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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7875 

To direct the Secretary of State to designate MS–13 as a foreign terrorist 

organization, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 5, 2024 

Mr. GOOD of Virginia introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of State to designate MS–13 as 

a foreign terrorist organization, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Every Town A Border 

5 Town Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF MS–13 AS A FOREIGN TERRORIST 

7 ORGANIZATION. 

8 On the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 

9 of State shall designate Mara Salvatrucha (MS–13) (and 

10 any successor organization) as a foreign terrorist organiVerDate Sep 11 2014 20:57 Apr 14, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H7875.IH H7875

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7875 IH

1 zation in accordance with section 219 of the Immigration 

2 and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189). 

3 SEC. 3. MEMBERS OF MS–13 CONSIDERED TO HAVE EN4 GAGED IN TERRORIST ACTIVITY. 

5 Section 212(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Na6 tionality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)) is amended by 

7 adding at the end the following: ‘‘An alien who is a mem8 ber, officer, official, representative, or spokesman of Mara 

9 Salvatrucha (MS–13) is considered, for the purposes of 

10 this Act, to have engaged in terrorist activity.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Editorial Note on Part 870
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 870 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 870.1390 Trocar. ( a ) *Identification.* A trocar is a sharp-pointed instrument used with a cannula for piercing a vessel or chamber to facilitate insertion of the cannula.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). Except for trocars that are reprocessed for multiple use, the device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 870.9.
[45 FR 7907, Feb. 5, 1980, as amended at 84 FR 71811, Dec. 30, 2019]
|SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
|----------------------------------



|Washington, D.C. 20549
|----------------------



|FORM 8-KCURRENT REPORT
|----------------------



|Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
|----------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date of Report (date of earliest
event reported): April 25, 2003
|----------------------------------------------------------------



|BRADLEY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. 
      (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |  |                 | 
| |  | --------------- | 
| |  | Delaware        | 
| |  | (State or other | 
| |  | jurisdiction of | 
| |  | incorporation)  | 

| |  |                                               
| |  | ----------------------------------------------
| |  | 383 Route 46 West, Fairfield,
      New Jersey
| |  | (Address of principal executive office)       



|Registrants telephone number,
including area code: (973) 882-1505
|------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | 
| |  | 



---





|Item 5.  Other Events
|---------------------



|On April 25, 2003,
Bradley Pharmaceuticals, Inc. announced that its motion in the U.S. District Court for
the District of  New Jersey for a preliminary injunction preventing Dermik Laboratories
and Aventis Pharmaceuticals from allegedly infringing aspects  of Bradleys patent
concerning the composition and use of its proprietary Carmol(R) 40 urea brand line has
been denied.  A copy of the  related press release is attached hereto.
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Item 7.  Financial Statements and Exhibits
|------------------------------------------



|(c)  Exhibits
|-------------



| | 99.1-
Press Release by Bradley Pharmaceuticals, Inc. dated April 25, 2003
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------



|SIGNATURE
|---------



|Pursuant to the
requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this
report to be signed  on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |  |                                    
| |  | -----------------------------------
| |  | BRADLEY PHARMACEUTICALS,
      INC.
| |  |                                    
| |  | By:                                



|Dated:  April 25, 2003
|----------------------



| |  | 
| |  | 



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

§ 882.5225 Implanted malleable clip. ( a ) *Identification.* An implanted malleable clip is a bent wire or staple that is forcibly closed with a special instrument to occlude an intracranial blood vessel or aneurysm (a balloonlike sac formed on a blood vessel), stop bleeding, or hold tissue or a mechanical device in place in a patient.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
Editorial Note on Part 878
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 878 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 878.5080 Air-handling apparatus accessory. ( a ) *Identification.* An air-handling apparatus accessory is a supplementary device that is intended to be used with an air-handling apparatus for a surgical operating room. This device provides an interface between the components of the device or can be used to switch electrical power. This generic type of device includes fittings, adapters, couplers, remote switches, and footswitches.
( 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.
[84 FR 14870, Apr. 12, 2019]
EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the inclusion in this Amendment No. 4 to the Registration
Statement on Form S-1 of our report dated April 13, 2000 (with respect to the
second paragraph, Note (H) April 19, 2000), on our audits of the consolidated
financial statements of Urban Cool Network, Inc. and subsidiary as of December
31, 1999 and 1998, for year ended December 31, 1999, for the period from January
23, 1998 (inception) through December 31, 1998 and for the period from January
23, 1998 (inception) through December 31, 1999 and to the reference of our firm
under the caption "Experts".

