gel matrix and immobilized.
( 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 § 866.9.
[47 FR 50823, Nov. 9, 1982, as amended at 66 FR 38792, July 25, 2001]
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10 - 15 - 00316 - CV
IN RE MILTON LEE GAR DNER
Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus was filed with this Court on September 17, 2015. There are numerous procedural deficiencies with the petition, including but not limited to an inadequate record and the failure to serve the trial court as the
respon dent or the State of Texas as the real party in interest. T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 52.7; 52.2; 9.5(a). However, to expedite a decision in this proceeding, we use Rule 2 to suspend the
rules and overlook these and other deficiencies. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 2. Relato r alleges he has filed an application for writ of habeas corpus with the trial court under the Texas Constitution article V, § 8 as a collateral challenge of his juvenileIn re Gardner Page 2

conviction. Relator asserts that he is currently restrained in his liberty because t his allegedly improper juvenile conviction was used to enhance an offense relator committed as an adult and for which he is currently incarcerated. The petition for writ of mandamus to this Court does not identify the nature of the juvenile offense. Rel ator alleges, among other things, that the State has responded to his application for writ of habeas corpus, asserting the defense of latches, to which relator has filed a reply. He also asserts that neither of the District Court judges that
have sat on t he matter, apparently under an exchange of benches, has ruled on his application or the merits thereof. Relator has not provided any of the referenced documents (the writ, the response, or the reply) or other motions and clerk’s records he references in hi s petition. Moreover, he does not provide the date any of these documents were allegedly filed or hearings were allegedly held. The trial court has a ministerial duty to timely rule on motions or matters filed
with the court. See In re Chavez , 62 S.W.3d 225, 228

- 229 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). However, without a record sufficient to show a violation of this duty, we cannot issue a mandamus against the trial court. See In re Wallace , No. 10

- 15

- 00065

- CR, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 2682, *2 (Tex . App. Waco Mar. 19, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.In re Gardner Page 3

Absent a specific exemption, the Clerk of the Court must collect filing fees at the time a document is presented for filing. T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 12.1(b); Appendix to T EX
. R. A PP
. P ., Order Regarding Fees (Amended Aug. 28, 2007, eff. Sept. 1, 2007). S ee also T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 5; 10 TH T EX
. A PP
. (W ACO ) L OC
. R. 5; T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . §§ 51.207(b); 51.208; § 51.941(a) (West 2013). Under these circum stances, we suspend the rule and order the Clerk to write off all unpaid filing fees in this case. T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 2. The write

- off of the fees from the accounts receivable of the Court in no way eliminates or reduces the
fees owed.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Petition denied Opinion delivered and filed October 8, 2015 [OT06]
# C_2014129EN.01002601.xml

| 28.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/26

---

Action brought on 23 January 2014 — Blackrock v OHIM (INVESTING FOR A NEW WORLD)

(Case T-59/14)

(2014/C 129/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Blackrock, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, K. Gilbert and M. Blair, Solicitors)

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

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 31 October 2013 given in Case R 573/2013-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 October 2013 given in Case R 573/2013-1;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘INVESTING FOR A NEW WORLD’ for services in Classes 35 and 36 — Community trade mark application No 11 144 706

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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

---