alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1.194-1 Amortization of reforestation expenditures. ( a ) *In general.* Section 194 allows a taxpayer to elect to amortize over an 84-month period, up to $10,000 of reforestation expenditures (as defined in § 1.194-3(c)) incurred by the taxpayer in a taxable year in connection with qualified timber property (as defined in § 1.194-3(a)). The election is not available to trusts. Only those reforestation expenditures which result in additions to capital accounts after December 31, 1979 are eligible for this special amortization.
( b ) *Determination of amortization period.* The amortization period must begin on the first day of the first month of the last half of the taxable year during which the taxpayer incurs the reforestation expenditures. For example, the 84-month amortization period begins on July 1 of a taxable year for a calendar year taxpayer, regardless of whether the reforestation expenditures are incurred in January or December of that taxable year. Therefore, a taxpayer will be allowed to claim amortization deductions for only six months of each of the first and eighth taxable years of the period over which the reforestation expenditures will be amortized.
( c ) *Recapture.* If a taxpayer disposes of qualified timber property within ten years of the year in which the amortizable basis was created and the taxpayer has claimed amortization deductions under section 194, part or all of any gain on the disposition may be recaptured as ordinary income. See section 1245.
[T.D. 7927, 48 FR 55849, Dec. 16, 1983]
Editorial Note on Part 862
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 862 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 862.1315 Galactose-1-phosphate uridyl transferase test system. ( a ) *Identification.* A galactose-1-phosphate uridyl transferase test system is a device intended to measure the activity of the enzyme galactose-1-phosphate uridyl transferase in erythrocytes (red blood cells). Measurements of galactose-1-phosphate uridyl transferase are used in the diagnosis and treatment of the hereditary disease galactosemia (disorder of galactose metabolism) in infants.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
# C_2015056EN.01002401.xml

| 16.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 56/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/24

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 5 December 2014 — AF Steelcase v OHIM

(Case T-652/14 R)

((Interim measures - Public procurement - Supply and installation of furniture - Rejection of a submitted tender - Application for suspension of operation - No prima facie case))

(2015/C 056/34)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: AF Steelcase, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: S. Rodríguez Bajón, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: N. Bambara and M. Paolacci, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for interim measures seeking, essentially, suspension of the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 8 July 2014 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in the context of the tender procedure concerning the supply and installation of furniture and accessories in OHIM’s buildings.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
§ 884.5370 Software application for contraception. ( a ) *Identification.* A software application for contraception is a device that provides user-specific fertility information for preventing a pregnancy. This device includes an algorithm that performs analysis of patient-specific data (*e.g.,* temperature, menstrual cycle dates) to distinguish between fertile and non-fertile days, then provides patient-specific recommendations related to contraception.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are: ( 1 ) Clinical performance testing must demonstrate the contraceptive effectiveness of the software in the intended use population.
( 2 ) Human factors performance evaluation must be provided to demonstrate that the intended users can self-identify that they are in the intended use population and can correctly use the application, based solely on reading the directions for use for contraception.
( 3 ) Software verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be performed. Documentation must include the following: ( i ) A cybersecurity vulnerability and management process to assure software functionality; and
( ii ) A description of the technical parameters of the software, including the algorithm used to determine fertility status and alerts for user inputs outside of expected ranges.
( 4 ) Labeling must include: ( i ) The following warnings and precautions: ( A ) A statement that no contraceptive method is 100% effective.
( B ) A statement that another form of contraception (or abstinence) must be used on days specified by the application.
( C ) Statements of any factors that may affect the accuracy of the contraceptive information.
( D ) A warning that the application cannot protect against sexually transmitted infections.
( ii ) Hardware platform and operating system requirements.
( iii ) Instructions identifying and explaining how to use the software application, including required user inputs and how to interpret the application outputs.
( iv ) A summary of the clinical validation study and results, including effectiveness of the application as a stand-alone contraceptive and how this effectiveness compares to other forms of legally marketed contraceptives.
[84 FR 7995, Mar. 6, 2019]
Editorial Note on Part 874
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 874 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 874.3730 Laryngeal prosthesis (Taub design). ( a ) *Identification.* A laryngeal prosthesis (Taub design) is a device intended to direct pulmonary air flow to the pharynx in the absence of the larynx, thereby permitting esophageal speech. The device is interposed between openings in the trachea and the esophagus and may be removed and replaced each day by the patient. During phonation, air from the lungs is directed to flow through the device and over the esophageal mucosa to provide a sound source that is articulated as speech.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The device, when it is a voice amplification device, is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 874.9.
[51 FR 40389, Nov. 6, 1986, as amended at 84 FR 71813, Dec. 30, 2019]
Editorial Note on Part 882
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 882 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 882.1400 Electroencephalograph. ( a ) *Identification.* An electroencephalograph is a device used to measure and record the electrical activity of the patient's brain obtained by placing two or more electrodes on the head.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (performance standards).
Exhibit 99.2

                          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 HealthChoice, Inc.  (the
 "Company")  on  Form 10-QSB  for the  period ending March 31, 2002 as  filed
 with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the
 "Report"), I  John C.  Stuecheli, Chief  Financial Officer  of the  Company,
 certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. S 1350, as  adopted pursuant to S 906 of  the
 Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

      (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/ John C. Stuecheli
 John C. Stuecheli
 Chief Financial Officer

 May 15, 2003
Editorial Note on Part 892
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 892 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 892.5930 Therapeutic x-ray tube housing assembly. ( a ) *Identification.* A therapeutic x-ray tube housing assembly is an x-ray generating tube encased in a radiation-shielded housing intended for use in radiation therapy. This generic type of device may include high-voltage and filament transformers or other appropriate components when contained in radiation-shielded housing.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
C i ty of Santa Monica®

March 24, 2015 Edward F. King Director of Transit Services Big Blue Bus 1660 7th Street Santa Monica CA 90401

Secretary Anthony Foxx US Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE Washington, DC 20590 Subject: Support for Access Services' Petition for Rulemaking Dear Secretary Foxx: On behalfofthe City of Santa Monica' s Big Blue Bus, we are writing in support of Access Services ' Petition for Rulemaking that asks for an amendment to the Department of Transportation ' s regulations concerning the calculation ofAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA) paratransit fares. Access uses a simple, two-tier coordinated fare that has been in existence for nearly twenty years. It was implemented after consultation with the disability community and a number of advocacy groups because it is fair and easy for Access customers to understand. We are very concerned that any new fare system will be significantly more complex and lead to confusion amongst Access clients

. We are also concerned that a new fare system could lead to higher fares for certain clients, many of whom live on fixed-incomes. The Americans with Disabilities Act has been a blessing for people with disabilities in America. However, in this instance, we would urge the Department to amend the regulations to allow Access' · coordinated fare to continue as it has for the last two decades. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (310) 458-1975 or via e-mail at ed.king @smgov .net.



# s 10-150331-011 tel: 310 458-1975 ext.5846 • fax: 310 450
-4847 • e-mail: ed.king@smgov.netCoty of ® Santa l'tlonlca



### 510-150331-011 Big Blue Bus Director of Transit Services 1660 7th Street Santa Monica, CA 90401-3324

Secretary Anthony Foxx (/) (/) 

### :3 (.) .,_ (/) a: u.

US Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE Washington, DC 20590
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted June 1, 2012∗

 Decided June 4, 2012

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

No. 12-1292

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

MAURICE FOSTER, also known as MARCUS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United 

States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division.

No. 95 CR 242-12

Robert 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
No. 12-1292 Page 2

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

AFFIRMED
427 A.2d 165

#### Almeda B. SLASEMAN, Administratrix of the Estate of James Slaseman, Deceased, Appellant, v. Kathryn M. MYERS.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Dec. 3, 1979.

Filed Jan. 16, 1981.

Reargument Denied April 11, 1981.

*168William B. Anstine, Jr., York, for appellant.

Michael Brillhart, York, for appellee.

Before PRICE, WATKINS and HOFFMAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM:

Following a non-jury trial in this wrongful death and survival action, the lower court rendered a decision awarding appellant-plaintiff damages of $139,408.28. Appellant filed exceptions from that decision in which she contended, *inter alia,*that the damages awarded were inadequate. The present appeal is from the order of the lower court en banc denying appellant’s exceptions. Here, as below, appellant challenges the adequacy of the damages awarded by the trial court. We are unable to reach the merits of this appeal, however, because judgment has not been entered in the case. Entry of judgment is a prerequisite to our exercise of jurisdiction. *See 2*Goodrich-Amram 2d § 1038(b):1, at 501 (1976); *cf. Lynch v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.,*422 Pa. 488, 222 A.2d 925 (1966) (order dismissing post-verdict motions following jury trial is not *169appealable). Consequently, this appeal is premature and must be quashed.

Appeal quashed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6693

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM NATHANIEL GRANT,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 97-6737

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM NATHANIEL GRANT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief

District Judge. (CR-92-36-C)
2

Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 25, 1997

Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Nathaniel Grant, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying his

motions to reduce his sentence and for production of grand jury

transcripts. We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. United States v. Grant, No. CR-92-

36-C (W.D. Va. May 2 & 7, 1997). Appellant's motion for appointment

of counsel is denied. 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
#### § 1.174-1 Research and experimental expenditures; in general.

Section 174 provides two methods for treating research or experimental expenditures paid or incurred by the taxpayer in connection with his trade or business. These expenditures may be treated as expenses not chargeable to capital account and deducted in the year in which they are paid or incurred (see § 1.174-3), or they may be deferred and amortized (see § 1.174-4). Research or experimental expenditures which are neither treated as expenses nor deferred and amortized under section 174 must be charged to capital account. The expenditures to which section 174 applies may relate either to a general research program or to a particular project. See § 1.174-2 for the definition of research and experimental expenditures. The term *paid or incurred,* as used in section 174 and in §§ 1.174-1 to 1.174-4, inclusive, is to be construed according to the method of accounting used by the taxpayer in computing taxable income. See section 7701(a)(25).
<Page>

                                                                          [LOGO]

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the use in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 3 to Registration
Statement No. 333-43886 of Fortis Benefits Insurance Company Variable Account D
of our report dated February 28, 2003, relating to the financial statements of
Fortis Benefits Insurance Company Variable Account D, appearing in this
Statement of Additional Information which is part of such Registration
Statement, and to the reference to us under the heading "Independent Public
Accountants" in such Statement of Additional Information.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Hartford, Connecticut

April 7, 2003
#### § 895.105 Electrical stimulation devices for self-injurious or aggressive behavior.

Electrical stimulation devices for self-injurious or aggressive behavior are aversive conditioning devices that apply a noxious electrical stimulus to a person's skin to reduce or cease self-injurious or aggressive behavior.

[85 FR 13354, Mar. 6, 2020]
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 43 (Friday, March 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 10243]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4612]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR10-7-000]


Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership; Notice of Filing of 
Supplement to Facilities Surcharge Settlement

February 25, 2010.
    Take notice that on February 19, 2010, Enbridge Energy, Limited 
Partnership (Enbridge Energy), with the support of the Canadian 
Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), submitted a Supplement to 
the Facilities Surcharge Settlement approved by the Commission on June 
30, 2004, in Docket No. OR04-2-000.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership, 107 FERC ] 61,336 
(2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene and comment on this Supplement to 
the Settlement should submit an original and 14 copies of its comments 
and motion to intervene with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, no later than March 8, 
2010. Reply comments will be due no later than March 15, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of comments and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. The filings in this proceeding is accessible on-line at 
http://www.ferc.gov, using the ``eLibrary'' link and is available for 
review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. 
There is an ``eSubcription'' link on the Web site that enables 
subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to 
a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, 
please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9ed8dbccddd1f0f2f7f0fbcdebeeeef1eceadef8fbecfdb0f9f1e8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b6f0f3e4f5f9d8dadfd8d3e5c3c6c6d9c4c2f6d0d3c4d598d1d9c0">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll 
free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-4612 Filed 3-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
STATE OF WASHINGTON 

### DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PO Box 47600 • Olympia, WA 98S04-7600 • 360-407-6000 711 for Washington Relay Service • Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341 August 24,2015

Mr. Dennis M. McLerran, Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 RE: SIP Revision

- Benton Clean Air Agency General Air Quality Rules DearMr. McLerran: The Washington State Department ofEcology (Ecology) is requesting that EPA approve Benton Clean Air Agency (Benton) rules in the State Implementation Plan (SIP), where requested, and approve WashingtonAdministrative Code (WAC) for theirjurisdictionwhere there are no conespondingBentonrules. These proposed changes are necessary to align state and local air quality SIP-approvedrules and to clarify for SIP and federal enforceabilitypurposes where Bentonhas corresponding local rules that apply in lieu ofChapter 173-400 WAC. Benton amendedparts oftheir general air quality regulations in Regulation 1 for sources within theirjurisdiction. Forthe SIP, Benton wishes to rely onthe provisions in Chapter 173-400 WAC submitted to EPAbyEcology for SIP approval in 2014 (see Attachment 1 ), except those provisions that apply to the Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration (PSD) permitting program, and as revised by certain identifiedprovisions inBenton's Regulation 1 (see Attachment 2). Inparticular, PSD permitting sections should be excluded fi·om the SIP for Benton, specifically WAC 173-400-700 through 750, WAC 173-400-116, "IncrementProtection" and parts ofW AC 173-400-117, "Special Protection Requirements for Federal Class I Areas", as they related to PSD permitting. Benton is requesting authority for nonattainment new source review (NNSR), so Washington's rules related to NNSR should be included for Benton'spotiion ofthe SIP (WAC 173-400-800 through 860, and WAC 400-173-117, as it applies to NNSRpermits). As the Governor's designee for Washington's SIP, I am submittingthis tule package as a revision to the SIP. Ecology adopted the revision effective August 21, 2015. Ecology met all state and federal procedural requirements. Notice for public comment and a request for hearing was posted as required. Thepublic commentperiod was from July 8, 2015 to August 14,2015. No hearing was requested, so no hearing was held. There were no comments.Mr. Dennis McLerran, Regional Administrator August 24, 2015 Page 2 This SIP submittal package was submitted electronically through EPA'sportal, e-SIP. Additional materials, includingpublic notice documents, are enclosed. Ifyou have anyquestions on this submittal, please contact Laurie Hulse-Moyer, at laurie.hulsemoyer@ecy.wa.gov or (360) 407-6873. Sincerely,

Maia D. Bellon Director Enclosures (4)

cc: JeffHunt, EPA Laurie Hulse-Moyer, Ecology Robin Priddy, Benton Clean Air Agency, Executive Director Stu Clark, Program Manager, Air Quality Program Records file