alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1.273-1 Life or terminable interests. ( a ) *In general.* Amounts paid as income to the holder of a life or a terminable interest acquired by gift, bequest, or inheritance shall not be subject to any deduction for shrinkage (whether called by depreciation or any other name) in the value of such interest due to the lapse of time. In other words, the holder of such an interest so acquired may not set up the value of the expected future payments as corpus or principal and claim deduction for shrinkage or exhaustion thereof due to the passage of time. For the treatment generally of distributions to beneficiaries of an estate or trust, see Subparts A, B, C, and D (section 641 and following), Subchapter J, Chapter 1 of the Code, and the regulations thereunder. For basis of property acquired from a decedent and by gifts and transfers in trust, see sections 1014, 1015, and 1022, and the regulations thereunder.
( b ) *Effective/applicability date.* The provisions in this section are applicable for taxable years beginning on or after September 16, 1958. The provisions of this section relating to section 1022 are effective on and after January 19, 2017.
[T.D. 9811, 82 FR 6237, Jan. 19, 2017]
_______________________________________ __ Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 23, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh 128340 Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman,
Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 128340 COA: 256534 Kent CC: 01-002731-FC KENNETH JAY HOULIHAN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to app eal the February 10, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(l), we direct
the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the applica tion or take other peremptory action permitted by MCR 7.302(G)(l). The p arties are directed to file supplemental briefs by October 24, 20 05, addressing whether the holding in Halbert v Michigan, 545 US ___; 125 S Ct 2582; 162 L Ed 2d 552 (2005), retroactively applies to defendant’s motion for relief from judgmen t from his plea-based conviction where the trial court denied his request for the appointme nt of appellate counsel to assist him in pursuing a direct appeal. In addressing this issue, the part ies may benefit from considering Teague v Lane , 489 US 288, 356; 109 S Ct 1060; 103 L Ed 2d 334 (1989),
Beard v Banks , 542 US 406; 124 S Ct 2504; 159 L Ed 2d 494 (2004), and Howard v
United States , 374 F3d 1068 (CA 11, 2004).

We further order the Kent Circuit Court to appoint th e State Appellate Defender Office to represent the defen dant in this Court.

The Criminal Defense A ttorneys of Michigan and the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan are i nvited to file briefs amicus curiae by November 1, 2005.

s0919 I, CORBIN R. DAVIS, 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, 2005

Clerk
1 The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United St ates District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10-2631

___________ Matthew John Shortt, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. Dick Clark’s AB Theatre, LLC, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: February 22, 2011 Filed: March 1, 2011

___________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Matthew Shortt appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his wrongful termination and retaliation suit against his former employer. Having carefully reviewed the record de novo, seeWashburn v. Soper , 319 F.3d 338, 340-41 (8th Cir. 2003) (standard of review), we conclude that Shortt failed to create a trialworthy issue as to whether he was di scharged in retaliation for voicing complaints about wages and coworkers. We also concl ude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             391
<SECURITIES>                                       799
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,423
<ALLOWANCES>                                       167
<INVENTORY>                                      4,941
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,661
<PP&E>                                           5,494
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,116
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,654
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,764
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        611
<COMMON>                                            68
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,151
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    18,654
<SALES>                                         13,998
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,998
<CGS>                                            8,811
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,167
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   205
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 195
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     30
<INCOME-TAX>                                        10
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 20
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        20
<EPS-BASIC>                                       .001
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .001


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8021 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8021

To amend Public Law 86-272 to expand the prohibition of State taxation 
              relating to certain solicitation of orders.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 16, 2024

Mr. Fitzgerald (for himself, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Grothman, and Mr. Steil) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend Public Law 86-272 to expand the prohibition of State taxation 
              relating to certain solicitation of orders.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Interstate Commerce Simplification 
Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT.

    Section 101(d) of Public Law 86--272 (73 Stat. 555) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``and'' at the end,
            (2) in paragraph (2) by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and'', and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) the term `solicitation of orders' means any business 
        activity that facilitates the solicitation of orders even if 
        that activity may also serve some independently valuable 
        business function apart from solicitation.''.
                                 <all>
```
Editorial Note on Part 888
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 888 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 888.3565 Knee joint patellofemorotibial metal/polymer porous-coated uncemented prosthesis. ( a ) *Identification.* A knee joint patellofemorotibial metal/polymer porous-coated uncemented prosthesis is a device intended to be implanted to replace a knee joint. The device limits translation and rotation in one or more planes via the geometry of its articulating surfaces. It has no linkage across-the-joint. This generic type of device is designed to achieve biological fixation to bone without the use of bone cement. This identification includes fixed-bearing knee prostheses where the ultra high molecular weight polyethylene tibial bearing is rigidly secured to the metal tibial base plate.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special control is FDA's guidance: “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Knee Joint Patellofemorotibial and Femorotibial Metal/Polymer Porous-Coated Uncemented Prostheses; Guidance for Industry and FDA.” See § 888.1 for the availability of this guidance.
[68 FR 14137, Mar. 24, 2003]
#### Park Construction Company *v.*Violet F. Knapp, Executrix (Estate of C. Stanley Knapp)

Argued March 5

decided March 5, 1968

*Robert E. Connolley,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*Fred J. Whelan,*for the appellee (defendant).

It appearing that the plaintiff in the above-entitled case has failed to prosecute its appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County at Stamford with proper diligence, it is, under Practice Book § 696, ordered by the Supreme Court, suo motu, that the appeal be and hereby is dismissed unless the plaintiff files its brief on or before March 19, 1968.
§ 556.230 Erythromycin. ( a ) [Reserved]
( b ) *Tolerances.* The tolerances for erythromycin are: ( 1 ) *Cattle.* ( i ) Edible tissues (excluding milk): 0.1 ppm.
( ii ) Milk: Zero.
( 2 ) *Chickens and turkeys.* ( i ) Edible tissues (excluding eggs): 0.125 ppm.
( ii ) Eggs: 0.025 ppm.
( c ) *Related conditions of use.* See §§ 520.823, 522.820, 526.820, and 558.248 of this chapter.
[84 FR 32993, July 11, 2019, as amended at 85 FR 18121, Apr. 1, 2020]
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 28, 2009

1021 

# Order

October 28, 2009

138948

CHARLES DIXON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 138948 COA: 289233 Kent CC: 07-008338-NP BORCULO GARAGE, d/b/a GRASSMID TRANSPORT, Defendant-Appellee, and

HUDSONVILLE TRUC K AND TRAILER
SERVICE COMPANY , STOUGHTON TRAILERS, INC., and HENDRICKSON USA, L.L.C.,
Defendants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 15, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7423 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

103 Benedette Street in Rayville, Louisiana, as the ‘‘Luke Letlow Post 

Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 20, 2024 

Mr. SCALISE (for himself, Ms. LETLOW, Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana, Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana, Mr. CARTER of Louisiana, and Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 103 Benedette Street in Rayville, Louisiana, 

as the ‘‘Luke Letlow Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. LUKE LETLOW POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 103 Benedette Street in Rayville, 

6 Louisiana, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Luke 

7 Letlow Post Office Building’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 7423 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Luke Letlow Post 

5 Office Building’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
December 23, 2014



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JOSE VASQUEZ , Appellant

NO. 14

- 12

- 00096

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

_____ ___________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. The record reveals error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with its opinion.

W e order THE STATE OF TEXAS to pay all costs incurred in this appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**MAC R1204-0109062 Old Annapolis RoadColumbia, MD 21045Tel: 410 884 2000 Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-LC22 Per the Pooling and Administration Agreement dated as of September 1, 2015 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the "Reporting Period"): (a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and (b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.  February 25, 2016  /s/ Brian Smith BRIAN SMITHVice President  Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Editorial Note on Part 880
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 880 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 880.6880 Steam sterilizer. ( a ) *Identification.* A steam sterilizer (autoclave) is a device that is intended for use by a health care provider to sterilize medical products by means of pressurized steam.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1
 Certification Pursuant To
Rules 13a-14(a) And 15d-14(a) Under The Securities Exchange Act Of 1934, As Amended
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Biopure Corporation (the Registrant);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;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented
in this report;4.
    
    The Registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The Registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date: September 14, 2007
    /s/ Zafiris G. ZafirelisZafiris G. ZafirelisChairman of the Board,
President and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2016191EN.01002502.xml

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 April 2016 Frinsa del Noroeste v EUIPO — Frisa Frigorífico Rio Doce (FRISA)

(Case T-638/14) (1)

1

((European Union trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for the European Union figurative mark FRISA - Earlier European Union figurative mark Frinsa - Relative ground for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier trademark - Submission of new facts and evidence in support of an appeal brought before the General Court - Power to alter decisions - Article 42(2) and (3), Article 65 and final part of Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rule 22, paragraphs 2 to 4, of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))

(2016/C 191/32)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Frinsa del Noroeste, SA (Santa Eugenia de Ribeira, Spain) (represented by: J. Botella Reyna, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Frisa Frigorífico Rio Doce, SA (Espírito Santo, Brazil)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2014 (Joined Cases R 1547/2013-4 and R 1851/2013-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Frinsa del Noroeste, SA and Frisa Frigorífico Rio Doce, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 July 2014 (Joined Cases R 1547/2013-4 and R 1851/2013-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 July 2014 (Joined Cases R 1547/2013-4 and R 1851/2013-4);

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 380, 27.10.2014.

1

---
# C_2015311EN.01006201.xml

| 21.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/62

---

Order of the General Court of 29 June 2015 — Closet Clothing v OHIM — Closed Holding (CLOSET)

(Case T-815/14) (1)

1

(2015/C 311/71)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

VIRGINIA ANN KURSCHINSKE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 100 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of September, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsInstallation Torque Tables for Noncritical ApplicationsThe objective of this project is to define torque values for bolts and screws when loading is not a concern. Fasteners require a certain torque to fulfill its function and prevent failure. NASA Glenn Research Center did not have a set of fastener torque tables for non-critical applications without loads, usually referring to hand-tight or wrench-tight torqueing. The project is based on two formulas, torque and pullout load. Torque values are calculated giving way to preliminary data tables. Testing is done to various bolts and metal plates, torqueing them until the point of failure. Around 640 torque tables were developed for UNC, UNF, and M fasteners. Different lengths of thread engagement were analyzed for the 5 most common materials used at GRC. The tables were put together in an Excel spreadsheet and then formatted into a Word document. The plan is to later convert this to an official technical publication or memorandum.Document ID20170003491Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsRivera-Rosario, Hazel T.*(Puerto Rico Univ. Mayaguez, Puerto Rico)*Powell, Joseph S.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredApril 17, 2017Publication DateApril 1, 2017Subject CategoryStructural MechanicsReport/Patent NumberGRC-E-DAA-TN37585NASA/TM-2017-219475E-19347Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 432938.11.01.03.06.02.20Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.KeywordsinstallationassemblytorqueAvailable DownloadsNameType20170003491.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### § 1.34-1 Special rule for owners of certain business entities.

Amounts payable under sections 6420, 6421, and 6427 to a business entity that is treated as separate from its owner under § 1.1361-4(a)(8) (relating to certain qualified subchapter S subsidiaries) or § 301.7701-2(c)(2)(v) of this chapter (relating to certain wholly-owned entities) are, for purposes of section 34, treated as payable to the owner of that entity.

[T.D. 9356, 72 FR 45893, Aug. 16, 2007]
#### John Lucas *v.*City of Bridgeport et al.

Submitted April 5

decided April 30, 1968

*J. Roger Shull,*in support of the petition.

The petition by the defendant Miko Brothers, Inc., for refund of its entry fee in the appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County is denied.
Editorial Note on Part 880
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 880 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 880.6230 Tongue depressor. ( a ) *Identification.* A tongue depressor is a device intended to displace the tongue to facilitate examination of the surrounding organs and tissues.
( 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. If the device is not labeled or otherwise represented as sterile, it 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 38806, July 25, 2001]