Richard A. Eisner & Company, LLP

New York, New York
May 19, 2000
# C_2015007EN.01003901.xml

| 12.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/39

---

Action brought on 26 September 2014 — Novar v OHIM

(Case T-726/14)

(2015/C 007/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Novar GmbH (Albstadt, Germany) (represented by: R. Weede, lawyer)

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:

| — | order the defendant Office to pay EUR 2  498,00 plus interest in the amount of 5 percentage points over the base rate for the period since the legal proceedings began; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant Office to pay EUR 2  498,00 plus interest in the amount of 5 percentage points over the base rate for the period since the legal proceedings began;

| — | order the defendant Office to pay the costs, including the costs of representing the applicant in the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant Office to pay the costs, including the costs of representing the applicant in the proceedings.

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.

Plea in law: Non-contractual liability in accordance with Article 118(3) of Regulation No 207/2009

The applicant asserts that there has been a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals and that there is a causal link between action and damage. The applicant argues that the unlawful action resides in the decision of 14 May 2013 rejecting the opposition. A sufficiently serious breach of law exists because, in the opposition decision of 14 May 2013, the Office assumed — contrary to the information contained in the letter of 22 June 2012 regarding the documents to be submitted in trade mark opposition proceedings B002027251 for the substantiation of earlier rights — additional requirements for proving the earlier rights and for that reason failed to take account of the applicant’s earlier rights. That infringement was the cause of the additional legal costs required to be incurred by the applicant in the context of the appeal against the decision of 14 May 2013, which was remedied by the decision of the Opposition Division of 17 October 2013.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>  THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
  FROM THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 28, 1997 AND THE
  CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED 
  JUNE 28, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 
  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-28-1997
<CASH>                                    52,584 
<SECURITIES>                               4,000
<RECEIVABLES>                             72,188
<ALLOWANCES>                               7,279
<INVENTORY>                               61,375
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         200,173
<PP&E>                                   114,132
<DEPRECIATION>                            70,396 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           257,975
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     51,953
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                      22
<OTHER-SE>                               202,859
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             257,975
<SALES>                                  182,569 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         182,569
<CGS>                                    133,638
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            133,638
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           8,166
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           151
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            3,141
<INCOME-TAX>                               1,068
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        2,073 
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                               2,073
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                               0.09 
        

</TABLE>
From: <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov>

To: "Harrelson, Mike" <michael.harrelson@santeecooper.com>

Date: 8/4/2010 12:00 PM

Subject: Re: Effluent Guidelines Questionnaire - Extension Request

Attachments: pic00488.gif

Greetings,

EPA has reviewed your extension request for the steam electric effluent

guidelines questionnaire for the following South Carolina Public

Services Authority facilities:

 Cross

 Dolphus M. Grainger

 Jefferies

 Winyah

The deadline for your plant to submit Version 1 and Version 2 of the

completed questionnaire is extended to October 15, 2010. Please note

that the deadline for Part G, if applicable, is unchanged and remains

120 days after receipt of the questionnaire. If you need assistance

during the completion of the steam electric questionnaire, please

contact the steam electric helpline via e-mail at steamhelp@erg.com or

by phone at 1-877-353-7560.

Sincerely,

(Embedded image moved to file: pic00488.gif)
39112.

#### STAMPS TIRE COMPANY, INC. v. POWERS.

Decided November 13, 1961

Rehearing denied November 28, 1961.

