alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 876.5280 Implanted mechanical/hydraulic urinary continence device. ( a ) *Identification.* An implanted mechanical/hydraulic urinary continence device is a device used to treat urinary incontinence by the application of continuous or intermittent pressure to occlude the urethra. The totally implanted device may consist of a static pressure pad, or a system with a container of radiopaque fluid in the abdomen and a manual pump and valve under the skin surface that is connected by tubing to an adjustable pressure pad or to a cuff around the urethra. The fluid is pumped as needed from the container to inflate the pad or cuff to pass on the urethra.
( b ) *Classification.* Class III (premarket approval).
( c ) *Date PMA or notice of completion of a PDP is required.* A PMA or a notice of completion of a PDP is required to be filed with the Food and Drug Administration on or before December 26, 2000, for any implanted mechanical/hydraulic urinary continence device that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, or that has, on or before December 26, 2000, been found to be substantially equivalent to an implanted mechanical/hydraulic urinary continence device that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976. Any other implanted mechanical/hydraulic urinary continence device shall have an approved PMA or a declared completed PDP in effect before being placed in commercial distribution.
[48 FR 53023, Nov. 23, 1983, as amended at 52 FR 17738, May 11, 1987; 65 FR 57731, Sept. 26, 2000]
39126.

#### CLINKSCALES v. STATE OF GEORGIA.

Nichols, Judge.

1. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of *Gordon v. Clinkscales,*215 Ga. 843, 849 (114 SE2d 15), established as the law of the case that grounds of disbarment were stated where it was “alleged that the respondent proposed to a named person to furnish him protection in the operation of a business upon the payment of $10,000 in cash and $500 per month.”

2. The testimony in support of the charge referred to in the first division of the opinion, if not subject to being considered impeached by the jury, demanded a verdict that the respondent was guilty as charged.

3. “It is not improper for the trial court to direct a verdict in favor of disbarment where such a verdict is demanded by the evidence. Wernimont v. State, 101 Ark. 210 (142 SW 194, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 1156).” *Wood v. State,*45 Ga. App. 783, 790 (165 SE 908). *James v. State,*73 Ga. App. 834 (6) (38 SE2d 125).

4. “Proof that a witness has been convicted of the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor affords no ground for impeachment of the witness.” *Wheeler v. State,*4 Ga. App. 325 (2) (61 SE 409). Therefore, evidence that might arouse a suspicion that the witness was so engaged would not tend to impeach his testimony.

5. Assuming but not deciding that a plea of guilty in a tax evasion case would authorize a jury to impeach a witness, *724evidence that a plea of nolo contendere had been entered by such witness in such a case would not authorize his impeachment. See *Wright v. State,*75 Ga. App. 764 (44 SE2d 569), as to the import of a plea of nolo contendere.

Decided October 11, 1961

Rehearing denied October 31, 1961.

*Robert J. Reed,*for plaintiff in error.

*John Ackbar Darsey, Davis & Davidson, Jack S. Davidson, H. W. Davis,*contra.

6. The evidence given in support of the charge referred to in division 1 of this opinion was not, as contended by the respondent, so improbable as to be unworthy of belief.

7. The evidence demanded the verdict against the respondent on the grounds referred to in the first division of the opinion and the direction of the verdict on such grounds was not error.

8. Inasmuch as the disbarment of the respondent was demanded on the one ground referred to, the other assignments of error made in the writ of error are nugatory and will not be considered.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Carlisle, P.J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.*
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

      ( print page 10795)    

# Time And Date: 

2 p.m., Wednesday, March 24, 2010.

# Place: 

The United States Department of Labor Auditorium, Frances Perkins Building, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

# Status: 

Open.

# Matters To Be Considered: 

                        The Commission will hear oral argument in the matter                         *Secretary of Labor*                         v.                         *Eastern Associated Coal Corporation,*                         Docket No. WEVA 2007-335. (Issues include whether certain violations of roof control requirements constituted an “unwarrantable failure to comply.”)                    

Any person attending this oral argument who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).

# Contact Person for More Information: 

Jean Ellen (202) 434-9950/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

Jean H. Ellen,

Chief Docket Clerk.

[FR Doc. 2010-5090 Filed 3-5-10; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6735-01-P
# C_2016090EN.01001501.xml

| 7.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/15

---

Order of the General Court of 21 January 2016 — BR IP Holder v OHIM — Greyleg Investments (HOKEY POKEY)

(Case T-62/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark HOKEY POKEY - Unregistered earlier national word mark - Proof of use - Right to prohibit use of the mark sought - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Right of a Member State - Obligation to state reasons - Raised by the Court of its own motion))

(2016/C 090/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: BR IP Holder LLC (Canton, Massachusetts, United States) (represented by: F. Traub, lawyer and C. Rohsler, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: I. Harrington, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Greyleg Investments Ltd (Baltonsborough, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 November 2013 (Case R 1091/2012-4) relating to opposition proceedings between BR IP Holder LLC and Greyleg Investments Ltd.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 November 2013 (Case R 1091/2012-4). |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 November 2013 (Case R 1091/2012-4).

| 2. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by BR IP Holder LLC. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by BR IP Holder LLC.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.

1

---
#### Joseph L. DeMaria *v.*Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Enfield et al. Peter Russell et al. *v.*Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Enfield et al.

*Charles W. Page,*on the motion.

Submitted January 23

decided February 4, 1969

The motion by the defendant Connecticut Diversified Investors Corporation for permission to file a motion to have this court (a) order the trial court to complete the record in the appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford County or (b) find the case can be decided on the existing record is denied.
Editorial Note on Part 888
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 888 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 888.3750 Wrist joint carpal lunate polymer prosthesis. ( a ) *Identification.* A wrist joint carpal lunate prosthesis is a one-piece device made of silicone elastomer intended to be implanted to replace the carpal lunate bone of the wrist.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
§ 1.1033(d)-1 Destruction or disposition of livestock because of disease. ( a ) The destruction occurring in a taxable year to which the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 applies, of livestock by, or on account of, disease, or the sale or exchange, in such a year, of livestock because of disease, shall be treated as an involuntary conversion to which the provisions of section 1033 and the regulations thereunder shall be applicable. Livestock which are killed either because they are diseased or because of exposure to disease shall be considered destroyed on account of disease. Livestock which are sold or exchanged because they are diseased or have been exposed to disease, and would not otherwise have been sold or exchanged at that particular time shall be considered sold or exchanged because of disease.
( b ) The provisions of § 1.1033(a)-2 shall be applicable in the case of a disposition treated as an involuntary conversion 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 a recital of the evidence that the livestock were destroyed by or on account of disease, or sold or exchanged because of disease.
( c ) The term *involuntary conversion,* where it appears in subtitle A of the Code or the regulations thereunder, includes disposition of livestock 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 by T.D. 7625, 44 FR 31013, May 30, 1979]
USD United States Forest Malheur National Forest P.O. Box 909
= Department of Service 431 Patterson Bridge Road
MED Acriculture John Day, OR 97845

541-575-3000
Fax: 541-575-3001

File Code: 1950
Date: May 1, 2017

Dear Planning Participant:

Thank you for your interest and involvement in the Magone Project; the record of decision for
the project was signed on May 1, 2017. The Magone Project final environmental impact
statement (EIS) and draft record of decision (ROD) were available for review and objection for
45 days following publication of a legal notice in the Blue Mountain Eagle on December 28,
2016. Six eligible objections were received that had standing; objectors raised issues with
treatments in the inventoried roadless area (IRA), literature cited, predicted affects, public
opinion, economics, and forest plan amendments.

The final record of decision authorizes approximately 14,144 acres of silviculture and activity
fuels treatments, 28,500 acres of prescribed burning, 11.7 miles of temporary road construction,
use of 98.2 miles of existing Forest Service system road for log haul (including road
maintenance), 0.3 miles of road decommissioning, 1.1 miles of road closures (changing from
maintenance level 2 to 1), confirmation of 8.34 miles of past administratively closed roads, 26.3
miles of new trail (17.2 miles of new trail construction and 9.1 miles of trails co-designated on
existing roads), improvement of three existing trailheads and construction of one new trailhead,
interpretive sign placement at four sites, improvement of the existing day use boat dock and
replacement of existing campground boat mooring, and placement of fish cribs and fish sticks in
Magone Lake. This project also includes forest plan amendments to reduce cover below Malheur
Forest Plan standards in Big Game Winter Range (Management Area [MA] 4A), summer range,
and the Nipple Butte Wildlife Emphasis Area (MA21), and to change old growth boundaries and
designate new old growth areas to bring these areas up to Malheur Forest Plan standards.
Modifications to the final record of decision were made between the draft and final versions as a
result of objection resolution measures. The final record of decision is available on the Malheur
National Forest website at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=44907.

Hard copies of the final EIS and record of decision are available at this website and also at:

Malheur National Forest Supervisor’s Office / Blue Mountain Ranger District
431 Patterson Bridge Road
John Day, OR 97845

Additional information can be obtained by contacting Sasha Fertig (NEPA Planner), 541-575-

3061 or sashafertig@fs.fed.us.

& Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper &


Thank you for your involvement in developing this project and your interest in the management
of the Malheur National Forest.

Sincerely,

Cir oanbun

STEVEN K. BEVERLIN
Forest Supervisor
# C_2014380EN.01002402.xml

| 27.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 380/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 380/24

---

Appeal brought on 17 September 2014 by Robert Klar and Francisco Fernandez Fernandez against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 July 2014 in Case F-114/13, Klar and Fernandez Fernandez v Commission

(Case T-665/14 P)

2014/C 380/32

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Robert Klar (Grevenmacher, Luxembourg) and Francisco Fernandez Fernandez (Steinsel, Luxembourg) (represented by A. Salerno, lawyer)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 July 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 July 2014;

| — | refer the case to the Civil Service Tribunal for a determination on the merits; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the case to the Civil Service Tribunal for a determination on the merits;

| — | order the European Commission to bear all of the costs of the case. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to bear all of the costs of the case.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the appellants rely on a single plea in law alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal incorrectly held that the action was clearly inadmissible, for lack of a properly conducted pre-litigation procedure, in so far as the note of the Appointing Authority for October 2012 is not in view of its wording, or its context, or its form, an act adversely affecting an official, the notification of which set the time-limit running for lodging a complaint.

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

§ 886.1420 Ophthalmic lens gauge. ( a ) *Identification.* An ophthalmic lens gauge is a calibrated device intended to manually measure the curvature of a spectacle lens.
( 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 § 886.9.
[52 FR 33355, Sept. 2, 1987, as amended at 53 FR 35604, Sept. 14, 1988; 66 FR 38811, July 25, 2001]
Editorial Note on Part 872
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 872 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 872.6390 Dental floss. ( a ) *Identification.* Dental floss is a string-like device made of cotton or other fibers intended to remove plaque and food particles from between the teeth to reduce tooth decay. The fibers of the device may be coated with wax for easier use.
( 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 § 872.9.
[52 FR 30097, Aug. 12, 1987, as amended at 61 FR 1121, Jan. 16, 1996; 65 FR 2315, Jan. 14, 2000]
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Biopure Corporation (the Company) for
the fiscal quarter ended April 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Zafiris G. Zafirelis, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                    |  |     |  |                            
|------------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------
|Date: June 22, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ Zafiris G. Zafirelis   
|                    |  |     |  | Zafiris G. Zafirelis       
|                    |  |     |  | Principal Financial Officer
609 P.2d 607

#### Robert LANDRY and William Richards, Petitioners, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of the State of Arizona, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF PIMA; and the Honorable Jack G. Marks, Respondents, and The Department of Public Safety and Michael J. Morris, Real Parties in Interest.

No. 2 CA-CIV 3557.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2.

April 3, 1980.

*338Law Offices of Robert S. Wolkin by Robert S. Wolkin, Tucson, for petitioners.

Robert K. Corbin, Atty. Gen. by James L. Hohnbaum, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for respondents and real parties in interest.

OPINION

RICHMOND, Judge.

Petitioners have brought this special action to challenge the respondent court’s granting of a motion for a change of venue to Maricopa County. Since venue rulings are appropriately reviewable by special action, *Bishop v. Marks,*117 Ariz. 50, 570 P.2d 821 (App.1977), we assume jurisdiction and grant relief.

Petitioners had filed a complaint against the real parties in interest seeking injunctive relief and damages arising out of the serving of search warrants by officers of the Department of Public Safety, Pima County Sheriff’s office and the Tucson Police Department. After a hearing, injunctive relief was denied and Pima County and the City of Tucson were dismissed as defendants, leaving only the Department of Public Safety and Michael J. Morris. The real parties in interest filed a motion for change of venue, the granting of which is the subject of this special action.

The legislature may restrict an individual’s right to sue the state and the manner in which a suit may be maintained. Arizona Constitution, Article 4, part 2, § 18. It has adopted two statutes in this regard. A.R.S. § 12-824(B) provides:

> Upon written demand of the attorney general, made at or before the time of answering, served upon the opposing party and filed with the court where the action is pending, the place of trial of any such action shall be changed to Maricopa County.

That statute, however, is applicable solely to actions against the state for claims of negligence or on contract. A.R.S. § 12-821. Since the complaint seeks damages for the intentional interference with petitioners’ businesses, § 12-824 is inapplicable.

The other statutory basis argued by the real parties in interest is subsection 16 of A.R.S. § 12-401, which states:

> *339No person shall be sued out of the county in which such person resides, except:

> 16. Actions against public officers shall be brought in the county in which the officer, or one of several officers holds, office.

The latter statute does not apply either. Whether or not the Department of Public Safety is an entity subject to suit, *see Yamamoto v. Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors,*124 Ariz. 538, 606 P.2d 28 (App.1979), it is not a public officer. It is not contended that defendant Morris is a public officer.

Since venue properly lies in Pima County and the real parties in interest have no statutory basis for securing a transfer to Maricopa County, the order of the respondent court is vacated and the case is ordered returned to Pima County.

HATHAWAY, C. J., and HOWARD, J., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 878
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 878 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 878.4760 Removable skin staple. ( a ) *Identification.* A removable skin staple is a staple-like device intended to connect external tissues temporarily to aid healing. It is not absorbable.
( 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 § 878.9.
[53 FR 23872, June 24, 1988, as amended at 65 FR 2318, Jan. 14, 2000]
# C_2014372EN.01002101.xml

| 20.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/21

---

Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Cham and Bena Properties v Council

(Case T-597/14)

2014/C 372/26

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Cham Holding Co. SA and Bena Properties Co. SA (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet D’Elzius, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

| — | declare the applicants’ action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the applicants’ action admissible and well founded;

| — | consequently, order the European Union to pay compensation for the loss suffered by the applicants arising from the suspension of the ‘Yasmeen Rotana’ project, in the region of EUR 4 3 0 00  000. |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, order the European Union to pay compensation for the loss suffered by the applicants arising from the suspension of the ‘Yasmeen Rotana’ project, in the region of EUR 4 3 0 00  000.

| — | order the appointment of an expert to establish the total amount of the loss suffered by the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the appointment of an expert to establish the total amount of the loss suffered by the applicants;

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on 3 pleas in law that are in essence identical or similar to those relied on Case T-592/14, Makhlouf v Council.

Makhlouf v Council

---