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

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - [Docket Nos. FDA-2005-C-0245, FDA-2005-C-0416, and FDA-2005-C-0504] (formerly Docket Nos. 2005C-0302, 2005C-0303, and 2005C-0304)

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the withdrawal, without prejudice to a future filing, of three color additive petitions (CAP 5C0278, CAP 5C0279, and CAP 5C0280) proposing that the color additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of Color Index (C.I.) Pigment Violet 19, C.I. Pigment Yellow 154, and C.I. Pigment Red 122 as color additives in contact lenses.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Celeste Johnston, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-265), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740-3835, 301-436-1282.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In a notice published in the                     **Federal Register**                     of August 17, 2005 (70 FR 48426), FDA announced that three color additive petitions had been filed by CIBA Vision Corp., 11460 Johns Creek Pkwy., Duluth, GA 30097-1556. The petitions proposed to amend the color additive regulations in Part 73                     *Listing of Color Additives Exempt from Certification*                     (21 CFR part 73) to provide for the safe use of C.I. Pigment Violet 19 (CAP 5C0278, Docket No. FDA-2005-C-0245), C.I. Pigment Yellow 154 (CAP 5C0279, Docket No. FDA-2005-C-0416), and C.I. Pigment Red 122 (CAP 5C0280, Docket No. FDA-2005-C-0504) as color additives in contact lenses. CIBA Vision Corp. has now withdrawn the petitions without prejudice to a future filing (21 CFR 71.6(c)(2)).                

      ( print page 10809)    
Dated: February 18, 2010.

Mitchell A. Cheeseman,

Acting Director, Office of Food Additive Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.

[FR Doc. 2010-4972 Filed 3-8-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
1517 W EST F RONT S TREET  S UITE 354  TYLER , TX 75702  T EL : 903-593-8471  FAX : 903-593-2193 Serving Anderson, Angelina, Cherokee, Gregg, Henderson, Houston, Nacogdoches, Rains, Rusk, Sabine, San Augustine, Shelby, Smith, Trinity, Upshur, Van Zandt and Wood Counties www.12thcoa.courts.state.tx.us C HIEF J USTICE J AMES T. W ORTHEN J USTICES B RIAN H OYLE G REG N EELEY 

# TWELFTH 

# C OURT OF 

# A PPEALS C LERK C ATHY S. L USK C HIEF S TAFF A TTORNEY M ARGARET H USSEY 

## February 26, 2015 Ms. Lois Rogers District Clerk, Smith County Courthouse, Suite 204 100 North Broadway Avenue Tyler, TX 75702-7201 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * RE: Case Number: 12-13-00041-CR, 12-13-00042-CR Trial Court Case Number: 007-1663-11, 007-1664-11 Style: DavinaWilson Moore v. The State of Texas Pursuant to Rule 18.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, enclosed herewith is the Mandate issued in the above causes. When the District or County Clerk has executed the Mandate in accordance with the opinion of this Court, the Clerk is requested to fill in the information below and to return the attached copy to this office. Very truly yours, CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK By:_____________________________ Katrina McClenny, Chief Deputy Clerk CC: Mr. Michael J. West (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL) Morris Overstreet (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL) Mr. Austin R. Jackson (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL) Mandate executed on __ 27th _ day of ____February

__________, 2015. Brief explanation of action taken: ______ scanned ________________________________

__________________Linda Rhymes __________________________District/County Clerk
60°05"

TAs

ras

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

150°40'

RoW. R7W

PROFESSIONAL PAPER 543-F
PLATE 3

aW

Area of
enlargement B—|

Devils

Ts.

eo

CL Fe
PAE :

Y, SCALE 1:63 360°=<
Ye ° Hi

Lotoitiiiit 1

7.28

EXPLANATION

Alluvium and beach deposits
Sand, gravel, and silt

Glacial outwash deposits
Sand and gravel

Terrace deposits
Organic silt 3-12 inches thick over
sand and gravel

Morainal deposits

¥—-¥
tot +
+ + 4

Bedrock

Contact

Cracks produced by earthquake
Barb shows direction of displace-
ment along some cracks on terrace

SYYRNNNeVNNTTeviv ey

Margin of higher ground
(Shown only on B)

APPROXIMATE SCALE
o) Ye

2 MILES”
J L 1 1 n n 1

(a CONTOUR INTERVAL 100 FEET

DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL

Ara
~-) DOTTED LINES REPRESENT 50-FOOT CONTOURS ©

INTERIOR—GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, WASHINGTON, D.c.—1967—G67277

1 MILE
J

<

Base from U.S. Geological Survey
topographic quadrangle, 1951

=
APPROXIMATE MEAN.
DECLINATION, 1967

R8 Ww. R7W

MAPS OF DISRUPTION ON OUTWASH DELTA OF

TUSTUMENA LAKE, ALASKA

Area where snow was removed
by sloshing of lake water
after earthquake

Area covered with sand and
gravel resulting from
ground-water eruptions
along fissures during the
earthquake

(Shown only on B)

A

Letter indicates location of
photograph

Enlargement (B) shows out-
wash delta front as sketched
from aerial photographs
taken a few days after the
earthquake. (See fig. 16)

Location of Tustumena delta
can be seen on plate 1
EXHIBIT 10(a)

WEINICK
 SANDERS                                                           1375 BROADWAY
   LEVENTHAL & CO., LLP                                NEW YORK, N.Y. 10018-7010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS                 212-869-3333
                                                                FAX 212-764-3060
                                                                   WWW.WSLCO.COM




                 CONSENT OF WEINICK SANDERS LEVENTHAL & CO., LLP
                   (INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS)





We  consent to the use in  Post-Effective  Amendment  No. 1 to the  Registration
Statement  of  SearchHelp,  Inc.  on Form SB-2,  SEC File  333-97687,  under the
Securities Act of 1933 of our report dated March 15, 2002 (except for Note 14 as
to which the date is  November 9, 2002) and to the  reference  to our firm under
the heading "Experts" in the Prospectus.





                                       /s/ WEINICK SANDERS LEVENTHAL & CO., LLP




New York, New York
April 14, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7974 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7974

 To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require labeling 
      of food products containing insects, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 12, 2024

   Mrs. Miller of Illinois introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require labeling 
      of food products containing insects, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. MISBRANDED FOOD WITH RESPECT TO INSECT INGREDIENTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 403 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 343) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
    ``(z) If the food contains one or more insects, insect parts, or 
products derived from insects as an ingredient and the front label of 
such food does not clearly state in a prominent manner that such food 
contains such ingredients.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to food introduced or delivered for introduction 
into interstate commerce on or after the date that is 180 days after 
the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2015007EN.01003701.xml

| 12.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/37

---

Action brought on 10 October 2014 — Rotenberg v Council

(Case T-720/14)

(2015/C 007/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Arkady Romanovich Rotenberg (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: D. Pannick, QC, M. Lester, Barrister, S. Hey and H. Brunskill, Solicitors)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision 2014/508/CFSP and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 826/2014, in so far as those measures apply to him; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision 2014/508/CFSP and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 826/2014, in so far as those measures apply to him;

| — | order that the Council pays his costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the Council pays his costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including the applicant on the lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures in view of the situation in Ukraine. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including the applicant on the lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures in view of the situation in Ukraine.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has manifestly erred in considering that any of the criteria for listing in the contested measures were fulfilled in the applicant’s case. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has manifestly erred in considering that any of the criteria for listing in the contested measures were fulfilled in the applicant’s case.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has breached data protection principles. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has breached data protection principles.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to safeguard the applicant’s rights of defence and right to effective judicial review. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to safeguard the applicant’s rights of defence and right to effective judicial review.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council has infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including the right to protection of property, business and reputation. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council has infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including the right to protection of property, business and reputation.

---
f)nckct No. F/\1\- Directorate l<kntificr: -t\1) 

manufacturct

With whom outside the FAA lws this AD :1ction been discussed (i.e., Dl·sign Approvalllnlder, 

·, ATA, NBAA. nAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? 

OIW:\ NJZATION PERSON CONT/\CTEI > DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED 

Bccchcraft Corp. various up to 8/7/20 13 Other. List b..:low. 

G[ Aviation \·arious up to 8/7/20 I 3 Other. List below. 

Systems 

Other/Add itional In formation: Beech briefed the Wichita /\CO on various occasions regarding the 

,·arious issues of this worksheet. GE (manufacturer of the actuator) responded to questions from 

the /\CO regarding drawings. pricing information. and overhaul information.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.3

                            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 of Biopure Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Francis H. Murphy,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (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 result of operations of the
Company.



/s/ Francis H. Murphy
------------------------------
Francis H. Murphy
Chief Financial Officer
September 13, 2002





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter
63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report
or as a separate disclosure document.
Editorial Note on Part 882
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 882 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 882.5960 Skull tongs for traction. ( a ) *Identification.* Skull tongs for traction is an instrument used to immobilize a patient with a cervical spine injury (e.g., fracture or dislocation). The device is caliper shaped with tips that penetrate the skin. It is anchored to the skull and has a heavy weight attached to it that maintains, by traction, the patient's position.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGES OF

THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF 

THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

:

:

:

:

:

No. 337 Common Pleas Judicial 

Classification Docket 

 O R D E R

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 15th day of August, 2016, upon consideration of the 

Petitions of the Honorable Sheila Woods-Skipper, President Judge of the Court of 

Common Pleas of the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, for the assignment of 

Judges to divisions of the court, it is hereby ORDERED that the Petitions are granted 

and the following assignments are approved:

Family Division

The Honorable Daniel R. Sulman

The Honorable Vincent W. Furlong

Trial Division

The Honorable Vincent N. Melchiorre

The Honorable Roger F. Gordon
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.27

                                1ST AMENDMENT TO
                         EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT is made as of the 18th day of August, 1998, between THEODORE
MANAKAS, a Washington resident ("Executive"), and MOSAIX, INC., a Washington
corporation ("Company").

The parties agree as follows:

1.       AMENDMENT OF PRIOR AGREEMENT.

This Agreement amends that certain "Executive Employment Agreement" dated as of
April 28, 1998 between Executive and the Company. Except as expressly provided
herein, the terms and conditions of that agreement remain in effect between the
parties, and defined terms therein shall have the same meaning when used in this
Agreement.

2.       SEVERANCE PAYMENTS.

Section 7 of the Executive Employment Agreement is hereby amended so that, in
the event Executive terminates his employment for Good Reason, or if the Company
terminates employment without cause following a Corporate Transaction, the
Company shall be obligated to pay to Executive his then regular base salary for
a period of eighteen months after the effective date of termination of
employment (as opposed to 6 months, as originally provided). This amendment will
not apply in the event of any termination unrelated to a Corporate Transaction.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed and entered into this Agreement as
of the date above first written.

EXECUTIVE:                         COMPANY:

                                   MOSAIX, INC.,
                                   a Washington Corporation


/s/ Theodore Manakas               By: /s/ Wm. Bradford Weller
-------------------------------        -----------------------------------------
THEODORE MANAKAS                       Wm. Bradford Weller
                                       Its General Counsel & Assistant Secretary
§ 1.175-7 Allocation of expenditures in certain circumstances. ( a ) *General rule.* If at the time the taxpayer paid or incurred expenditures for the purpose of soil or water conservation, or for the prevention of erosion of land, it was reasonable to believe that such expenditures would directly and substantially benefit land of the taxpayer which does not qualify as “land used in farming,” as defined in § 1.175-4, as well as land of the taxpayer which does so qualify, then, for purposes of section 175, only a part of the taxpayer's total expenditures is in respect of “land used in farming.”
( b ) *Method of allocation.* The part of expenditures allocable to “land used in farming” generally equals the amount which bears the same proportion to the total amount of such expenditures as the area of land of the taxpayer used in farming which it was reasonable to believe would be directly and substantially benefited as a result of the expenditures bears to the total area of land of the taxpayer which it was reasonable to believe would be so benefited. If it is established by clear and convincing evidence that, in the light of all the facts and circumstances, another method of allocation is more reasonable than the method provided in the preceding sentence, the taxpayer may allocate the expenditures under that other method. For purposes of this section, the term *land of the taxpayer* means land with respect to which the taxpayer has title, leasehold, or some other substantial interest.
( c ) *Examples.* The provisions of this section may be illustrated by the following examples:
Example 1. A owns a 200-acre tract of land, 80 acres of which qualify as “land used in farming.” A makes expenditures for the purpose of soil and water conservation which can reasonably be expected to directly and substantially benefit the entire 200-acre tract. In the absence of clear and convincing evidence that a different allocation is more reasonable, A may deduct 40 percent (80/200) of such expenditures under section 175. The same result would obtain if A had made the expenditures after newly acquiring the tract from a person who had used 80 of the 200 acres in farming immediately prior to A's acquisition.
Example 2. Assume the same facts as in *Example 1,* except that A's expenditures for the purpose of soil and water conservation can reasonably be expected to directly and substantially benefit only the 80 acres which qualify as land used in farming; any benefit to the other 120 acres would be minor and incidental. A may deduct all of such expenditures under section 175.
Example 3. Assume the same facts as in *Example 1,* except that A's expenditures for the purpose of soil and water conservation can reasonably be expected to directly and substantially benefit only the 120 acres which do not qualify as land used in farming. A may not deduct any of such expenditures under section 175. The same result would obtain even if A had leased the 200-acre tract to B in the expectation that B would farm the entire tract.
[T.D. 7740, 45 FR 78635, Nov. 26, 1980]
IB 

Union Calendar No. 446 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7984 

[Report No. 118–537] 

To require the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to improve 

access to disaster assistance for individuals located in rural areas, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 15, 2024 

Mr. PAPPAS (for himself, Mr. BEAN of Florida, Mr. GOLDEN of Maine, and 

Mr. MANN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Small Business 

JUNE 4, 2024 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7984 RH

A BILL 

To require the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to improve access to disaster assistance for individuals located in rural areas, and for other purposes. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7984 RH

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 ‘‘Rural Small Business 

5 Resilience Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ACCESS TO DISASTER ASSISTANCE FOR INDIVID7 UALS LOCATED IN RURAL AREAS. 

8 Not later than one year after the date of the enact9 ment of this Act, the Administrator of the Small Business 

10 Administration shall ensure that the Associate Adminis11 trator of the Office of Disaster Recovery and Resilience 

12 of the Administration takes such actions as necessary to 

13 ensure that individuals located in rural areas (as defined 

14 in paragraph (16) of section 7(b) of the Small Business 

15 Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)(16))) for which a disaster declara16 tion has been made under such section 7(b) have full ac17 cess to assistance provided under such section, including 

18 by providing targeted outreach and marketing materials 

19 to such individuals. 

20 SEC. 3. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT. 

21 The second paragraph (16) (relating to statute of 

22 limitations) of section 7(b) of the Small Business Act (15 

23 U.S.C. 636(b)) is redesignated as paragraph (17). 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 446 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7984 

[Report No. 118–537] 

A BILL 

To require the Administrator of the Small Business 

and for other purposes. sistance for individuals located in rural areas, Administration to improve access to disaster asJUNE 4, 2024 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS