alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[115th Congress Public Law 33]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 131 STAT. 845]]

Public Law 115-33
115th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To repeal the rule issued by the Federal Highway Administration and the 
    Federal Transit Administration entitled ``Metropolitan Planning 
 Organization Coordination and Planning Area Reform''. <<NOTE: May 12, 
                           2017 -  [S. 496]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. <<NOTE: Applicability.>>  REPEAL.

    The rule issued by the Federal Highway Administration and the 
Federal Transit Administration entitled ``Metropolitan Planning 
Organization Coordination and Planning Area Reform'' (81 Fed. Reg. 93448 
(December 20, 2016)) shall have no force or effect, and any regulation 
revised by that rule shall be applied as if that rule had not been 
issued.

    Approved May 12, 2017.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 496 (H.R. 1346):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 115-85 (Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure) 
accompanying H.R. 1346.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 163 (2017):
            Mar. 8, considered and passed Senate.
            Apr. 25, 27, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```
# C_2014253EN.01006201.xml

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/62

---

Action brought on 17 June 2014 — Laboratoires CTRS v Commission

(Case T-452/14)

2014/C 253/84

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Laboratoires CTRS (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: K. Bacon, Barrister, M. Utges Manley and M. Vickers, Solicitors)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Article 1 of the contested decision, in so far as the decision in substance indicates that Cholic Acid FGK is authorised for the Orphacol Indications; or in the alternative annul Article 1 of the decision in its entirety; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 1 of the contested decision, in so far as the decision in substance indicates that Cholic Acid FGK is authorised for the Orphacol Indications; or in the alternative annul Article 1 of the decision in its entirety; and

| — | order that the Commission pays the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the Commission pays the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is the marketing authorisation holder of the orphan medicinal product Orphacol, which is authorised for the treatment of two very rare and serious genetic liver disorders and whose active ingredient is cholic acid. Orphacol benefits as of 16 September 2013 from a 10-year period of market exclusivity in respect of these two indications in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation No 141/2000 (1).

1

By the contested decision dated 4 April 2014, the Commission granted a marketing authorisation for another orphan medicinal product (Cholic Acid FGK) with cholic acid as the active ingredient. Although Cholic Acid FGK was authorised for three other therapeutic indications than those for which Orphacol was authorised, the Summary of Product Characteristics and the Assessment Report for Cholic Acid FGK, which according to the applicant form an integral part of the contested decision, contained extensive references to the efficacy as well as references to the safety of Cholic Acid FGK in the therapeutic indications for which Orphacol was authorised.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 141/2000, as the Commission has, by granting a marketing authorisation for Cholic Acid FGK on the terms set out in the Summary of Product Characteristics and the Assessment Report, circumvented the applicant’s market exclusivity, since the terms upon which the marketing authorisation for Cholic Acid FGK was granted imply, in substance, that Cholic Acid FGK is also authorised for the two therapeutic indications for which Orphacol is authorised.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products (OJ 2000 L 18, p. 1).

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 890
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 890 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 890.3100 Mechanical chair. ( a ) *Identification.* A mechanical chair is a manually operated device intended for medical purposes that is used to assist a disabled person in performing an activity that the person would otherwise find difficult to do or be unable to do. Examples of mechanical chairs include the following: A chair with an elevating seat used to raise a person from a sitting position to a standing position and a chair with casters used by a person to move from one place to another while sitting.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in § 890.9.
[48 FR 53047, Nov. 23, 1983, as amended at 59 FR 63014, Dec. 7, 1994; 66 FR 38816, July 25, 2001]
Exhibit 10.(iv)
                                                               CONTRACT ID#
                                                                 1157

                            SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE

         This Second Amendment to Lease will be deemed to be dated the last date
shown opposite the signatures of the parties hereto.

         WHEREAS, RUSSELL ACREE, M.D. ("Landlord") entered into a Lease
("Lease") dated February 1, 1988 with Community Dialysis Centers, Inc. now known
as GAMBRO HEALTHCARE RENAL CARE, INC., ("Tenant") for the leasing of certain
premises located at 203 E. Robinson Street, Adel, Georgia.

         WHEREAS, the Landlord and Tenant desire to amend said Lease relating to
the following provisions contained within;

         NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements
herein contained, the benefits to each party resulting herefrom and for other
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are irrevocably and
unconditionally hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be fully
legally bound, agree as follows:

         1.       The Lease Term is hereby extended an additional twelve (12)
                  months, commencing May 1, 2003 and expiring April 30, 2004.
                  Rental rate for the renewal term shall be as follows:

                  May 1, 2003 - April 30, 2004                $2,141.25/month

                  All of the terms, covenants and conditions of the Lease
                  Agreement not modified herein, remain in full force and
                  effect, and shall become a part of this extension.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Landlord and Tenant have executed this Second
Amendment to Lease on the day and year shown opposite each party's signature.

                   [SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE.]



<PAGE>




                                    Landlord:

                                    RUSSELL ACREE, M.D.

           10/10/2002                       /s/ Russell Acree, M.D.
Date:__________________             By:__________________________
                                    Name: Russell A. Acree, MD
                                                     Title: Owner


                                    Tenant:

                                    GAMBRO HEALTHCARE RENAL CARE, INC.

           11/12/02                        /s/ Gregory P. Santulli
Date:__________________             By:__________________________
                                    Name: Gregpry P. Santulli
                                    Title: Regional Vice President

                                    Approved as to Form:

           11/6/02                       Edwin C. Lunsford, III, Esq.
Date:__________________             By:__________________________
                                    Name: Edwin C. Lunsford, III, Esq.
                                    Title: Southeastern Division
                                           Counsel
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                5

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                 FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                   OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                               7,137
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                             0
<INVENTORY>                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     7,137
<PP&E>                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       7,137
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    0
<BONDS>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<COMMON>                         7,408,910
<OTHER-SE>                      (7,401,773)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         7,137
<SALES>                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        30
<CGS>                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     3,449
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (3,361)
<INCOME-TAX>                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                        (3,361)
<EPS-BASIC>                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0



</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 11.1

                             WEBLINK WIRELESS, INC.
                    COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             THREE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2000
                                                           -----------------------------------------
                                                             NUMBER         PERCENT       EQUIVALENT
                                                           OF SHARES      OUTSTANDING       SHARES
                                                           ---------      -----------       ------
<S>                                                        <C>            <C>            <C>
COMMON STOCK
   From Founders' Stock                                     2,300,000       100.00%        2,300,000
   Stock Options Exercised                                  2,508,997        99.74%        2,502,379
   Preferred Stock Converted to Common Stock               15,310,943       100.00%       15,310,943
   1994 Common Stock Offerings                             11,242,857       100.00%       11,242,857
   1995 Common Stock Offerings                              4,323,874       100.00%        4,323,874
   1996 Common Stock Offering                               6,000,000       100.00%        6,000,000
   1999 Treasury Stock Transaction                             (6,588)      100.00%           (6,588)
   March 2000 Debt Swap                                     3,789,715       100.00%        3,789,715
   Canadian Transaction                                       714,286       100.00%          714,286
   Employee Stock Purchase Plan Shares Issued                 190,651        89.03%          169,734
   Warrants Exercised                                         134,737       100.00%          134,737
                                                          -----------                    -----------
                                                           46,509,472                     46,481,937

WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING                                                       46,481,937

NET LOSS                                                                                 (41,432,945)

NET LOSS PER SHARE                                                                            ($0.90)
                                                                                         ===========
</TABLE>
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Richard J. Baltromitis

Submitted May 16

decided May 21, 1968

*L. Scott Melville,*in support of the motion.

The motion by the defendant for a stay of execution of the judgment is denied.
Editorial Note on Part 862
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 862 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 862.1240 Cystine test system. ( a ) *Identification.* A cystine test system is a device intended to measure the amino acid cystine in urine. Cystine measurements are used in the diagnosis of cystinuria (occurrence of cystine in urine). Patients with cystinuria frequently develop kidney calculi (stones).
( 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 § 862.9.
[52 FR 16122, May 1, 1987, as amended at 65 FR 2305, Jan. 14, 2000]
#### Michael Levitt, Harold Mandell and Henry Rush, d/b/a Broadway Insurance Agency, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Lewis T. Taylor, d/b/a Taylor and Company, the United States Life Insurance Company in the City of New York, a Corporation, and Aetna Life and Casualty Insurance Company, a Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

Gen. No. 52,867.

First District.

March 14, 1969.

Sherwin Willens, Hoellen & Willens, of Chicago, for appellants; Hinshaw, Culbertson, Moelmann & Hoban, of Chicago (D. Kendall Griffith and Roy C. Palmer, of counsel), and Lord, Bissell & Brook, of Chicago (Thomas L. Stevens and Paul W. Engstrom, of counsel), for appellees.

Opinion by

JUSTICE CRAVEN.

Not to be published in full.
<PAGE>




March 26, 2003


Jim Green
CEO, Digital Lightwave
15550 Lightwave Drive
Clearwater, FL  33760-3533

Dear Jim,

Following up on my letter to you of March 17, 2003, I would like to confirm the
understanding between Tektronix, Inc. ("Tektronix") and Digital Lightwave, Inc.
("DLI") with respect to DLI's rights under the Lease dated March 15, 2000
between Research Place, L.L.C. as lessor, and Tektronix, as lessee, which covers
the space located in the building designated as 20 Research Place, Chelmsford,
Massachusetts (the "Lease").

Pursuant to the Asset Purchase Agreement between DLI and Tektronix, dated as of
October 30, 2002, DLI agreed to assume Tektonix's obligations under the Lease.
Pursuant to an Assignment and Assumption Agreement, dated as of November 5,
2002, Tektronix assigned to DLI its rights under the Lease, and DLI assumed
Tektronix's obligations under the Lease.

You have indicated that DLI now wishes to assign the Lease back to Tektronix.

This letter will confirm that effective as of March 26, 2003, DLI hereby assigns
all of its rights in and to the Lease to Tektronix. Nothing in this letter or in
the assignment of the Lease is intended to: (1) amend the terms or provisions of
the Asset Purchase Agreement or the Assignment and Assumption; or (2) waive any
claim either party has for breach of the Asset Purchase Agreement or the
Assignment and Assumption Agreement.

This will also confirm that DLI will continue to perform warranty and repair
services for the OTT products.

In return for these considerations, we will allow DLI employees (those who
remain employed at the Chelmsford site) to utilize their current quarters for up
to three months, and we will continue to maintain our network connection for
those employees for a period not to exceed three months. We understand this
employment load to be small.


<PAGE>


Page 2


If this letter accurately sets forth our agreement, please sign in the space
indicated below and return a signed copy to me by fax. Also, please let me know
how we can arrange to pick up the keys to the facility.

Sincerely,



Richard T. King
Vice President, Optical Product Line


ACCEPTED:

DIGITAL LIGHTWAVE, INC.


By:
   ----------------------------------
Office of the Chief Counsel 

RAYMOND VEATCH 

ATIORNEY AT LAW 

209 Glenburn Ave. 

CAMBRIDGE, MARYLAND 21613 

telephone, (678) 478-6322 

e.tnail: manager®intetnationalacs.com 

December 22, 2014 

Attn: Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket, AGC-610 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W., Room 912 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Re: McDonough Properties, L.L.C., M & R Holdings, L.L.C., Tri-D, L.L.C., and 

FrankBarnettv. CityofWetumpka. DocketNo.16-12-11. 

Dear Docket Clerk, 

Please change my address of record relating to the Part 16 case reference above to: 

Raymond Veatch 

Attorney at Law 

209 Glenburn Ave. 

Cambridge, MD 21613 

Thank you. 

,,./ 

Sincerely, / 

/2 i/ 

.~~~:t~J:£~~ Attomev for the Comolainants 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing change of address on the 

following persons at the following addresses by regular mail: 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attn: Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket, AGC-610 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W., Room 912 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Pablo 0. Ni.iesch, Esq. 

Anjali G. Pate, Esq. 

Spiegel & McDiarmid, LLP 

1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20036 

Dated this 22nd day of December, 2014. 

-c.RAYMOND VEATCH 

for the Complainants 

Raymond Veatch 

209 Glenburn Ave. 

Cambridge, Maryland 21613 

Telephone: (678) 478-6322 

e-mail: manager@internationalacs.com 

(original and 3 copies)
§ 1.145-2 Application of private activity bond regulations. ( a ) *In general.* Except as provided in this section, §§ 1.141-0 through 1.141-15 apply to section 145(a). For example, under this section, § 1.141-1, and § 1.141-2, an issue ceases to be an issue of qualified 501(c)(3) bonds if the issuer or a conduit borrower 501(c)(3) organization takes a deliberate action, subsequent to the issue date, that causes the issue to fail to comply with the requirements of sections 141(e) and 145 (such as an action that results in revocation of exempt status of the 501(c)(3) organization).
( b ) *Modification of private business tests.* In applying §§ 1.141-0 through 1.141-15 to section 145(a)— ( 1 ) References to governmental persons include 501(c)(3) organizations with respect to their activities that do not constitute unrelated trades or businesses under section 513(a);
( 2 ) References to “10 percent” and “proceeds” in the context of the private business use test and the private security or payment test mean “5 percent” and “net proceeds”; and
( 3 ) References to the private business use test in §§ 1.141-2 and 1.141-12 include the ownership test of section 145(a)(1).
( 4 ) References to *governmental bonds* in § 1.141-6 mean qualified 501(c)(3) bonds.
( 5 ) References to *ownership by governmental persons* in § 1.141-6 mean ownership by governmental persons or 501(c)(3) organizations.
( c ) *Exceptions* — ( 1 ) *Certain provisions relating to governmental programs.* The following provisions do not apply to section 145: § 1.141-2(d)(4) (relating to the special rule for dispositions of personal property in the ordinary course of an established governmental program) and § 1.141-2(d)(5) (relating to the special rule for general obligation bond programs that finance a large number of separate purposes).
( 2 ) *Costs of issuance.* Sections 1.141-3(g)(6) and 1.141-6(d) do not apply to the extent costs of issuance are allocated among the other purposes for which the proceeds are used or to portions of a project. For purposes of section 145(a)(2), costs of issuance are treated as private business use.
( d ) *Issuance costs financed by prior issue.* Solely for purposes of applying the private business use test to a refunding issue under § 1.141-13, the use of proceeds of the prior issue (or any earlier issue in a series of refundings) to pay issuance costs of the prior issue (or the earlier issue) is treated as a government use.
[T.D. 8712, 62 FR 2303, Jan. 16, 1997, as amended by T.D. 9234, 70 FR 75035, Dec. 19, 2005; T.D. 9741, 80 FR 65646, Oct. 27, 2015]
§ 884.6130 Assisted reproduction microtools. ( a ) *Identification.* Assisted reproduction microtools are pipettes or other devices used in the laboratory to denude, micromanipulate, hold, or transfer human gametes or embryos for assisted hatching, intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), or other assisted reproduction methods.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls) (mouse embryo assay information, endotoxin testing, sterilization validation, design specifications, labeling requirements, and clinical testing). The device, when the assisted reproduction microtools (pipettes) are manufactured from glass, is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 884.9.
[45 FR 12684, Feb. 26, 1980, as amended at 84 FR 71816, Dec. 30, 2019]
Editorial Note on Part 880
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 880 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 880.2720 Patient scale. ( a ) *Identification.* A patient scale is a device intended for medical purposes that is used to measure the weight of a patient who cannot stand on a scale. This generic device includes devices placed under a bed or chair to weigh both the support and the patient, devices where the patient is lifted by a sling from a bed to be weighed, and devices where the patient is placed on the scale platform to be weighed. The device may be mechanical, battery powered, or AC-powered and may include transducers, electronic signal amplification, conditioning and display equipment.
( 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.
[45 FR 69682, Oct. 21, 1980, as amended at 61 FR 1123, Jan. 16, 1996; 66 FR 38803, July 25, 2001]
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 1244

REDMOND HOWARD , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. EDWARD RUSSO; JORDAN GEIBEL; SCOTT HAMILTON , Defendants

- Appellees,
and JEFFREY FLOYD; KAREN FLOYD; JONATHAN SCHMEDEL,
Defendants

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. George L. Russell, III , District Judge. ( 1:16

- cv
- 03948

- GLR )

Submitted : May 24, 2018 Decided: May 30, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Redmond Howard, Appellant Pro Se. Jordan Geibel, Appellee Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Redmond Howard seeks to appeal the district court’s order addressing the various motions Howard filed in a pending civil suit. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). The order Howard seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of juri sdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED