alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 895.1 Scope. ( a ) This part describes the procedures by which the Commissioner may institute proceedings to make a device intended for human use that presents substantial deception or an unreasonable and substantial risk of illness or injury a banned device.
( b ) This part applies to any “device”, as defined in section 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (act) that is intended for human use.
( c ) A device that is made a banned device in accordance with this part is adulterated under section 501(g) of the act. A restricted device that is banned may also be misbranded under section 502(q) of the act.
( d ) Although this part does not cover devices intended for animal use, the manufacturer, distributor, importer, or any other person(s) responsible for the labeling of the device that is banned cannot avoid the ban by relabeling the device for veterinary use. A device that has been banned from human use but that also has a valid veterinary use may be marketed for use as a veterinary device only under the following conditions: The device shall comply with all requirements applicable to veterinary devices under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and this chapter, and the label for the device shall bear the following statement: “For Veterinary Use Only. Caution: Federal law prohibits the distribution of this device for human use.” A device so labeled, however, that is determined by the Food and Drug Administration to be intended for human use, will be considered to be a banned device. In determining whether such a device is intended for human use, the Food and Drug Administration will consider, among other things, the ultimate destination of the device.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                                                                   Exhibit 10.29

              SUMMARY OF 2007 ANNUAL SALARIES OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                         ANNUAL
EXECUTIVE OFFICER                                                        SALARY
-----------------                                                       --------
<S>                                                                     <C>
Leo Berlinghieri, President and Chief Executive Officer                 $485,000
Gerald G. Colella, Chief Business Officer and Vice President            $350,000
Ron Hadar, Vice President & General Manager, CIT Products               $250,000
Robert Klimm, Vice President & General Manager, Power and Reactive
   Gas Products                                                         $247,000
Frank Schneider, Vice President & General Manager, Ion Systems          $235,000
John A. Smith, Vice President and Chief Technical Officer               $285,000
William D. Stewart, Vice President & General Manager, Vacuum Products
   Group                                                                $260,000
Ronald C. Weigner, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer           $263,000
</TABLE>
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 30103 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

LIONEL THOMAS, also known as L.T. Thomas, also known as Stellie Thomas

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:14

- CR

- 246

- 1

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Lionel Thomas has moved for leave

to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386
U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Thomas has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the
relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Thomas ’s response.
We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 16, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-30103 Document: 00514603343 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/16/2018No. 18

- 30103

2 issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is
GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R . 42.2. Case: 18-30103 Document: 00514603343 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/16/2018
**Exhibit 31.1****Certification of Chief Executive Officer of Neenah Enterprises, Inc. pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) orRule 15d-14(a), as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**I, Robert E. Ostendorf, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of Neenah Enterprises, Inc.,certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Neenah Enterprises, Inc;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any changes in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materially affected or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.DATE: February 14, 2008         /s/ Robert E. Ostendorf, Jr.   Robert E. Ostendorf, Jr.   President and Chief Executive Officer  
32
§ 1.6062-1 Signing of returns, statements, and other documents made by corporations. ( a ) *Returns* — ( 1 ) *In general.* Returns required to be made by corporations under the provisions of subtitle A or F of the Code, or the regulations thereunder, with respect to any tax imposed by subtitle A of the Code, shall be signed for the corporation by the president, vice-president, treasurer, assistant treasurer, chief accounting officer, or any other officer duly authorized to sign such returns. It is not necessary that the corporate seal be affixed to the return. Spaces provided on return forms for affixing the corporate seal are for the convenience of corporations required by charter, or by law of the jurisdiction in which they are incorporated, to affix their corporate seals in the execution of instruments.
( 2 ) *By fiduciaries.* A return with respect to income required to be made for a corporation by a fiduciary, pursuant to the provisions of section 6012(b)(3), shall be signed by such fiduciary. See paragraph (b)(4) of § 1.6012-3.
( 3 ) *By agents.* A return with respect to income required to be made by an agent for a foreign corporation shall be signed by such agent. See paragraph (g) of § 1.6012-2.
( b ) *Statements and other documents.* Statements and other documents required to be made by or for corporations under the provisions of subtitle A or F of the Code, or the regulations thereunder, with respect to any tax imposed by subtitle A, shall be signed in accordance with the regulations contained in this chapter, or the forms and instructions, issued with respect to such statements or other documents.
( c ) *Evidence of authority to sign.* An individual's signature on a return, statement, or other document made by or for a corporation shall be prima facie evidence that such individual is authorized to sign such return, statement, or other document.
( d ) *Related provisions.* For the rules realating to the verification of returns, see § 1.6065-1.
[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 12108, Nov. 26, 1960, as amended by T.D. 7293, 38 FR 32804, Nov. 28, 1973]
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion on Remand filed May 29, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-00769-CR

CURTIS JAMES PRITCHARD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 8

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1804094

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REMAND

Appellant Curtis James Pritchard appeals his conviction for assault of a 

family member. On original submission, appellant argued that there was 

insufficient evidence in the record to support the court’s costs of $342 reflected in 

the judgment. We agreed and modified the trial court’s judgment to delete the 

specific amount of costs assessed. Pritchard v. State, No. 14-12-00769-CR; 2014

WL 119003 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 14, 2014) vacated and 
2

remanded, No. PD-0070-14; 2014 WL 1512892 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 16, 2014). 

The Court of Criminal Appeals vacated our judgment and remanded in light of its 

opinion in Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

The judgment includes an assessment of $342 in court costs. A supplemental

clerk’s record was filed, which contains a certified, signed bill of costs listing $342

in court costs. We review the assessment of court costs on appeal to determine if 

there is a basis for the costs, not to determine whether there was sufficient evidence 

offered at trial to prove each cost. Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d at 390. Traditional 

sufficiency-of-the-evidence standards of review do not apply. Id.

Generally, a bill of costs must (1) contain the items of cost, (2) be signed by 

the officer who charged the cost or the officer who is entitled to receive payment 

for the cost, and (3) be certified. Id. at 392–93; see Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. 

arts. 103.001, 103.006. The record supports the assessment of costs in this case 

because the record contains a bill of costs that contains each item of cost, is signed 

by a representative of the district clerk’s office who is entitled to receive payment 

of the costs, and is certified. See Johnson, 423 S.W.3d at 393. 

The trial court assessed $342 in costs against appellant. The sum of the 

itemized costs in the cost bill is $342. There being no challenge to any specific cost 

or the basis for the assessment of such cost, the bill of costs supports the costs 

assessed in the judgment. Id. at 396. The fact that the bill of costs was not prepared 

until after the court signed the judgment does not defeat the lawfulness of the bill 

of costs. Id. at 394. (“[M]atters pertaining to the imposition of court costs need not 

be brought to the attention of the trial court, including a bill of costs prepared after 

a criminal trial.”).
3

On remand, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Christopher, and Brown.

Do Not Publish — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Appendix 9.7

BART Agreements
§ 876.1520 Gastrointestinal lesion software detection system. ( a ) *Identification.* A gastrointestinal lesion software detection system is a computer-assisted detection device used in conjunction with endoscopy for the detection of abnormal lesions in the gastrointestinal tract. This device with advanced software algorithms brings attention to images to aid in the detection of lesions. The device may contain hardware to support interfacing with an endoscope.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are: ( 1 ) Clinical performance testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use, including detection of gastrointestinal lesions and evaluation of all adverse events.
( 2 ) Non-clinical performance testing must demonstrate that the device performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. Testing must include: ( i ) Standalone algorithm performance testing;
( ii ) Pixel-level comparison of degradation of image quality due to the device;
( iii ) Assessment of video delay due to marker annotation; and
( iv ) Assessment of real-time endoscopic video delay due to the device.
( 3 ) Usability assessment must demonstrate that the intended user(s) can safely and correctly use the device.
( 4 ) Performance data must demonstrate electromagnetic compatibility and electrical safety, mechanical safety, and thermal safety testing for any hardware components of the device.
( 5 ) Software verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be provided. Software description must include a detailed, technical description including the impact of any software and hardware on the device's functions, the associated capabilities and limitations of each part, the associated inputs and outputs, mapping of the software architecture, and a description of the video signal pipeline.
( 6 ) Labeling must include: ( i ) Instructions for use, including a detailed description of the device and compatibility information;
( ii ) Warnings to avoid overreliance on the device, that the device is not intended to be used for diagnosis or characterization of lesions, and that the device does not replace clinical decision making;
( iii ) A summary of the clinical performance testing conducted with the device, including detailed definitions of the study endpoints and statistical confidence intervals; and
( iv ) A summary of the standalone performance testing and associated statistical analysis.
[88 FR 10, Jan. 3, 2023]
EX-10.21 THIRD AMENDMENT TO INCENTIVE PLAN



 





EXHIBIT 10.21




THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE

FLOWERS FOODS, INC.

2001 EQUITY AND PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN




(as Previously Amended and Restated Effective February 11, 2005)




     THIS AMENDMENT is made this 23rd day of January, 2007, by FLOWERS FOODS, INC., a
Georgia corporation (the “Company”), to the FLOWERS FOODS, INC. 2001 EQUITY AND PERFORMANCE
INCENTIVE PLAN, which has been previously amended and restated (the “Plan”).



     WHEREAS, the Company has previously adopted and restated the Plan, and pursuant to Section 18
thereof, the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) has the authority to amend the Plan,
subject in certain cases to the approval of the Company’s shareholders; and,



     WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of the Board on January 2, 2007 authorized this amendment
of the Plan;



     NOW THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows, effective as of January 2, 2007:



1.




     Section 2 of the Plan is amended by deleting the existing definition of “Fair Market Value”
and by inserting in its place the following:




“Fair Market Value” means (i) the closing price of a share of Common
Stock as reported on the composite tape for securities listed on the
New York Stock Exchange, or such other national securities exchange
as may be designated by the Committee, or, in the event that the
Common Stock is not listed for trading on a national securities
exchange but is quoted on an automated system, on such automated
system, in any such case on the valuation date (or, if there were no
sales on the valuation date, the closing price as reported on said
composite tape or automated system for the most recent day during
which a sale occurred), or (ii) if clause (i) does not apply, the
fair market value of the Common Stock as determined by the Board.



2.




     The remaining provisions of the Plan are hereby ratified and confirmed.



 









 




     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has executed this Third Amendment pursuant to authorization by
the Board.




FLOWERS FOODS, INC.




By: /s/ Stephen R. Avera

Title: Senior Vice-President, Secretary and General Counsel
#### People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fred Roy Richmond and Robert Kenneth Sanders, Also Known as Robert Shambley, Defendants-Appellants.

Gen. No. 68-120.

Second District.

March 24, 1969.

*395Rex F. Meilinger, of Aurora, for appellants; William R. Ketcham, State’s Attorney of Kane County, of Elgin (W. Ben Morgan, Assistant State’s Attorney, of counsel), for appellee.

Opinion by

JUSTICE ABRAHAMSON.

Not to be published in full.
```

[115th Congress Public Law 39]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 131 STAT. 860]]

Public Law 115-39
115th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
at 719 Church Street in Nashville, Tennessee, as the ``Fred D. Thompson 
    Federal Building and United States Courthouse''. <<NOTE: June 6, 
                          2017 -  [H.R. 375]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building and United States courthouse located at 719 
Church Street in Nashville, Tennessee, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Fred D. Thompson Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building and United States 
courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to 
the ``Fred D. Thompson Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

    Approved June 6, 2017.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 375:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 115-23 (Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 163 (2017):
            Mar. 7, considered and passed House.
            May 24, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
§ 1.611-5 Depreciation of improvements. ( a ) *In general.* Section 611 provides in the case of mines, oil and gas wells, other natural deposits, and timber that there shall be allowed as a deduction a reasonable allowance for depreciation of improvements. Such allowance shall include exhaustion, wear and tear, and obsolescence. The deduction allowed under section 611 shall be determined under the provisions of section 167 and the regulations thereunder. For purposes of section 167 the unit of production method may, under appropriate circumstances, be considered a reasonable method under section 167(a), and therefore, not subject to the limitations prescribed by section 167(b).
( b ) *Special rules for mines, oil and gas wells, other natural deposits and timber.* ( 1 ) For principles governing the apportioning of depreciation allowances under sections 611 and 167 in the case of property held by one person for life with remainder to another or in the case of property held in trust or by an estate, see § 1.167(h)-1.
( 2 ) A reasonable allowance for depreciation on account of obsolescence or decay shall be required in an appropriate case during periods when the improvement is not used in production or is used in producing at a rate below its normal capacity. This rule is applicable whether or not the taxpayer uses the unit of production method.
( 3 ) See sections 615 and 616 and the regulations thereunder for special rules for treatment of allowances for depreciation of improvements with respect to the exploration and development of a mine or other natural deposit (other than oil or gas).
( 4 ) In the case of operating oil or gas properties, the deduction for depreciation shall be allowed for those costs of improvements such as machinery, tools, equipment, pipes, and other similar items and the costs of installation which are not treated as a deductible expense under section 263(c). See § 1.612-4.
( c ) *Accounting and recordkeeping.* See § 1.167(a)-7 for accounting and recordkeeping requirements for taxpayers claiming deductions under section 611 and this section.
[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 11737, Nov. 26, 1960, as amended by T.D. 6712, 29 FR 3655, Mar. 24, 1964; T.D. 6836, 30 FR 8902, July 15, 1965]
#### § 1.481-3 Adjustments attributable to pre-1954 years where change was not initiated by taxpayer.

If the adjustments required by section 481(a) and § 1.481-1 are attributable to a change in method of accounting which was not initiated by the taxpayer, no portion of any adjustments which is attributable to pre-1954 years shall be taken into account in computing taxable income. For example, if the total adjustments in the case of a change in method of accounting which is not initiated by the taxpayer amount to $10,000, of which $4,000 is attributable to pre-1954 years, only $6,000 of the $10,000 total adjustments is required to be taken into account under section 481 in computing taxable income. The portion of the adjustments which is attributable to pre-1954 years is the net amount of the adjustments which would have been required if the taxpayer had changed his method of accounting in his first taxable year which began after December 31, 1953, and ended after August 16, 1954.

[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 11735, Nov. 26, 1960, as amended by T.D. 8608, 60 FR 40079, Aug. 7, 1995]
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-22-00013-CV

THE HENDERSON-WESSENDORFF FOUNDATION,

Appellant

v.

PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES USA, INC.,

Appellee

From the 218th Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas

Trial Court No. 17-08-00196-CVK

Honorable Lynn Ellison, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 25, 2022

VACATED AND DISMISSED

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(e), the parties filed an agreed motion 

requesting this court: (1) vacate the trial court’s judgment that was signed on December 12, 2021; 

(2) dismiss the entire case with prejudice; (3) allocate costs against the party incurring same; and 

(4) issue its mandate. We grant the motion, vacate the trial court’s judgment, and dismiss the case 

with prejudice. TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(e). The clerk of the court is instructed to issue the mandate 

immediately. TEX. R. APP. P. 18.1(c). Costs of appeal are taxed against the parties that incurred 

them. TEX. R. APP. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM