alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1.1402(a)-8 Community income. ( a ) *In case of an individual.* If any of the income derived by an individual from a trade or business (other than a trade or business carried on by a partnership) is community income under community property laws applicable to such income, all of the gross income, and the deductions attributable to such income, shall be treated as the gross income and deductions of the husband unless the wife exercises substantially all of the management and control of such trade or business, in which case all of such gross income and deductions shall be treated as the gross income and deductions of the wife. For the purpose of this special rule, the term “management and control” means management and control in fact, not the management and control imputed to the husband under the community property laws. For example, a wife who operates a beauty parlor without any appreciable collaboration on the part of her husband will be considered as having substantially all of the management and control of such business despite the provision of any community property law vesting in the husband the right of management and control of community property; and the income and deductions attributable to the operation of such beauty parlor will be considered the income and deductions of the wife.
( b ) *In case of a partnership.* Even though a portion of a partner's distributive share of the income or loss, described in section 702(a)(9), from a trade or business carried on by a partnership is community income or loss under the community property laws applicable to such share, all of such distributive share shall be included in computing the net earnings from self-employment of such partner; no part of such share shall be taken into account in computing the net earnings from self-employment of the spouse of such partner. In any case in which both spouses are members of the same partnership, the distributive share of the income or loss of each spouse is included in computing the net earnings from self-employment of that spouse.
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted June 1, 2012 ∗

Decided June 4, 2012



### Before

F RANK H. E ASTERBROOK , Chief Judge

R ICHARD A. P OSNER , Circuit Judge

D IANE P. W OOD , Circuit Judge



### No

. 12

- 1292

U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

,

v.

M AURICE F OSTER , also known as M ARCUS , Defendant

- Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

, Eastern Division.

No. 95 CR 242

- 12 Rober t W. Gettleman

, Judge

.

Order

Maurice Foster requested, and received, a reduction in his sentence under recent changes to the Sentencing Guidelines for crack

- cocaine offenses, changes made retroactive by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2 ).

The reduction, to 292 months’ imprisonment, is the maximum allowed by the Commission’s amendments. Foster contends that he should have received an even

∗ This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6( b). After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f). NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

T

o

b

e

c i
t

e d

o

n l y

i

n

a
c
c
o

r d

a

n
c
e

w i
t h

F

e d

.

R

.
A p p

.

P

.
3 2

. 1 N

o tNo. 12

- 1292 Page 2

lower sentence. He maintains that the district court should have reduced his criminal

history level . But retroactive changes to the Guidelines do not authorize full resentencing; they allow lower sentences only to the extent that the Sentencing Commission has specifically authorized them by amending specific Guidelines. See Dillion v. United States , 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2690 (2010). This means that a district judge cannot consider any issues other than those specified by the Commission. See United States v. Davis , No. 11

- 1313 (7th Cir. May 31, 2012), slip op. 22

– 25. The Sentencing Commission has not made any retroactive change to the rules for determining criminal history, so the district court rightly declined to reduce Foster’s sentence on this account.

A FFIRMED
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 Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [Order No. 1634]

Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

*Whereas*, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 49, submitted an application to the Board for authority to expand its zone to include a site at the Heller Industrial Park (Site 11) in Edison, New Jersey, within the Newark/New York Customs and Border Protection port of entry (FTZ Docket 5-2009, filed 2/6/09);                

*Whereas*, notice inviting public comment was given in the                     **Federal Register**                     (74 FR 7392-7393, 2/17/09) and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,                

*Whereas*, the Board adopts the findings and recommendation of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the public interest;                

*Now, therefore*, the Board hereby orders:                

                    The application to expand FTZ 49 is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28, and to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for                           ( print page 37689)                        the overall general-purpose zone project, and further subject to a sunset provision that would terminate authority on July 31, 2014, for Site 11 if no activity has occurred under FTZ procedures before that date.                

Signed at Washington, DC, this 16th day of July 2009.

Ronald K. Lorentzen,

Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

Attest:

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-18078 Filed 7-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
# C_2016136EN.01003201.xml

| 18.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 136/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 136/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2016 — Ugly v OHIM — Group Lottuss (COYOTE UGLY)

(Case T-778/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark COYOTE UGLY - Relative grounds for refusal - Revocation of the earlier Community word mark - Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No non-registered mark - Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 - No well-known mark within the meaning of Article 6 bis of the Paris Convention - Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Rejection of the opposition))

(2016/C 136/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ugly, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: T. St Quintin, Barrister, K. Gilbert and C. Mackey, Solicitors)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Group Lottuss Corp., SL (Barcelona, Spain)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 September 2014 (Case R 1369/2013-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Ugly Inc. and Group Lottuss Corp.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ugly, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ugly, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 9, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 10841]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4982]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act; Meeting Notice

Agency Holding the Meetings:  Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC-2010-
0002].

Date:  Week of March 8, 2010

Place:  Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland

Status:  Public and Closed

Additional Items To Be Considered: 

Week of March 8, 2010

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

2 p.m. Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) (Tentative)
    a. Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power 
Plant, Units 2 and 3), Notice of Appeal, Request for Oral Argument and 
Brief Supporting Notice of Appeal by NC WARN (July 22, 2009) 
(Tentative)
    b. U.S. Department of Energy (High Level Waste Repository) Appeal 
of William D. Peterson (Tentative)
* * * * *
    The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet 
at: http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/policy-making/schedule.html.
* * * * *
    The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with 
disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation 
to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or 
the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another 
format (e.g. braille, large print), please notify Angela Bolduc, Chief, 
Employee/Labor Relations and Work Life Branch, at 301-492-2230, TDD: 
301-415-2100, or by e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#44252a232128256a262b28203127042a36276a232b32"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2b4a454c4e474a054944474f5e486b455948054c445d">[email protected]</span></a>. Determinations on 
requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case 
basis.
* * * * *
    This notice is distributed electronically to subscribers. If you no 
longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the 
distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, 
DC 20555 (301-415-1969), or send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#086c697a646d666d267f7a616f607c48667a6b266f677e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c6a2a7b4aaa3a8a3e8b1b4afa1aeb286a8b4a5e8a1a9b0">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: March 3, 2010.
Rochelle C. Bavol,
Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-4982 Filed 3-5-10; 1:30 pm]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EPA Reg. No. 19713-575
Dear Ms. Long, 

On August 29, 2016, Jacksonville University received Air Agency Certificate No. 6JUS376C empowering 

us to operate an approved Pilot School for Ground Courses. (Attached).

Thus, it is with great pleasure that I request that our Petition for Exemption No. FAA-2014-0064 be 

withdrawn as the requested relief is no longer required. 

On behalf of the Faculty and Students of the Jacksonville University School of Aviation, please accept our 

sincere appreciation for the many hours spent in staffing and reviewing our petition. 

Sincerely,

CAPT Matt Tuohy

Director

Jacksonville University School of Aviation

Davis College of Business

2800 University Blvd N.

Jacksonville, FL 32211

Email mtuohy@ju.edu

Office: (904)256-7894

Fax: (904)256-7649

Mobile: (904) 707-6549

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/matt-tuohy/5/843/99b
Docket No. FAA
- 2016
- 3989 Dir ID 2014
- NM
- 220
- AD
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 23, 2020

p0916 

# Order

Clerk September 23, 2020

161240

BETTY WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 161240

COA: 348910

Saginaw CC: 18

- 036643

- NO

CITY OF SAGINAW,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 20, 2020

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it i s DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### § 1.1461-3 Withholding under section 1446.

For rules relating to the withholding tax liability of a partnership, nominee, or transferee under section 1446, see §§ 1.1446-1 through 1.1446-7 and 1.1446(f)-1 through 1.1446(f)-5. For interest, penalties, and additions to the tax for failure to timely pay the tax required to be paid under section 1446, see sections 6601, 6651, 6655 (in the case of publicly traded partnerships, see section 6656), 6672, and 7202 and the regulations under those sections. For additional penalties and additions to the tax for failure to comply with the regulations under section 1446, see sections 6651, 6662, 6663, 6721, 6722, 6723, 6724(c), 7201, 7203, and the regulations under those sections. The references in this section to §§ 1.1446-1 through 1.1446-7 apply to partnership taxable years beginning after May 18, 2005, or such earlier time as the regulations under §§ 1.1446-1 through 1.1446-5 apply by reason of an election under § 1.1446-7, and the references in this section to §§ 1.1446(f)-1 through 1.1446(f)-5 shall apply with respect to returns for transfers that occur on or after January 29, 2021.

[T.D. 9200, 70 FR 28741, May 18, 2005, as amended by T.D. 9926, 85 FR 76946, Nov. 30, 2020]
Editorial Note on Part 890
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 890 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 890.5100 Immersion hydrobath. ( a ) *Identification.* An immersion hydrobath is a device intended for medical purposes that consists of water agitators and that may include a tub to be filled with water. The water temperature may be measured by a gauge. It is used in hydrotherapy to relieve pain and itching and as an aid in the healing process of inflamed and traumatized tissue, and it serves as a setting for removal of contaminated tissue.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The device, when it is a hydromassage bath or a powered sitz bath, is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 890.9.
[48 FR 53047, Nov. 23, 1983, as amended at 84 FR 71818, Dec. 30, 2019]
EXHIBIT 32.b



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 American Affordable Housing II Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc N. Teal, Principal Financial Officer of the general partner of the general partner of the Partnership's general partner, C&M Management Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)-15 or 15(d)-15 of the Securities and 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 Partnership.



|                  |     |                            
|----------------- | --- | ---------------------------
|Date:             |     |                            
|February 14, 2011 | By: | /s/ Marc N. Teal           
|                  |     |                            
|                  |     | Marc N. Teal               
|                  |     | Principal Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other

document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Editorial Note on Part 890
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 890 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 890.3665 Congenital hip dislocation abduction splint. ( a ) *Identification.* A congenital hip dislocation abduction splint is a device intended for medical purposes to stabilize the hips of a young child with dislocated hips in an abducted position (away from the midline).
( 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 § 890.9. 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, regarding general requirements concerning records and § 820.198, regarding complaint files.
[48 FR 53047, Nov. 23, 1983, as amended at 66 FR 38817, July 25, 2001]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ISEAN ORON MCNEIL,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 457 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 17th day of January, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
**Exhibit32**

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Solely in connection withthe filing of the Annual Report of Retractable Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the UnitedStates Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),the undersigned Thomas J. Shaw, Chief Executive Officer, and Douglas W. Cowan,Chief Financial Officer, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

(2) The information contained in the Report as of thedates and for the periods covered by the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.
| Date:      April 2, 2007 |   |                     |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------|
|                                              |   | /s/ Thomas J. Shaw       |
|                                              |   | THOMAS J. SHAW           |
|                                              |   | PRESIDENT, CHAIRMAN, AND |
|                                              |   | CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER  |
|                                              |   |                     |

 
|        |   |                    |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   | /s/ Douglas W. Cowan    |
|   |   | DOUGLAS W. COWAN        |
|   |   | VICE PRESIDENT AND      |
|   |   | CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER |
|   |   |                    |

 

----
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-20-00373-CV

Sarah Friend NEUTZE,

Appellant

v.

TEXAS FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY and James ‘Doug’ Wasson, II,

Appellee

From the 38th Judicial District Court, Uvalde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016-02-30997-CV

Honorable Camile Glasscock Dubose, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ, JUSTICE CHAPA, AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

SIGNED July 21, 2021.

_____________________________

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
Editorial Note on Part 872
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 872 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 872.6640 Dental operative unit and accessories. ( a ) *Identification.* A dental operative unit and accessories is an AC-powered device that is intended to supply power to and serve as a base for other dental devices, such as a dental handpiece, a dental operating light, an air or water syringe unit, and oral cavity evacuator, a suction operative unit, and other dental devices and accessories. The device may be attached to a dental chair.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). Except for dental operative unit, accessories are exempt from premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to § 872.9.
[55 FR 48439, Nov. 20, 1990, as amended at 59 FR 63009, Dec. 7, 1994; 65 FR 2315, Jan. 14, 2000]
# C_2014253EN.01006301.xml

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/63

---

Action brought on 20 June 2014 — Arocasa v Commission

(Case T-461/14)

2014/C 253/85

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Arocasa, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. García Muñoz, J. Jiménez-Blanco Carrillo de Albornoz and J. Corral García, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision; and

| — | order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the 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-392/14 Gutser v Commission.

Gutser

Commission

---
Exhibit
32.01








CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


REQUIRED
BY RULE 13a-14(b) or RULE 15d-14(b)


AND
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


OF
2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350








In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Williams Controls, Inc (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,
2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Patrick W. Cavanagh, Chief Executive 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/ PATRICK W.
CAVANAGH


Patrick
W. Cavanagh


Chief
Executive Officer


Williams
Controls, Inc.


May 9,
2008