alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
800 Independence Ave., S.W.

Washington, DC 20591

AFS-11-393-P

November 7, 2012

Mr. Jim Parker

Quality Manager

Precision Medical, Inc.

300 Held Drive

Northampton, PA 18067

Dear Mr. Parker:

In your July 22, 2010, letter, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

to amend Special Federal Aviation Regulation 106, Section 2 and Section 3(a) of Title 

14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). This amendment would include the Precision 

Medical, Inc., EasyPulse Portable Oxygen Concentrator (POC) as an approved POC for 

on board aircraft.

The FAA amended SFAR 106 on October 16, 2012, (77 FR 63217) to add the following

POC devices that may be carried on and used by a passenger on board an aircraft: 

• AirSep Focus

• AirSep Freestyle 5

• Inogen One G3

• Inova Labs LifeChoice Activox

• Respironics Simply Go

• Precision Medical EasyPulse

• SeQual SAROS

Therefore, we will take no further action on this petition and Docket No. FAA-2011-0784

is being closed.

Sincerely,

/s/

Ida M. Klepper

Manager, Airmen and 

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
114 STAT. 1988 PUBLIC LAW 106–460—NOV. 7, 2000

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 1218:

SENATE REPORTS: No. 106–245 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):

Apr. 13, considered and passed Senate.

Oct. 23, considered and passed House.

Æ

Public Law 106–460

106th Congress

An Act

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to issue to the Landusky School District,

without consideration, a patent for the surface and mineral estates of certain

lots, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled, That subject

to valid existing rights, the Secretary of the Interior shall issue

to the Landusky School District, without consideration, a patent

for the surface and mineral estates of approximately 2.06 acres

of land as follows: T.25 N, R.24 E, Montana Prime Meridian, section

27, block 2, school reserve, and section 27, block 3, lot 13.

Approved November 7, 2000.

Nov. 7, 2000

[S. 1218]
§ 555.506 Investment and reinvestment of certain funds. Subject to the requirements of § 555.203, U.S. financial institutions are authorized to invest and reinvest assets blocked pursuant to § 555.201, subject to the following conditions: ( a ) The assets representing such investments and reinvestments are credited to a blocked account or subaccount that is held in the same name at the same U.S. financial institution, or within the possession or control of a U.S. person, but funds shall not be transferred outside the United States for this purpose;
( b ) The proceeds of such investments and reinvestments shall not be credited to a blocked account or subaccount under any name or designation that differs from the name or designation of the specific blocked account or subaccount in which such funds or securities were held; and
( c ) No immediate financial or economic benefit accrues (*e.g.,* through pledging or other use) to a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 555.201.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

#### § 342.9 Fiscal agents.

(a) Federal Reserve Banks and Branches referred to below, as fiscal agents of the United States, are authorized to perform such services as may be requested of them by the Secretary of the Treasury, or his or her delegate, in connection with the issue, redemption and payment of savings notes.

(b)

(1) The following Federal Reserve Offices have been designated to provide savings bond services:

| Servicing office | Reserve districts served | Geographic area served |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Federal Reserve Bank, Buffalo Branch, P.O. Box 961, Buffalo, NY 14240 | New York, Boston | CT, MA, ME, NH, NJ (northern half), NY (City & State), RI, VT, Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands. |
| Federal Reserve Bank, Pittsburgh Branch, P.O. Box 867, Pittsburgh, PA 15230 | Cleveland, Philadelphia | DE, KY (eastern half), NJ (southern half), OH, PA, WV (northern panhandle). |
| Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, P.O. Box 27622, Richmond, VA 23261 | Richmond, Atlanta | AL, DC, FL, LA (southern half), MD, MS (southern half), NC, SC, TN (eastern half), VA, WV (except northern panhandle). |
| Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, 250 Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55480 | Minneapolis, Chicago | IA, IL (northern half), IN (northern half), MN, MT, ND, SD, WI. |
| Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, MO 64198 | Dallas, San Francisco, Kansas City, St. Louis | AK, AR, AZ, CA, CO, HI, ID, IL (southern half), IN (southern half), KS, KY (western half), LA (northern half), MO, MS (northern half), NE, NM, NV, OK, OR, TN (western half), TX, WA, WY, UT and GU. |

(2) Until March 1, 1996, other Federal Reserve Offices may continue to provide some savings bond services, but such services will be phased out over the period prior to that date.

[59 FR 10540, Mar. 4, 1994]
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2670

To provide for the release of the reversionary interest held by the United

States in certain property located in the County of Iosco, Michigan.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 20, 1995

Mr. BARCIA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Agriculture

A BILL

To provide for the release of the reversionary interest held

by the United States in certain property located in the

County of Iosco, Michigan.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. RELEASE OF REVERSIONARY INTEREST RE4 GARDING CERTAIN PROPERTY IN IOSCO

5 COUNTY, MICHIGAN.

6 (a) RELEASE REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Agri7 culture shall release, without consideration, the reversion8 ary interest of the United States in the parcel of real prop9 erty described in subsection (b), which was retained by

10 the United States when the property was conveyed to the
2

•HR 2670 IH

1 County of Iosco, Michigan, in 1960 pursuant to a deed

2 recorded at Liber 144, beginning page 58, in the land

3 records of the County.

4 (b) DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY.—The parcel of real

5 property referred to in subsection (a) consists of 1.92

6 acres in the County of Iosco, Michigan, and is described

7 as follows:

That part of the N.W. 1⁄4 of the S.E. 1 8 ⁄4 of Sec9 tion 11, T.22 N.R. 8 East., Baldwin Township,

10 Iosco County, Michigan described as follows: Com11 mencing at the Center of said Section 11, thence

12 South 89 degrees, 15′ 41′′ East, along the EastWest 1 13 ⁄4 Line of said Section 11, 102.0 feet, thence

14 South 00 degrees 08′ 07′′ East, along an existing

15 fence line, 972.56 feet, thence North 89 degrees 07′

13′′ W. 69.70 feet to a point in the North-South 1 16 ⁄4

17 Line, thence North 02 degrees 02′ 12′′ West, along

said North-South 1 18 ⁄4 Line, 973.42 feet to the Point

19 of Beginning.

20 (c) ADDITIONAL TERMS.—The Secretary may require

21 such terms or conditions in connection with the release

22 under this section as the Secretary considers appropriate

23 to protect the interests of the United States.

24 (d) INSTRUMENT OF RELEASE.—The Secretary shall

25 execute and file in the appropriate office or offices a deed
3

•HR 2670 IH

1 of release, amended deed, or other appropriate instrument

2 effectuating the release of the reversionary interest under

3 this section.

Æ
HomeBiographies...Kin W. Moy

# 				Kin W. Moy			

															Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary						Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs												

				June 15, 2021 -									Present							

Tags

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsState Department Official

Back to Top
§ 535.567 Payment under advised letters of credit. ( a ) Specific licenses may be issued for presentation, acceptance, or payment of documentary drafts under a letter of credit opened by an Iranian entity and advised by a domestic bank or an Iranian bank subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, *provided,* That: ( 1 ) The letter of credit was advised prior to the effective date;
( 2 ) The property which is the subject of the payment under the letter of credit was not in the possession or control of the exporter on or after the effective date;
( 3 ) The Beneficiary is a person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
( b ) As a general matter, licenses will not be issued if the amount to be paid to a single payee exceeds $500,000, or if hardship cannot be shown.
[44 FR 75354, Dec. 19, 1979]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF TRANSCEND SERVICES, INC. FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE
30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             382
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,513
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (88)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,641
<PP&E>                                           5,560
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (2,694)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,215
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,990
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           205
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,483
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,215
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,105
<CGS>                                           17,976
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,444
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (213)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (528)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (528)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    (109)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (637)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   $(0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   $(0.03)
        

</TABLE>
40157.

