alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 884.2980 Telethermographic system. ( a ) *Telethermographic system intended for adjunctive diagnostic screening for detection of breast cancer or other uses* — ( 1 ) *Identification.* A telethermographic system for adjunctive diagnostic screening for detection of breast cancer or other uses is an electrically powered device with a detector that is intended to measure, without touching the patient's skin, the self-emanating infrared radiation that reveals the temperature variations of the surface of the body. This generic type of device may include signal analysis and display equipment, patient and equipment supports, component parts, and accessories.
( 2 ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls).
( b ) *Telethermographic system intended for use alone in diagnostic screening for detection of breast cancer or other uses* — ( 1 ) *Identification.* A telethermographic system for use as the sole diagnostic screening tool for detection of breast cancer or other uses is an electrically powered device with a detector that is intended to measure, without touching the patient's skin, the self-emanating infrared radiation that reveals the temperature variations of the surface of the body. This generic type of device may include signal analysis and display equipment, patient and equipment supports, component parts, and accessories.
( 2 ) *Classification.* Class III.
( 3 ) *Date PMA or notice of completion of a PDP is required.* As of the enactment date of the amendments, May 28, 1976, an approval under section 515 of the act is required before the device described in paragraph (b)(1) may be commercially distributed. See § 884.3.
[53 FR 1566, Jan. 20, 1988, as amended at 55 FR 48440, Nov. 20, 1990; 66 FR 46953, Sept. 10, 2001]
§ 1.1502-0 Effective dates. ( a ) The regulations under section 1502 are applicable to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1965, except as otherwise provided therein.
( b ) The provisions of §§ 1.1502-0A through 1.1502-3A, 1.1502-10A through 1.1502-19A, and 1.1502-30A through 1.1502-51A (as contained in the 26 CFR part 1 edition revised April 1, 1996) are applicable to taxable years beginning before January 1, 1966.
[T.D. 8677, 61 FR 33325, June 27, 1996]
FILED

March 6, 1998

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

WESTERN SECTION AT NASHVILLE

RICKYE D. ANDERSON, ) 

)

Plaintiff/Appellant, ) Rutherford Chancery No. 91DR-506

)

VS. ) Appeal No. 01A01-9704-CH-00186

)

L. LOIS ANDERSON, )

)

Defendant/Appellee. )

 

O R D E R

 

Appellant has filed a petition to rehear which, after due consideration is

respectfully denied.

So ordered this _______ day of March, 1998.

 

HIGHERS, J.

 

FARMER, J.

 

TOMLIN, Sr. J.
# Amtsblatt L 272/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0642 |
| --- | --- |
| Amtsblatt
  der Europäischen Union | L 272 |
| | |
| Ausgabe in deutscher Sprache | Rechtsvorschriften | 63. Jahrgang19. August 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0642

Amtsblatt

der Europäischen Union

L 272

Ausgabe in deutscher Sprache

Rechtsvorschriften

63. Jahrgang19. August 2020

---

| Inhalt | | Berichtigungen | Seite |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Berichtigung des Endgültigen Erlasses (EU, Euratom) 2020/1078 des Berichtigungshaushaltsplans Nr. 4 der Europäischen Union für das Haushaltsjahr 2020 ( ABl. L 254 vom 4.8.2020 ) | 1 |

Inhalt

Berichtigungen

Seite

*

Berichtigung des Endgültigen Erlasses (EU, Euratom) 2020/1078 des Berichtigungshaushaltsplans Nr. 4 der Europäischen Union für das Haushaltsjahr 2020 ( ABl. L 254 vom 4.8.2020 )

( ABl. L 254 vom 4.8.2020 )

1

| DE | Bei Rechtsakten, deren Titel in magerer Schrift gedruckt sind, handelt es sich um Rechtsakte der laufenden Verwaltung im Bereich der Agrarpolitik, die normalerweise nur eine begrenzte Geltungsdauer haben.
  Rechtsakte, deren Titel in fetter Schrift gedruckt sind und denen ein Sternchen vorangestellt ist, sind sonstige Rechtsakte. |
| --- | --- |

DE

Bei Rechtsakten, deren Titel in magerer Schrift gedruckt sind, handelt es sich um Rechtsakte der laufenden Verwaltung im Bereich der Agrarpolitik, die normalerweise nur eine begrenzte Geltungsdauer haben.

Rechtsakte, deren Titel in fetter Schrift gedruckt sind und denen ein Sternchen vorangestellt ist, sind sonstige Rechtsakte.

---

Berichtigungen

| 19.8.2020 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 272/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2020

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 272/1

---

Berichtigung des Endgültigen Erlasses (EU, Euratom) 2020/1078 des Berichtigungshaushaltsplans Nr. 4 der Europäischen Union für das Haushaltsjahr 2020

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 254 vom 4. August 2020
  )

Auf Seite 36, Reihe „Insgesamt”, in der Spalte „Haushaltsplan 2020 — Zahlungen“:

Anstatt:

„
  167 248 223 575
  “

muss es heißen:

„
  150 948 403 832
  “.

Auf Seite 36, Reihe “Insgesamt”, in der Spalte “Neuer Betrag — Zahlungen“:

Anstatt:

„
  167 520 721 783
  “

muss es heißen:

„
  151 220 902 040
  “.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           886,399
<SECURITIES>                                     509,766
<RECEIVABLES>                                    151,498
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                    1,857,127
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               3,576,965
<PP&E>                                         1,749,662
<DEPRECIATION>                                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6,889,808
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            937,961
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                           8,865
<OTHER-SE>                                     3,692,982
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   6,889,808
<SALES>                                        2,045,210
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,045,210
<CGS>                                          1,044,489
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               5,615,947
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (4,668,804)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (4,668,804)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (4,668,804)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0.54)



</TABLE>
#### § 1.642(a)(1)-1 Partially tax-exempt interest.

An estate or trust is allowed the credit against tax for partially tax-exempt interest provided by section 35 only to the extent that the credit does not relate to interest properly allocable to a beneficiary under section 652 or 662 and the regulations thereunder. A beneficiary of an estate or trust is allowed the credit against tax for partially tax-exempt interest provided by section 35 only to the extent that the credit relates to interest properly allocable to him under section 652 or 662 and the regulations thereunder. If an estate or trust holds partially tax-exempt bonds and elects under section 171 to treat the premium on the bonds as amortizable, the credit allowable under section 35, with respect to the bond interest (whether allowable to the estate or trust or to the beneficiary), is reduced under section 171(a)(3) by reducing the shares of the interest allocable, respectively, to the estate or trust and its beneficiary by the portion of the amortization deduction attributable to the shares.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

APR 27, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-10599

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 04-00067-CR-T-26-MAP

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

LEE CURTIS ROBINSON, 

a.k.a. Fat, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(April 27, 2006)

Before DUBINA, CARNES and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Todd Hudson Seiden, counsel for Lee Curtis Robinson, has moved to
2

withdraw from further representation of Williams, because, in his opinion, the

appeal is without merit. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Independent review of the

entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is

correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable

issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Robinson’s

conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
Editorial Note on Part 872
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 872 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 872.3645 Subperiosteal implant material. ( a ) *Identification.* Subperiosteal implant material is a device composed of titanium or cobalt chrome molybdenum intended to construct custom prosthetic devices which are surgically implanted into the lower or upper jaw between the periosteum (connective tissue covering the bone) and supporting bony structures. The device is intended to provide support for prostheses, such as dentures.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
# C_2014361EN.01001102.xml

| 13.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 361/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 361/11

---

Action brought on 30 July 2014 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO FLUIDE DE PLANTE PROPRE FABRICATION)

(Case T-568/14)

2014/C 361/15

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Laverana GmbH & Co. KG (Wennigsen, Germany) (represented by J. Wachinger, M. Zöbisch and D. Chatterjee, lawyers)

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 Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 May 2014 in case R 120/2014-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 May 2014 in case R 120/2014-4;

| — | order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark which contains the word elements ‘BIO FLUIDE DE PLANTE PROPRE FABRICATION’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 9 22  631

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

Pleas in law:

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Misuse of powers by a decision on the basis of competition policy considerations |
| --- | --- |

—

Misuse of powers by a decision on the basis of competition policy considerations

---
#### § 1.501(c)(6)-1 Business leagues, chambers of commerce, real estate boards, and boards of trade.

A business league is an association of persons having some common business interest, the purpose of which is to promote such common interest and not to engage in a regular business of a kind ordinarily carried on for profit. It is an organization of the same general class as a chamber of commerce or board of trade. Thus, its activities should be directed to the improvement of business conditions of one or more lines of business as distinguished from the performance of particular services for individual persons. An organization whose purpose is to engage in a regular business of a kind ordinarily carried on for profit, even though the business is conducted on a cooperative basis or produces only sufficient income to be self-sustaining, is not a business league. An association engaged in furnishing information to prospective investors, to enable them to make sound investments, is not a business league, since its activities do not further any common business interest, even though all of its income is devoted to the purpose stated. A stock or commodity exchange is not a business league, a chamber of commerce, or a board of trade within the meaning of section 501(c)(6) and is not exempt from tax. Organizations otherwise exempt from tax under this section are taxable upon their unrelated business taxable income. See part II (section 511 and following), subchapter F, chapter 1 of the Code, and the regulations thereunder.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 9, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10808-10809]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4972]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket Nos. FDA-2005-C-0245, FDA-2005-C-0416, and FDA-2005-C-0504] 
(formerly Docket Nos. 2005C-0302, 2005C-0303, and 2005C-0304)


CIBA Vision Corp.; Withdrawal of Color Additive Petitions

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the 
withdrawal, without prejudice to a future filing, of three color 
additive petitions (CAP 5C0278, CAP 5C0279, and CAP 5C0280) proposing 
that the color additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe 
use of Color Index (C.I.) Pigment Violet 19, C.I. Pigment Yellow 154, 
and C.I. Pigment Red 122 as color additives in contact lenses.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Celeste Johnston, Center for Food 
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-265), Food and Drug Administration, 
5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740-3835, 301-436-1282.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a notice published in the Federal 
Register of August 17, 2005 (70 FR 48426), FDA announced that three 
color additive petitions had been filed by CIBA Vision Corp., 11460 
Johns Creek Pkwy., Duluth, GA 30097-1556. The petitions proposed to 
amend the color additive regulations in Part 73 Listing of Color 
Additives Exempt from Certification (21 CFR part 73) to provide for the 
safe use of C.I. Pigment Violet 19 (CAP 5C0278, Docket No. FDA-2005-C-
0245), C.I. Pigment Yellow 154 (CAP 5C0279, Docket No. FDA-2005-C-
0416), and C.I. Pigment Red 122 (CAP 5C0280, Docket No. FDA-2005-C-
0504) as color additives in contact lenses. CIBA Vision Corp. has now 
withdrawn the petitions without prejudice to a future filing (21 CFR 
71.6(c)(2)).


[[Page 10809]]


    Dated: February 18, 2010.
Mitchell A. Cheeseman,
Acting Director, Office of Food Additive Safety, Center for Food Safety 
and Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. 2010-4972 Filed 3-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
Exhibit 32


               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 GUNDAKER/JORDAN AMERICAN HOLDINGS,
INC. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005, (the
"Report"), I, W. Neal Jordan, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial and
Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

1)     The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of
       operations.


September 22, 2005

/s/ W. Neal Jordan
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial and
Accounting Officer
EXHIBIT 10.1


                                 March 12, 1999

Synthelabo
22 Avenue Galilee
92350 Le Plessis Robinson
FRANCE

ATTN: Jean-Pierre Charlet

Dear Sirs:

      This letter is intended to memorialize our mutual agreement regarding the
securities to be issued by Angeion Corporation (the "Company") to Synthelabo
pursuant to Sections 2.2(b) and 2.2(c) of that certain Amended and Restated
Investment and Master Strategic Relationship Agreement, dated as of October 9,
1997, by and between Angeion Corporation and Syhthelabo (the "Investment
Agreement"). All terms not defined herein shall have the same meanings as set
forth in the Investment Agreement. In consideration of the agreements contained
herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is
hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

      1. In consideration of receipt by the Company from Synthelabo of an
aggregate amount in cash equal to the sum of the Third Investment Purchase Price
and the Fourth Investment Purchase Price, the Company shall issue to Synthelabo
(a) a warrant in the form attached as Exhibit A hereto and (b) a warrant in the
form attached as Exhibit B hereto (the "Warrants"). The Company and Synthelabo
acknowledge and agree that delivery of the Warrants by the Company to Synthelabo
is in place of, and satisfies (i) any obligation of the Company to deliver, and
(ii) any obligation of Synthelabo to purchase, the Third Investment Shares, the
Third Investment Warrants, the Fourth Investment Shares and the Fourth
Investment Warrants.

      2. This letter agreement shall be governed by and construed and enforced
in accordance with the laws of the State of New York.


<PAGE>


Synthelabo
March 12, 1999
Page Two

      Please acknowledge Synthelabo's agreement with the foregoing by executing
this letter on the signature line provided below.

                                       Sincerely yours,

                                       ANGEION CORPORATION


                                       By: /s/ James B. Hickey, Jr.
                                           ------------------------------------
                                               James B. Hickey, Jr.
                                                  President and
                                             Chief Executive Officer
ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED TO:

SYNTHELABO


By:   /s/ Jean Pierre Charlet
    -------------------------------------------
Name:     Jean Pierre Charlet
      -----------------------------------------
Title:    Vice President General Counsel
       ----------------------------------------


By:   /s/ Philippe Goupit
    -------------------------------------------
Name:     Philippe Goupit
      -----------------------------------------
Title:    Business Development Project Director
       ----------------------------------------
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 63 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 63

  To authorize representation of Members of the Senate in the case of 
                  Bobbie Hill v. Bill Clinton, et al.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             February 3 (legislative day, January 5), 1993

    Mr. Mitchell (for himself and Mr. Dole) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  To authorize representation of Members of the Senate in the case of 
                  Bobbie Hill v. Bill Clinton, et al.

Whereas, in the case of Bobbie Hill v. Bill Clinton, et al., No. 92-6171, 
        pending in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, the plaintiff 
        has named, among others, Senator Dale Bumpers and Senator David Pryor as 
        defendants; and
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(1) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(1), the Senate may 
        direct its counsel to defend Members of the Senate in civil actions 
        relating to their official or representative capacity: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That, the Senate Legal Counsel is directed to represent 
Senator Dale Bumpers and Senator David Pryor in the case of Bobbie Hill 
v. Bill Clinton, et al.

                                 <all>
```
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 25, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136969 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136969 

 COA: 285220 

Wayne CC: 04-005943

CHUCKIE LEDORIAN OWNEY, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 5, 2008 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l1117 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 25, 2008 

 Clerk