alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION • IN THE OF MARYLAND • COURT OF APPEALS • OF MARYLAND Petitioner, V. STEPHEN ROWE JONES • Misc. Docket AG Respondent. • No. 3

• September Term, 2016

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ORDER Upon consideration of the Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action filed by Petitioner pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-721(a)(2) and 19-738 and no response having been filed by the Respondent to the Show Cause Order, it is 1st day of May , 2017, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland; ORDERED, that the Respondent, Stephen Rowe Jones, be and hereby is temporarily suspended from the practice of law in the State of Maryland pursuant to Maryland Rule 19- 738(d) until further order of this Court; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk of this Court shall remove the name of Stephen Rowe Jones from the register of attorneys in the Court and certify that fact to the Client Protection Fund of the Bar of Maryland and all Clerks of all judicial tribunals in this State in accordance with Maryland Rule 19-761(6).

/s/ Clayton Greee Jr. Senior Judge

6
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.81


[BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORPORATION LOGO]


Mr. Walt Palmer                                                February 20, 2003
Operations Director
FFF Enterprises, Inc.
41093 County Center Drive
Temecula, CA 92591

Dear Mr. Palmer:

Please note and update your records to reflect the following price changes
referenced below for Coram Healthcare:

      Effective January 1, 2003, there will be a decrease in the price for:

                 - Gammagard S/D, IVIG Solvent Detergent Treated

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
         PRODUCT CODE                 DESCRIPTION                            PRICE
         ------------                 -----------                            -----
IMMUNE GLOBULIN INTRAVENOUS (HUMAN), GAMMAGARD(R) S/D
SOLVENT DETERGENT TREATED
<S>                                  <C>                                     <C>
Gammagard(R)S/D 060-384              0.5 gram in 10 mL                        Vial
NDC # 00944-2620-01                  With Filter Spike

Gammagard(R) S/D 060-385             2.5 gram in 50 mL                        Gram
NDC # 00944-2620-02                  With Administration Set                  Vial

Gammagard(R) S/D 060-386             5.0 gram in 100 mL                       Gram
NDC # 00944-2620-03                  With Administration Set                  Vial

Gammagard(R) S/D 060-387             10.0 gram in 192 mL                      Gram
NDC # 00944-2620-04                  With Administration Set                  Vial

<CAPTION>

IVEEGAM EN(R) IMMUNE GLOBULIN INTRAVENOUS (HUMAN)

<S>                                 <C>                                      <C>
Iveegam EN(R) 923400                5.0 gram sterile freeze                   Gram
NDC# 64193-250-50                   dried concentrate of                      Vial
                                    Human IgG
</TABLE>

The prices shall be in effect through December 31, 2003. All terms and
conditions of the existing Coram/Baxter Price Agreement apply.

This notice is being sent to you only. Please forward to others that may need
this information within your organization. Thank you for your cooperation and
continued use of Baxter BioScience quality products and services. Should you
have any questions or concerns, please call me at 847-940-5850.

Sincerely,

/s/ Tracy Holman

Tracy Holman
Contract Sales Analyst
cc:    RosaLee Satterthwaite/Frank Geiger
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.

 August 28, 2020

Order 

Clerk

August 28, 2020

161492(28)(29)(30)(32)(33)

In re CERTIFIED QUESTIONS FROM THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN,

SOUTHERN DIVISION

_________________________________________

MIDWEST INSTITUTE OF HEALTH, PLLC,

doing business as GRAND HEALTH PARTNERS, 

WELLSTON MEDICAL CENTER, PLLC,

PRIMARY HEALTH SERVICES, PC, and

JEFFERY GULICK,

Plaintiffs,

SC: 161492

v USDC-WD: 1:20-cv-414

GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN, MICHIGAN

ATTORNEY GENERAL, and MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN

SERVICES DIRECTOR,

Defendants. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to supplement the appendix of the 

Michigan Attorney General is GRANTED. The supplemental appendix submitted on 

August 25, 2020, is accepted for filing. Further, the motions for the temporary admission 

of out-of-state attorneys Steven A. Zalesin and Ryan J. Sheehan to appear and practice in 

this case under MCR 8.126(A) are GRANTED. Finally, the separate motions of (1) the 

Michigan Nurses Association, (2) the American Legislative Exchange Council, and (3) the 

Election Integrity Fund to file briefs amicus curiae are GRANTED. The amicus briefs

submitted by those groups are accepted for filing.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 11185]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-5020]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Reinstatement of OMB 
No. 0925-0601/exp. 02/28/2010, Request for Human Embryonic Stem Cell 
Line To Be Approved for Use in NIH Funded Research

ACTION: Correction notice.

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

    On March 2, 2010 the National Institutes of Health published a 
notice in the Federal Register (75 FR 9418) with a 30-day comment 
period seeking public comment for an information collection entitled 
``Request for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Line to be Approved for Use in 
NIH Funded Research''.
    In the second paragraph of the notice entitled, ``Proposed 
Collection,'' the annual reporting burden reflected in the notice is 
corrected to read: ``Estimated Number of Respondents: 100; Estimated 
Number of Responses per Respondent: 1; Average Burden Hours Per 
Response: 3; and Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours Requested: 300. 
The estimated annualized cost to respondents is $10,500.''
    All other information in the notice is correct and remains 
unchanged.

    Dated: March 2, 2010.
Mikia Currie,
Office of Policy for Extramural Research Administration, OD, National 
Institutes of Health.
[FR Doc. 2010-5020 Filed 3-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
§ 1.1044(a)-1 Time and manner for making election under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. ( a ) *Description.* Section 1044(a), as added by section 13114 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103-66, 107 Stat. 430), generally allows individuals and C corporations that sell publicly traded securities after August 9, 1993, to elect not to recognize certain gain from the sale if the taxpayer purchases common stock or a partnership interest in a specialized small business investment company (SSBIC) within the 60-day period beginning on the date the publicly traded securities are sold.
( b ) *Time and manner for making the election.* The election under section 1044(a) must be made on or before the due date (including extensions) for the income tax return for the year in which the publicly traded securities are sold. The election is to be made by reporting the entire gain from the sale of publicly traded securities on Schedule D of the income tax return in accordance with instructions for Schedule D, and by attaching a statement to Schedule D showing— ( 1 ) How the nonrecognized gain was calculated;
( 2 ) The SSBIC in which common stock or a partnership interest was purchased;
( 3 ) The date the SSBIC stock or partnership interest was purchased; and
( 4 ) The basis of the SSBIC stock or partnership interest.
( c ) *Revocability of election.* The election described in this section is revocable with the consent of the Commissioner.
( d ) *Effective date.* The rules set forth in this section are effective December 12, 1996.
[T.D. 8688, 61 FR 65322, Dec. 12, 1996]
Exhibit 32.02

CERTIFICATION OF
CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 June 30, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dennis
E. Bunday, 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/ DENNIS E. BUNDAY    | 
|                        | 
|Dennis E. Bunday        | 
|Chief Financial Officer | 
|Williams Controls, Inc. | 
|August 9, 2010          | 

---
§ 808.5 Advisory opinions. ( a ) Any State, political subdivision, or other interested person may request an advisory opinion from the Commissioner with respect to any general matter concerning preemption of State or local device requirements or with respect to whether the Food and Drug Administration regards particular State or local requirements, or proposed requirements, as preempted. ( 1 ) Such an advisory opinion may be requested and may be granted in accordance with § 10.85 of this chapter.
( 2 ) The Food and Drug Administration, in its discretion and after consultation with the State or political subdivision, may treat a request by a State or political subdivision for an advisory opinion as an application for exemption from preemption under § 808.20.
( b ) The Commissioner may issue an advisory opinion relating to a State or local requirement on his own initiative when he makes one of the following determinations: ( 1 ) A requirement with respect to a device for which an application for exemption from preemption has been submitted under § 808.20 is not preempted by section 521(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act because it is: ( i ) Equal to or substantially identical to a requirement under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act applicable to the device, or
( ii ) is not a requirement within the meaning of section 521 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and therefore is not preempted;
( 2 ) A proposed State or local requirement with respect to a device is not eligible for exemption from preemption because the State or local requirement has not been issued in final form. In such a case, the advisory opinion may indicate whether the proposed requirement would be preempted and, if it would be preempted, whether the Food and Drug Administration would propose to grant an exemption from preemption;
( 3 ) Issuance of such an advisory opinion is in the public interest.
[43 FR 18665, May 2, 1978, as amended at 87 FR 50761, Aug. 17, 2022]
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-1365 

_____________________________

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE and 

CRYSTAL ROSE JACKSON,

Appellant,

v.

TRAVIS ANTWAN HOLLOWAY,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Division of Administrative Hearings. 

Andrew D. Manko, Administrative Law Judge 

February 29, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

KELSEY, WINOKUR, and NORDBY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Toni C. Bernstein, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellant Department of 

Revenue 

Crystal Rose Jackson, pro se, Appellant. 

Travis Antwan Holloway, pro se, Appellee.
###### Editorial Note on Part 312

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 312 appear at 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004.

#### § 312.88 Safeguards for patient safety.

All of the safeguards incorporated within parts 50, 56, 312, 314, and 600 of this chapter designed to ensure the safety of clinical testing and the safety of products following marketing approval apply to drugs covered by this section. This includes the requirements for informed consent (part 50 of this chapter) and institutional review boards (part 56 of this chapter). These safeguards further include the review of animal studies prior to initial human testing (§ 312.23), and the monitoring of adverse drug experiences through the requirements of IND safety reports (§ 312.32), safety update reports during agency review of a marketing application (§ 314.50 of this chapter), and postmarketing adverse reaction reporting (§ 314.80 of this chapter).
§ 1.401(a)(26)-4 Testing former employees. ( a ) *Scope.* This section applies to any defined benefit plan that benefits former employees in a plan year within the meaning of § 1.401(a)(26)-5(b) and does not meet one of the exceptions in § 1.401(a)(26)-1(b).
( b ) *Minimum participation rule for former employees.* Except as set forth in paragraph (c) of this section, a plan that is subject to this section must benefit at least the lesser of: ( 1 ) 50 former employees of the employer, or
( 2 ) 40 percent of the former employees of the employer.
( c ) *Special rule.* A plan satisfies the minimum participation rule in paragraph (b) of this section if the plan benefits at least five former employees, and if either: ( 1 ) More than 95 percent of all former employees with vested accrued benefits under the plan benefit under the plan for the plan year, or
( 2 ) At least 60 percent of the former employees who benefit under the plan for the plan year are nonhighly compensated former employees.
( d ) *Excludable former employees* — ( 1 ) *General rule.* Whether a former employee is an excludable former employee for purposes of this section is determined under § 1.401(a)(26)-6(c).
( 2 ) *Exception.* Solely for purposes of paragraph (c) of this section, the rule in § 1.401(a)(26)-6(c)(4) (regarding vested accrued benefits eligible for mandatory distribution) does not apply to any former employee having a vested accrued benefit. Thus, a former employee who has a vested accrued benefit is not an excludable former employee merely because that vested accrued benefit does not exceed the cash-out limit in effect under § 1.411(a)-11(c)(3)(ii).
[T.D. 8375, 56 FR 63416, Dec. 4, 1991, as amended by T.D. 8794, 63 FR 70338, Dec. 21, 1998; T.D. 8891, 65 FR 44682, July 19, 2000]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1154

TANYA JONES; DONNA JONES,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

EMC MORTGAGE COMPANY, INCORPORATED; MORTGAGE

ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED;

ROSENBERG & ASSOCIATES, LLC; GREENPOINT

MORTGAGE FUNDING, INCORPORATED,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.

(8:06-cv-03038)

Submitted: October 15, 2007 Decided: October 24, 2007

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tanya Jones, Donna Jones, Appellants Pro Se. David Samuel Panzer,

GREENBERG & TRAURIG, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Mark David Meyer,

ROSENBERG & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Bethesda, Maryland; Brian L. Moffet,

GORDON, FEINBLATT, ROTHMAN, HOFFBERGER & HOLLANDER, Baltimore,

Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Tanya and Donna Jones appeal the district court’s order

dismissing their civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court. Jones v. EMC Mortgage Co., Inc., No.

8:06-cv-03038 (D. Md. Feb. 5, 2007). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 19, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00223

- CV

Maria Lidia GONZALEZ

, Appellant

v.

ESTATE OF IDELFONSO RAMIREZ

,

Appellee

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Zapata County, Texas

Trial Court No. 6215

Honorable Jose A. Lopez, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The Clerk’s record and reporter’s record in this appeal were due on or before May 11,

2017. The clerks’ record was filed on April 11, 2017, on the same day as the notice of appeal.

Because the clerk’s record did not contain some required documents, the clerk was given additional time to supplement the clerk’s record. However, the supplemental clerk’s record still does not contain the signed final judgment that supports this appeal. The reporter’s record has

not been filed.

We, therefore, ORDER the court clerk to file the supplemental clerk’s record on or before July 2 6 , 2017. We ORDER the court reporter to file the reporter’s record on or before July 2 6

, 2017 . If a correct supplemental clerk’s record and the reporter’s recor d are not received by such date, an order may be issued directing the court clerk and/or court reporter to appear and show cause why she should not be held in contempt for failing to file the appropriate record.

No motions for extension of time will be g ranted absent extenuating circumstances. See

id. 35.3(c) (noting that the trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed).

_________________________________ Irene Rios , JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 19th day of July, 2017

.

___________________________________ Luz Estrada Chief Deputy Clerk
Exhibit 13.1

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 this annual report on Form 20-F of Nomad Foods Limited (the Company) for the nine months ended December 31, 2015 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stéfan Descheemaeker, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | (i) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date:  April 1, 2016



/s/ Stéfan DescheemaekerStéfan DescheemaekerChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of this
Report.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7901 

To authorize the appropriation of $2,000,000,000 for rental vouchers for 

high population areas, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 9, 2024 

Mr. GALLEGO (for himself and Ms. TITUS) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To authorize the appropriation of $2,000,000,000 for rental 

vouchers for high population areas, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Housing Vouchers 

5 Fairness Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RENTAL VOUCHERS FOR HIGH GROWTH POPU7 LATION AREAS. 

8 Section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act of 

9 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)) is amended by adding at the 

10 end the following: 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 7901 IH

1 ‘‘(23) RENTAL VOUCHERS FOR HIGH GROWTH

2 POPULATION AREAS.— 

3 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall, 

4 each year, using amounts appropriated pursu5 ant to subparagraph (B), provide additional as6 sistance in an equitable manner to each eligible 

7 public housing agency for tenant-based assist8 ance, based on the population in the eligible 

9 public housing agency, the extent to which ex10 isting voucher allocations of the eligible public 

11 housing agency do not meet its housing afford12 ability needs, and historical shortfalls in pro13 viding assistance to such eligible public housing 

14 agency as a result of voucher formula alloca15 tions not keeping pace with population growth 

16 over the period identified in subparagraph 

17 (C)(ii). 

18 ‘‘(B) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIA19 TIONS.—There are authorized to be appro20 priated to Secretary to carry out this paragraph 

21 $2,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2025, and for re22 newals in each fiscal year thereafter. 

23 ‘‘(C) ELIGIBLE PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY

24 DEFINED.—For the purposes of this paragraph, 

25 the term ‘eligible public housing agency’ means 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 7901 IH

1 a public housing agency that administers Fed2 eral housing assistance for an area that, as de3 termined by the Secretary— 

4 ‘‘(i) has a population of greater than 

5 100,000; and 

6 ‘‘(ii) is one of 25 areas in the United 

7 States that experienced the highest popu8 lation growth between 2012 to 2022.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Editorial Note on Part 888
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 888 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 888.3170 Elbow joint radial (hemi-elbow) polymer prosthesis. ( a ) *Identification.* An elbow joint radial (hemi-elbow) polymer prosthesis is a device intended to be implanted made of medical grade silicone elastomer used to replace the proximal end of the radius.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.