*861
      *Miles B. Sams,*for plaintiff in error.

*James R. Venable,*contra.

Jordan, Judge.

“There is a well-recognized rule of law to the effect that courts of record retain full control over their own orders and judgments during the term at which they are entered, and in the exercise of a sound legal discretion may revise or vacate them, as the ends of justice may require, such discretion not being' controlled by courts of review unless manifestly and flagrantly abused. But the judgments and orders thus said to remain ‘in the breast of the court’ do not include judgments based upon the verdict of a jury,-which do not come within the scope of such plenary powers and discretion. *Georgia Railway Co. v. Hamer,*1 Ga. App. 673 (58 SE 54); *Grogan v. Deraney,*38 Ga. App. 287, 290 (143 SE 912).” *Schofield’s Sons Co. v. Vaughn,*40 Ga. App. 568, 569 (150 SE 569). Accordingly, where at the trial term, in the absence of any defense, a judgment against the defendant has been entered, based on a verdict of a jury, the defendant, in order to avoid the judgment, is relegated to his right to attack the judgment by motion to set aside or in arrest of judgment, or by a proceeding in the nature of a motion for a new trial to secure relief against judgments irregularly or improperly obtained. *Schofield’s Sons Co. v. Vaughn,*40 Ga. App. 568, 570, supra.

Since the judgment in the instant case was based on a verdict of a jury and since it was not sought to be set aside on account of perjury or for any defect not amendable which appears on the face of the record or pleadings, the motion of the defendant *862must necessarily be construed as seeking to set aside the judgment for irregularities not appearing on the face of the record and müst necessarily come within the rules governing motions for a new trial. *Mills v. Quick,*99 Ga. App. 461, 465 (109 SE2d 65). Thus measured, the motion of the defendant sets forth no legal reason for setting aside the verdict and judgment since it clearly appears from the facts alleged therein that the failure of the defendant’s counsel to appear and defend the suit was not induced by any acts or conduct of the plaintiff or the court, was unmixed with any sort of providential cause, and was without the leave of the court. *Cotton States Life Ins. Co. v. Edwards,*74 Ga. 220, (1), 226; *Mills v. Quick,*99 Ga. App. 461, supra. Irrespective of the action that the trial court would have taken had the clerk informed him of his telephone communication from the defendant’s counsel, the clerk’s failure to inform the court furnished no- grounds for setting aside the verdict of the jury in this case. *Turner v. Citizens Bank of Valdosta,*31 Ga. App. 549 (121 SE698).

The trial court therefore erred in sustaining the defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict and judgment of the jury, such error rendering the further proceedings in this case nugatory.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
§ 876.4020 Fiberoptic light ureteral catheter. ( a ) *Identification.* A fiberoptic light ureteral catheter is a device that consists of a fiberoptic bundle that emits light throughout its length and is shaped so that it can be inserted into the ureter to enable the path of the ureter to be seen during lower abdominal or pelvic surgery.
( 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 § 876.9.
[48 FR 53023, Nov. 23, 1983, as amended at 84 FR 71813, Dec. 30, 2019]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             259
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           4,007
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     28,097
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          13,457
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            13,278
<LOANS>                                         54,726
<ALLOWANCE>                                        158
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 103,354
<DEPOSITS>                                      70,201
<SHORT-TERM>                                    19,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                943
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,199
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 103,354
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,117
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,333
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   234
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 6,684
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,380
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,915
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,769
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       34
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 (2)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,270
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    738
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         738
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       464
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .50
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.34
<LOANS-NON>                                        274
<LOANS-PAST>                                         3
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    539
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   131
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      (7)
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  158
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               130
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             28
        

</TABLE>
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

MARIANNE ARCHAMBO, *

* No. 12-291V

Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran

*

v. * Filed: April 29, 2013

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Stipulation; influenza (flu) vaccine;

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * anaphylactic-type reaction, chronic 

* pulmonary disorders, debilitating 

Respondent. * musculoskeletal injuries

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Dennis Woody, Woody & Falkenbach, Media, PA, for Petitioner;

Justine E. Daigneault, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION1

On April 26, 2013, respondent filed a joint stipulation concerning the petition for 

compensation filed by Marianne Archambo on May 7, 2012. In her petition, petitioner alleged 

that the influenza (“flu”) vaccine, which is contained in the Vaccine Injury Table (the “Table”), 

42 C.F.R. §100.3(a), and which she received on November 16, 2010, caused her to suffer from 

an anaphylactic-type reaction, chronic pulmonary disorders, and debilitating musculoskeletal 

injuries. Petitioner further alleges that she experienced the residual effects of her injuries for 

more than six months. Petitioner represents that there has been no prior award or settlement of a 

civil action for damages on her behalf as a result of her condition.

Respondent denies that the flu vaccine caused petitioner’s anaphylactic-type reaction, 

chronic pulmonary disorders, debilitating musculoskeletal injuries, or any other injury or her 

current condition. 

Nevertheless, the parties agree to the joint stipulation, attached hereto as Appendix A. 

The undersigned finds said stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the Court in 

awarding damages, on the terms set forth therein.

 

1

The E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 2002), 

requires that the Court post this decision on its website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the 

parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical information or other 

information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). Any redactions ordered by the special 

master will appear in the document posted on the website.
2

Damages awarded in that stipulation include:

A lump sum payment of $60,000.00 in the form of a check payable to petitioner, 

Marianne Archambo. This amount represents compensation for all damages that 

would be available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(a).

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC, Appendix B, the clerk is 

directed to enter judgment in case 12-291V according to this decision and the attached 

stipulation.2

Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Jay All, at (202) 357-6353.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master

 

2

Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties can expedite entry of judgment by each party filing 

a notice renouncing the right to seek review by a United States Court of Federal Claims judge.
From: Tendulkar, Vijay [mailto:vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com]

Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 11:42 PM

To: Caskey, John; Brian Coffey; Alex Hofmann; Andrew Delaski; Aris Marantan; Art Rosenfeld; Bob Saint;

Bruce Smith; Caitlin Johnson; Carlos Gaytan; Charlie Dr exler; Charlie Stevens; Chris Bolduc; Silcox, Clark;

Creevy, Jim; Dan Cohen; Daniel Young; Eric Pete rson; Freeman, Jeremiah; Gary Fernstrom; Greg

Coulter; Greg Rosenquist; Hirsch, Bruce R; James Lass; Jennifer Tiedeman; Jerry Corkran; Jerry Hodge;

Jerry Schoen; Joanna Mauer; John Cymbalsky; John Rossetti; Katie Coughlin; Ken Winder; Mahesh P.

Sampat; Matt Miller; Matthew Nardotti; Meg Waltner; Meyers, Aaron; Michael Hyland; Michael Rivest;

Millure, Dave; Phil Harter; Phil Hopkinson; Polinski, Raymond; Puesh Kumar; Richard Parker; Rick

Anderson; Rob Greeson; Robert Berman; Robert va n Buskirk; Robin Roy; Ryan, Paul; Scott Beck;

Simmons, Chuck; Steve Nadel; Steve Rosenstock; Tim Ballo; Tom Eckman; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo

Subject: NEMA transformer section comments regard ing DOE negotiated rulemaking process and

analysis for distribution transformers

TO: Mr. Richard Parker, members of LVDT Committee, NEMA Members, DOE

The attached comments are offered to the DOE, Navigant, LBL and the Committee members

concerning the negotiated rulemaking process for distribution transformer energy efficiency standards.

The basic points presented in the comments are:

1) Limitations of design software

2) Problems with core materi als

3) Difficulties with mixe d low volume production of LVDT by small manufacturers

4) Exemptions for Data Center Transformers and Solar Power Transformers

With Kind Regards,

V. B. Tendulkar