alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014292EN.01005601.xml

| 1.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 292/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/56

---

Action brought on 7 July 2014 — Decal España v Commission

(Case T-509/14)

2014/C 292/68

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Decal España, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: M. Silva Sánchez, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

| — | in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

| — | in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law;

| — | in any event, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities, in full or in such a way as to limit the bar on passing on the burden of recovery to the profitability of the operations; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities, in full or in such a way as to limit the bar on passing on the burden of recovery to the profitability of the operations; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.

Bankia

Commission

---
§ 884.6110 Assisted reproduction catheters. ( a ) *Identification.* Assisted reproduction catheters are devices used in in vitro fertilization (IVF), gamete intrafallopian transfer (GIFT), or other assisted reproduction procedures to introduce or remove gametes, zygote(s), preembryo(s), and/or embryo(s) into or from the body. This generic type of device may include catheters, cannulae, introducers, dilators, sheaths, stylets, and component parts.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls) (mouse embryo assay information, endotoxin testing, sterilization validation, design specifications, labeling requirements, biocompatibility testing, and clinical testing).
#### § 520.1450 Morantel tartrate oral dosage forms.
Editorial Note on Part 864
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 864 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 864.7060 Antithrombin III assay. ( a ) *Identification.* An antithrombin III assay is a device that is used to determine the plasma level of antithrombin III (a substance which acts with the anticoagulant heparin to prevent coagulation). This determination is used to monitor the administration of heparin in the treatment of thrombosis. The determination may also be used in the diagnosis of thrombophilia (a congenital deficiency of antithrombin III).
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
[45 FR 60609, Sept. 12, 1980]
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7616 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to provide assistance for building 

in, or rebuilding Gaza, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 11, 2024 

Mr. MAST introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to provide assistance 

for building in, or rebuilding Gaza, 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. PROHIBITION ON FUNDING. 

4 No Federal funds are authorized to be appropriated 

5 or otherwise made available to build in, or rebuild the 

6 Gaza strip on or after the date of the enactment of this 

7 Act. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Editorial Note on Part 882
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 882 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 882.5700 Thermal system for insomnia. ( a ) *Identification.* A thermal system for insomnia is a prescription device for use in patients with insomnia that is used to apply a specified temperature to the skin surface.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are: ( 1 ) The patient-contacting components of the device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.
( 2 ) Performance testing must demonstrate electromagnetic compatibility and electrical safety.
( 3 ) Non-clinical performance testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. The following performance characteristics must be evaluated: ( i ) Thermal performance of the device, including maintenance of the target temperature, must be evaluated under simulated use conditions.
( ii ) Mechanical testing to demonstrate the device can withstand forces under anticipated use conditions.
( iii ) Mechanical testing to demonstrate the device is resistant to leakage under anticipated use conditions.
( 4 ) Software verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be performed.
( 5 ) Patient labeling must be provided to convey information regarding safe use of the device, including instructions for assembly.
[81 FR 44772, July 11, 2016]
Support Documents for 

Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) on 

Premanufacture Notice (PMN) 

P-00-442 

EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0577 

EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 20
Index

A-001 Structure Activity Team (SAT) Report for 

PMN P-00-442 

A-002 Initial Review Engineering Report for 

PMN P-00-442 

A-003 Initial Review Exposure Report for 

PMN P-00-442 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 20
A-001 

Structure Activity Team (SAT) Report

for PMN P-00-442 

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 20
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 20
A-002 

Initial Review Engineering Report

for PMN P-00-442 

EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 20
EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 20
EPA SANITIZED Page 7 of 20
EPA SANITIZED Page 8 of 20
EPA SANITIZED Page 9 of 20
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 10 of 20
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 11 of 20
EPA SANITIZED Page 12 of 20
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 13 of 20
EPA SANITIZED Page 14 of 20
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 15 of 20
EPA SANITIZED Page 16 of 20
A-003 

Initial Review Exposure Report

for PMN P-00-442 

EPA SANITIZED Page 17 of 20
EPA SANITIZED Page 18 of 20
EPA SANITIZED Page 19 of 20
EPA SANITIZED Page 20 of 20
§ 58.63 Maintenance and calibration of equipment. ( a ) Equipment shall be adequately inspected, cleaned, and maintained. Equipment used for the generation, measurement, or assessment of data shall be adequately tested, calibrated and/or standardized.
( b ) The written standard operating procedures required under § 58.81(b)(11) shall set forth in sufficient detail the methods, materials, and schedules to be used in the routine inspection, cleaning, maintenance, testing, calibration, and/or standardization of equipment, and shall specify, when appropriate, remedial action to be taken in the event of failure or malfunction of equipment. The written standard operating procedures shall designate the person responsible for the performance of each operation.
( c ) Written records shall be maintained of all inspection, maintenance, testing, calibrating and/or standardizing operations. These records, containing the date of the operation, shall describe whether the maintenance operations were routine and followed the written standard operating procedures. Written records shall be kept of nonroutine repairs performed on equipment as a result of failure and malfunction. Such records shall document the nature of the defect, how and when the defect was discovered, and any remedial action taken in response to the defect.
[43 FR 60013, Dec. 22, 1978, as amended at 52 FR 33780, Sept. 4, 1987; 67 FR 9585, Mar. 4, 2002]
**Exhibit 35.2**

 

**Servicer Compliance Statement of Deere Credit Services, Inc.**

 

I, Michael J. Mack, Jr., President of Deere Credit Services, Inc., certify:

 

A review of Deere Credit Services, Inc.’s activities for the period from September 9, 2015 (the date of issuance of the John Deere Owner Trust 2015-B transaction subject to the requirements of Regulation AB) through October 31, 2015 (the “Reporting Period”) and of Deere Credit Services, Inc.’s performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 9, 2015 among John Deere Capital Corporation, John Deere Receivables, Inc. and John Deere Owner Trust 2015-B has been made under my supervision, and to the best of my knowledge based on such review, Deere Credit Services, Inc. has fulfilled all its obligations under all relevant agreements in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 
| Date: January 15,   2016 | Deere Credit   Services, Inc. |
|-------------------------------|------------------------------------|
|                          |                               |
|                          |                               |
|                          |                               |
|                          | By                                 | */s/ Michael J. Mack, Jr.* |   |
|                          |                               | Michael J. Mack, Jr. |
|                          |                               | President |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 11223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-5135]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6915]


Lifting of Nonproliferation Measures Against One Russian Entity

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: A determination has been made, pursuant to Section 6 of 
Executive Order 12938 of November 14, 1994, as amended, to remove 
nonproliferation measures on one Russian entity.

DATES: Effective Date: March 10, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pamela K. Durham, Office of Missile 
Threat Reduction, Bureau of International Security and 
Nonproliferation, Department of State (202-647-4930).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the authorities vested in the 
President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of 
America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (``IEEPA''), the National Emergencies Act (50 
U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et 
seq.), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and Section 6 of 
Executive Order 12938 of November 14, 1994, as amended, a determination 
was made on March 1, 2010, that it is in the foreign policy or national 
security interests of the United States to remove the restrictions 
imposed pursuant to sections 4(b), 4(c), and 4(d) of the Executive 
Order on the following Russian entity, its sub-units and successors:

    1. Glavkosmos.

    These restrictions were imposed on July 30, 1998 (see 63 FR 42089).

    Dated: March 4, 2010.
Vann H. Van Diepen,
Acting Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and 
Nonproliferation.
[FR Doc. 2010-5135 Filed 3-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-27-P
Editorial Note on Part 880
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 880 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 880.6080 Cardiopulmonary resuscitation board. ( a ) *Identification.* A cardiopulmonary resuscitation board is a device consisting of a rigid board which is placed under a patient to act as a support during cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
( 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 66 FR 38805, July 25, 2001]
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The Honorable John W. Sedwick, United States District Judge for the **

District of Alaska, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ANDRE PATRICK HOLLAND,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 08-50434

D.C. No. 5:01-cr-0011-VAP-1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 6, 2009

Pasadena, California

Before: SCHROEDER and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and SEDWICK, District ** 

Judge.

The district court did not err in denying Holland’s request to apply the

“safety valve” in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) on a motion for reduction of sentence under

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), because modification of a sentence under § 3582(c)(2)

FILED

NOV 17 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-2-

“does not amount to a new sentencing for purposes of the safety valve statute.”

United States v. Stockdale, 129 F.3d 1066, 1068 (9th Cir. 1997). Moreover,

Sentencing Commission policy statements prevent use of § 3553(f) in § 3582(c)

proceedings. See U.S.S.G. §§ 1B1.10(a)(3), 1B1.10(b)(1). “[C]onsistency with

the policy statements is a mandatory condition” under § 3582(c)(2). United States

v. Sipai, 582 F.3d 994, 995 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
# C_2015198EN.01004901.xml

| 15.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/49

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 29 April 2015 — Ibánez Martínez v Parliament

(Case F-17/14) (1)

1

((Civil Service - Officials - Award of merit points - Opinion of the Reports Committee - Wide discretion of the administration - Equal treatment))

(2015/C 198/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Carlos Ibánez Martínez (Leeuw-Saint-Pierre, Belgium) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: V. Montebello-Demogeot and N. Chemaï, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for the annulment of the decision not to award the applicant three merit points in the 2012 promotion year

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Ibánez Martínez to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Ibánez Martínez to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament.

---

(1)  OJ C 184, 16.6.2014, p. 41.

1

---
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-SG1 (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 by thefollowing unaffiliated parties:

 

Rialto CapitalAdvisors, LLC, as Special Servicer, Wilmington Trust, National Association, asTrustee, TriMont Real Estate Advisors, Inc., as Trust Advisor, CoreLogicCommercial Real Estate Services, Inc., as Servicing Function Participant,National Tax Search, LLC, as Servicing Function Participant, Prudential AssetResources, Inc., as Primary Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as SpecialServicer for the Patriots Park Mortgage Loan, Wilmington Trust, NationalAssociation, as Trustee for the Patriots Park Mortgage Loan, TriMont RealEstate Advisors, Inc., as Trust Advisor for the Patriots Park Mortgage Loan,CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc., as Servicing FunctionParticipant for the Patriots Park Mortgage Loan, and National Tax Search, LLC,as Servicing Function Participant for the Patriots Park Mortgage Loan.

 

 

 

Dated: March 18, 2020

 

 

/s/ Anthony Sfarra

 

 

President

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

KHALIYFA NEELY,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 69 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 26th day of September, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
Editorial Note on Part 878
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 878 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 878.4683 Non-Powered suction apparatus device intended for negative pressure wound therapy. ( a ) *Identification.* A non-powered suction apparatus device intended for negative pressure wound therapy is a device that is indicated for wound management via application of negative pressure to the wound for removal of fluids, including wound exudate, irrigation fluids, and infectious materials. It is further indicated for management of wounds, burns, flaps, and grafts.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special control for this device is FDA's “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Non-powered Suction Apparatus Device Intended for Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT).” See § 878.1(e) for the availability of this guidance document.
[75 FR 70114, Nov. 17, 2010]
Editorial Note on Part 886
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 886 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 886.4170 Cryophthalmic unit. ( a ) *Identification.* A cryophthalmic unit is a device that is a probe with a small tip that becomes extremely cold through the controlled use of a refrigerant or gas. The device may be AC-powered. The device is intended to remove cataracts by the formation of an adherent ice ball in the lens, to freeze the eye and adjunct parts for surgical removal of scars, and to freeze tumors.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
#### Patricia KOZAL *v.*STATE of Arkansas

5-5476

451 S. W. 2d 224

Opinion delivered March 9, 1970

*David O. Partain,*for appellant.

*Joe Purcell,*Attorney General; *Don Langston,*Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

John A. Fogleman, Justice.

Appellant asserts that the circuit court committed reversible error in its judgment revoking a previous suspension of sentence on a felony charge. The particular point upon which appel*215lant relies is that no minimum. sentence was fixed in: the original judgment of the court suspending sentence entered on November 19, 1968,, so that- the court had, no authority to fix a minimum'sentence in its later! judgment revoking the suspension and ordering appellant committed to the Department‘ of Corrections. Ap-' pellant argues that Section 28 of Act No. 50 of 1.968, which became effective on February' 21,' 1968, governs this situation rather than Act’48, Section 28(2), or Act, 94, Section 1(2) of 1969. ' , ’

The record reflects no objection tó the judgment of the court fixing the minimrim , parole time at ohe:~ third of the sentence. The motion for new trial simply alleges that the court’s order revoking the' suspension of sentence previously imposed by the court arid the. finding that appellant had not been of good cóndüct and behavior are contrary to both the law and the evidence introduced pertaining to this issue and case. No mention whatever is made of the fixing of a minimum parole time.

We held in *Petty*v. *State,*245 Ark. 808, 434 S. W. 2d 602, that we could not consider alleged error in fixing the minimum time to be served in the Department of Corrections when no objection was made to the entry of the judgment or the penitentiary commitment thereon or when the point was not presented to the trial court in a motion for new trial. Upon that authority, the judgment is affirmed, ,,
Exhibit 31.1

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

CERTIFICATION UNDER

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Vincent J. Milano, President and Chief Executive Officer of the registrant, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of ViroPharma Incorporated; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ VINCENT J. MILANO                
|Vincent J. Milano                    
|President and Chief Executive Officer

August 2, 2012