alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| 1. | The      quarterly report of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2010 as      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (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. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:   May      14, 2010 | By:                                | /s/      Brandon Cade Thompson |
|------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|--------------------------------|
|                                     | Brandon      Cade Thompson         |
|                                     | Chief      Executive Officer       |
|                                     | (Principal      Executive Officer) |
|                                     |                               |
|                                     |                               |
| Date:   May      14, 2010 | By:                                | /s/      Paul Williams         |
|                                     | Paul      Williams                 |
|                                     | Chief      Financial Officer       |
|                                     | (Principal      Financial Officer) |

----
Editorial Note on Part 880
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 880 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 880.5025 I.V. container. ( a ) *Identification.* An I.V. container is a container made of plastic or glass used to hold a fluid mixture to be administered to a patient through an intravascular administration set.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 42 (Thursday, March 4, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 9909]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4484]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed 
Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of General Medical 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel, Consortia for High-Throughput-
Enabled Structural Biology Partnerships (U01).
    Date: April 1-2, 2010.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Margaret J. Weidman, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General 
Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive, 
Room 3AN18B, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-3663.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, 
Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and 
Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and 
Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental 
Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, 
Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 25, 2010.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-4484 Filed 3-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
39202.

#### DOBBINS v. COLUMBIA CASUALTY COMPANY *et al.*

Decided January 3, 1962

Rehearing denied January 18, 1962.

*P. C. King, Jr., Louis M. Tatham,*for plaintiff in error.

*Smith, Field, Bingel, Martin ■& Carr, Bichard D. Carr, W. Dent Aeree,*contra.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

Mrs. Mildred B. Dobbins sought to recover death benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act because of the death of her husband. The deputy director hearing the case, and then the full board on appeal, denied compensation as did the Superior Court of Fulton County on appeal to that court. The claimant now 'assigns error on the judgments adverse to her. *Held:*

1. Assuming but not deciding that the evidence authorized a finding that the deceased died as a result of a myocardial in-, farction as contended by the claimant, the testimony of a physician, the only expert to testify as to the causal connection between the employment and death of the deceased, in reply to a hypothetical question, which Was based on facts not accurately based on the evidence in the case was properly excluded from consideration in arriving at an award by the deputy director. See *Ellis v. Southern Ry., Co.,*89 Ga. App. 407, 411 (79 SE2d 541); *Elliott v. Ga. Power Co.,*58 Ga. App. 151 (197 SE 914).

2. The evidence authorized the finding that the death of the claimant’s husband did not arise out of and in the course of his employment, and where there is any evidence to authorize the award of the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation, in the absence of fraud, such award must be affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur.*
Exhibit 35.12



|     |  |  |  |                                                                        
|---- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  |  |  | CMBS Department 
MACN9401-011 1055 10th Avenue SE
Minneapolis, MN 55414

Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities,

Inc. 390 GREENWICH ST

NEW YORK, New York 10013-2375



|RE: | Annual Statement of Compliance for Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2015
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-P1
| | -------------------------------------------------------------

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated
as of August 1, 2015 (the Agreement), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Custodian (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.

March 1, 2016



|                 |  | 
|---------------- |  | 
|/s/ Gail Vannest |  | 

GAIL VANNEST

Vice President



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
Exhibit 35.9



|     |  |                                                                                                              
|---- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|     | 
|LOGO |  | Commercial Mortgage Servicing D1086-120,
12th Floor 550 South Tryon Street Charlotte, NC 28202
1-800-326-1334

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of August 1, 2015, by and among CITIGROUP COMMERCIAL
MORTGAGE SECURITIES INC, as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, LNR PARTNERS, LLC, as Special Servicer, PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as Operating Advisor, CITIBANK, N.A., as Certificate Administrator and
DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, as Trustee , and WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as Custodian with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-P1 (the Agreement). Capitalized terms used herein not
otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 10.08 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober,
Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from August 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the Reporting Period), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period
has been made under my supervision, and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 4th day of
March 2016.



|                 |  | 
|---------------- |  | 
|/s/ Daniel Bober |  | 

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice
President

Wells Fargo Bank



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7851 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to establish additional requirements 

for bridge projects funded under such title, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2024 

Mr. VAN DREW introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to establish additional requirements for bridge projects funded under 

such title, 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 ‘‘Bridge Protection 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR BRIDGE 

7 PROJECTS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 1 of title 23, United 

9 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol10 lowing: 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 7851 IH

1 ‘‘§ 180. Additional requirements for bridge projects 

2 ‘‘(a) REQUIREMENTS.— 

3 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—As a condition for receiving 

4 funds under this title, with respect to any project for 

5 the repair or construction of a covered bridge under 

6 this title, the Secretary of Transportation shall re7 quire to the greatest extent feasible that such 

8 project include protective features designed to avert 

9 allisions along critical bridge supports. 

10 ‘‘(2) PROTECTIVE FEATURES.—Protective fea11 tures under paragraph (1) shall be rated for the 

12 largest size of vessel that regularly passes under 

13 such bridge. 

14 ‘‘(b) COVERED BRIDGE DEFINED.—In this section, 

15 the term ‘covered bridge’ means a bridge over navigable 

16 water valued at over $50,000,000.’’. 

17 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The analysis for chap18 ter 1 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by add19 ing at the end the following: 

‘‘180. Additional requirements for bridge projects.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
§ 99.403 Termination of approvals of applications for exemption. ( a ) FDA may, at any time, terminate the approval of an application for an exemption from the requirement to file a supplemental application if: ( 1 ) The application for an exemption had been deemed to be approved because the agency had not acted on the application within 60 days after its receipt by FDA;
( 2 ) The manufacturer is disseminating written information on the new use; and
( 3 ) FDA determines that it would be economically and ethically possible for the manufacturer to conduct the clinical studies needed to submit a supplemental application for the new use.
( b ) If FDA terminates a deemed approval of an application for an exemption under paragraph (a) of this section, FDA also may: ( 1 ) Order the manufacturer to cease disseminating information; and
( 2 ) Order the manufacturer to take action to correct the information that has been disseminated if FDA determines that the new use described in the disseminated information would pose a significant risk to public health.
( c ) FDA shall notify the manufacturer if it terminates the deemed approval of an application for an exemption under paragraph (a) of this section. If FDA also issues an order to cease dissemination of information, the manufacturer shall comply with the order no later than 60 days after its receipt.
( d ) FDA may, at any time, terminate the approval of an application for an exemption from the requirement to file a supplemental application for a new use if, after consulting with the manufacturer that was granted such exemption, FDA determines that the manufacturer no longer meets the requirements for an exemption on the basis that it is economically prohibitive or unethical to conduct the studies needed to submit a supplemental application for the new use.
( e ) If FDA terminates an approval of an application for an exemption under paragraph (d) of this section, the manufacturer must, within 60 days of being notified by FDA that its exemption approval has been terminated, file a supplemental application for the new use that is the subject of the information being disseminated under the exemption, certify, under § 99.201(a)(4)(i) or (a)(4)(ii) that it will file a supplemental application for the new use, or cease disseminating the information on the new use. FDA may require a manufacturer that ceases dissemination of information on the new use to undertake corrective action.
39421.

#### McNEAL v. HUNNICUTT.

Jordan, Judge.

Mrs. Donnie McNeal brought a negligence action against O. W. Hunnicutt and Jay Smith to recover damages for injuries sustained by her when the automobile in which she was a passenger collided with a truck driven by the defendant Smith. The petition alleged that at the time of the collision Smith was operating the truck as an employee of Hunnicutt and was acting within the course and scope of his authority. The case proceeded to trial, and at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence, the trial court granted a nonsuit as to the defendant Hunnicutt, and to this judgment the plaintiff excepted, bringing the case to this court for review. The defendant in error moved to dismiss the writ of error for the reason that, after the nonsuit had been granted, the plaintiff had acquiesced in said judgment by electing to proceed with the trial of the case against the other defendant, a jury verdict being returned in favor of said defendant. These facts were certified as true by the trial judge in his order approving the bill of exceptions. *Held:*

When, after the grant of a nonsuit as to one of two defendants in a joint action, the plaintiff acquiesces in such adverse judg*699ment by electing to proceed with the trial of the case against the remaining defendant, pending such adverse adjudication, he will be held to have thereby abandoned the suit as against the defendant in whose favor the nonsuit has been granted; and on motion of said defendant the writ of error to this court will be dismissed since the plaintiff cannot complain of the order of nonsuit to which, by his conduct, he had assented. *Wood v. Stevens,*144 Ga. 518 (87 SE 658); *Vandiver v. Ga. R. & Power Co.,*38 Ga. App. 59 (143 SE 455), and the decisions therein cited.

Decided April 3, 1962.

*Al Jennings, O. L. Crumbley,*for plaintiff in error.

*Anderson, Walker & Reichert, David A. Handley,*contra.

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*Nichols, P.J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
# ORIGINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA OP 22-0122
RICHARD E. SHREVES,

Petitioner,

v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent. 

# FILED MAY 10 2022 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Suprerne Court State of Montana ORDER

Representing himself, Richard E. Shreves seeks rehearing, pursuant to M. R. App. P. 20(1), ofthis Court's March 22, 2022 Order denying his petition for writ of mandate against the Department ofCorrections. Shreves argues that the Court erred in concluding that "a civil rights complaint in either state or federal court was a plain[] and adequate remedy." M. R. App. P. 20(1) provides criteria for rehearing. Pertinent here, this Court will consider a petition for rehearing only upon the grounds "[t]hat it overlooked some fact material to the decision[,]

. . . or [t]hat its decision conflicts with a statute or controlling decision not addressed by the supreme court." M.R.App. P.20(1)(a)(i)and (iii). "Absent clearly demonstrated exceptional circumstances,the supreme court will not grant petitions for rehearing ofits orders disposing ofmotions or petitions for extraordinary writs." M. R. App. P.20(1)(d). Our Order pointed out that "[a]writ ofmandatewill not issue absent the availability ofanother remedy in the ordinary course oflaw." Shreves contends that he does not have a speedy remedy under the law and that the Court failed to analyze the issues, such as irreparable harm. He concludes that "a civil action and resulting damages does nothingto provide meaningful nor timely relief, neither for services that meet the basic need of general well-being, nor for basic nutrition DOC asserts it provides in each meal." 05/10/2022

Case Number: OP 22-0122

### This Court has authority to dismiss a writ in an original proceeding procedurally

and without analyzing any claim. M. R. App. P. 14(7)(a). Shreves misses the purpose of
a writ ofmandate because such a writ occupies the space where no other remedy exists. Section 27-26-102, MCA. Shreves's claims present factual issues, not simply the enforcement of a clear legal duty. His claims of immediate and irreparable injury are redressable in a civil action where a courtmay receive evidence and develop a record. His references to Montana case law do not assist his arguments because both elements for a writ ofmandate existed in those cases. See OPD v. McMeekin, 2009 MT 439, 354 Mont. 130, 224 P.3d 616 and State ex re. Burkhartsmeyer Bros. v. McCormick, 162 Mont. 234, 5810 P.2d 266 (1973). Shreves has not demonstrated any criteria for rehearing. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Shreves's Petition for Rehearing is DENIED. TheClerkofthe SupremeCourtisdirectedtoprovideacopyofthisOrdertocounsel ofrecord and to Richard E. Shreves personally. DATED thist t•

N day ofMay, 2022.

2
Editorial Note on Part 878
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 878 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 878.4815 Magnetic surgical instrument system. ( a ) *Identification.* A magnetic surgical instrument system is a prescription device used in laparoscopic surgical procedures consisting of several components, such as surgical instruments, and a magnetic controller. The magnetic controller is provided separately from the surgical instrument and is used outside the patient. The external magnetic controller is magnetically coupled with the internal surgical instrument(s) at the surgical site to grasp, hold, retract, mobilize, or manipulate soft tissue and organs.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are: ( 1 ) In vivo performance data must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. Testing must demonstrate the ability of the device to grasp, hold, retract, mobilize, or manipulate soft tissue and organs.
( 2 ) Non-clinical performance data must demonstrate that the system performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. The following performance characteristics must be tested: ( i ) Magnetic field strength testing characterization to identify the distances from the magnet that are safe for patients and users with ferromagnetic implants, devices, or objects.
( ii ) Ability of the internal surgical instrument(s) to be coupled, de-coupled, and re-coupled with the external magnet over the external magnet use life.
( 3 ) The patient-contacting components of the device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible.
( 4 ) Performance data must demonstrate the sterility of the device components that are patient-contacting.
( 5 ) Methods and instructions for reprocessing reusable components must be validated.
( 6 ) Performance data must support shelf life by demonstrating continued sterility of the device or the sterile components and device functionality over the labeled shelf life.
( 7 ) Training must be developed and validated by human factors testing and analysis to ensure users can follow the instructions for use to allow safe use of the device.
( 8 ) Labeling must include: ( i ) Magnetic field safe zones.
( ii ) Instructions for proper device use.
( iii ) A screening checklist to ensure that all patients and operating staff are screened from bringing ferromagnetic implants, devices, or objects near the external magnet.
( iv ) Reprocessing instructions for any reusable components.
( v ) Shelf life.
( vi ) Use life.
[81 FR 64763, Sept. 21, 2016]
# C_2014351EN.01002301.xml

| 6.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 351/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 351/23

---

Action brought on 7 August 2014 — Zuffa v OHIM (ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP)

(Case T-590/14)

2014/C 351/29

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Zuffa, LLC (Las Vegas, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, K. Gilbert and C. Balme, Solicitors)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 May 2014 given in Case R 1425/2013-2. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 May 2014 given in Case R 1425/2013-2.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 28 and 41

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Partially rejected the CTM application

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b),(c) and 7(2) CTMR.

Pleas in law:

---