#### SHELLY v. THE STATE.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

The defendant was indicted, tried and convicted of the offense of burglary in the Superior Court of DeKalb County. Thereafter, the defendant’s amended motion for new trial was overruled and error is now assigned on such adverse judgment. *Held:*

1. The defendant moved for a mistrial before any evidence was introduced because of certain remarks made by the assistant *7solicitor general during his preliminary statement to the jury as to what he proposed to prove on the trial. The trial court promptly instructed the jury: “Gentlemen of the jury, counsel for both the State and the defendant have the right to state to you their contentions, what they expect to prove in the trial of the ease. Their statements are not evidence, but only their contentions, and you are not to consider them as evidence in any shape, form or fashion. It is only the statement of the contentions of what they expect to- prove.” Under the decision of the Supreme Court in *Ledford v. State,*215 Ga. 799 (4) (113 SE2d 628), the judgment refusing to declare a mistrial was not error, and the special ground of the motion for new trial is without merit.

Decided June 13, 1963.

*James R. Venable,*for plaintiff in error.

*Richard Bell, Solicitor General, Dennis F. Jones, Assistant Solicitor General,*contra.

2. Special grounds 5 and 6 complain of the admission of certain evidence, exhibits, because they were obtained by illegal search and seizure. “An admission of the accused in open court, made as a part of his statement on the trial, may be treated by the jury as direct evidence of that fact.” *Hargroves v. State,*179 Ga. 722 (4) (177 SE 561). In his statement the defendant admitted that the exhibits complained of were on his person or in his automobile and the admission of the evidence complained of, if error, was not harmful, for where a defendant in his statement admits certain facts as being tine the admission of illegal evidence over proper objection of the same facts is not harmful error. See *Cummings v. State,*106 Ga. App. 118 (126 SE2d 241). No reversible error is shown by ground 5 or 6 of the amended motion for new trial.

3. The evidence adduced on the trial authorized the conviction and the usual general grounds of the motion for new trial are without merit.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Frankum and Jordan, JJ., concur.*
# L_2020148EN.01000101.xml

| 11.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 148/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 148/1

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2020/629

of 5 May 2020

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications ‘Φασόλια Κατταβιάς Ρόδου’ (Fasolia Kattavias Rodou)/‘Λόπια Κατταβιάς Ρόδου’ (Lopia Kattavias Rodou) (PGI)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Greece’s application to register the name ‘Φασόλια Κατταβιάς Ρόδου’ (Fasolia Kattavias Rodou)/‘Λόπια Κατταβιάς Ρόδου’ (Lopia Kattavias Rodou) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Greece’s application to register the name ‘Φασόλια Κατταβιάς Ρόδου’ (Fasolia Kattavias Rodou)/‘Λόπια Κατταβιάς Ρόδου’ (Lopia Kattavias Rodou) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Φασόλια Κατταβιάς Ρόδου’ (Fasolia Kattavias Rodou)/‘Λόπια Κατταβιάς Ρόδου’ (Lopia Kattavias Rodou) should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Φασόλια Κατταβιάς Ρόδου’ (Fasolia Kattavias Rodou)/‘Λόπια Κατταβιάς Ρόδου’ (Lopia Kattavias Rodou) should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Φασόλια Κατταβιάς Ρόδου’ (Fasolia Kattavias Rodou)/‘Λόπια Κατταβιάς Ρόδου’ (Lopia Kattavias Rodou) (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.6. – Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 5 May 2020.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 428, 20.12.2019, p. 48.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
# MD5 checksums generated by MD5summer (http://www.md5summer.org)
# Generated 5/28/2009 1:43:34 PM

be9d027d1fcc1f7a2944d49c486cdd65 *ftc/www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/alerts/alt130.pdf
8a71a0d91b19298987fe731a9e26edc3 *ftc.tpp
#### Hoosier Fence Co., Inc. *v.*Cohen et al.

[No. 19,867.

Filed September 8, 1965.]

*469
      *Palmer K. Ward,*of Indianapolis, for appellant.

*Alfred Fischer,*of Indianapolis, for appellees.

Wickens, J.

Appellees on their complaint below recovered a judgment for breach of alleged warranty in the sale of a fence.

Appellant’s brief quotes the assignment of errors as based upon alleged error in overruling its motion for new trial and alleged error in overruling its motion for judgment at conclusion of the plaintiffs’ case. The motion .for new trial is not set out in appellant’s brief. The argument section of that brief does not contain any specification of assigned errors and, in fact, makes no mention of the assignment of errors or of the motions mentioned.

Appellees assert that no question is presented for decision by this court, alleging that the foregoing failure' violates our Supreme Court Rule 2-17(e).

This court would préfer to pass upon the merits of all contentions. However,- the Supreme Court Rules are for the benefit of all and are binding on courts as well as litigants.

The purpose of a motion for new trial is to advise the trial judge wherein it is believed he erred. *Southport Bd. of Zoning App.*v. *Southside etc.*(1961), 242 Ind. 133, 136, 137, 176 N. E., 2d 112.

*470
      *469Our- Supreme Court Rules and good practice dictate' that, this motion be a specific attack upon the proce*470dure leading up to judgment; it should be advisory, informative and must be properly set forth in the brief. Unless these requirements are met this court does not know if the trial court had proper opportunity to review its own action.

We hold that there was not a good faith effort on the part of appellant to comply with Rule 2-17 (e), *supra,*because of the failure of its brief to eontain a copy of the motion for new trial, because it contains no recital of the substance thereof and because it fails to “. . . contain under the heading ‘Argument’ a specification of such of the assigned errors as are intended to be urged, and each cause in the motion for a new trial which is intended to be urged....”

When a motion for new trial is not included in appellant's brief, either verbatim or the substance thereof, no question concerning such motion can be considered on appeal. *Coleman, Ransom*v. *State*(1961), 241 Ind. 663, 664, 175 N. E. 2d 25; *Hinshaw v*. *Hilderbrand*(1963), 135 Ind. App. 157, 192 N. E. 2d 767, 768; *Lincoln Twp., etc.*v. *Ancilla Domini Strs. etc.*(1958), 129 Ind. App. 539, 541, 154 N. E. 2d 420, (Transfer denied).

It should be noted that this deficiency was pointed out by appellees and no effort was made thereafter by appellant to comply with the rule.

The judgment is affirmed for the reason that no question is presented by appellant’s brief.

Prime, P. J., Carson and Faulconer, JJ., concur.

Note. — Reported in 210 N. E. 2d 54.

While Judge Martin participated in the hearing of the oral argument and conference of the judges above named, he did not participate in the adoption of this final opinion.
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 2685

AN ACT

To repeal the Medicare and Medicaid Coverage

Data Bank.
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 2685

AN ACT

To repeal the Medicare and Medicaid Coverage Data Bank.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 2685 EH

1 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF MEDICARE AND MEDICAID

2 COVERAGE DATA BANK.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1144 of the Social

4 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b–14), as added by section

5 13581(a) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of

6 1993 (in this section referred to as ‘‘OBRA–93’’), is re7 pealed.

8 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—

9 (1) MEDICARE.—Section 1862(b)(5) of such

10 Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y(b)(5)), as amended by section

11 13581(b)(1) of OBRA–93, is amended—

12 (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking the

13 dash and all that follows through the end and

14 inserting ‘‘subparagraph (A) for purposes of

15 carrying out this subsection.’’, and

16 (B) in subparagraph (C)(i), by striking

17 ‘‘subparagraph (B)(i)’’ and inserting ‘‘subpara18 graph (B)’’.

19 (2) MEDICAID.—Section 1902(a)(25)(A)(i) of

20 such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(25)(A)(i)), as amend21 ed by section 13581(b)(2) of OBRA–93, is amended

22 by striking ‘‘including the use of’’ and all that

23 follows through ‘‘any additional measures’’.

24 (3) DATA MATCHES.—Section 552a(a)(8)(B) of

25 title 5, United States Code, as amended by section

26 13581(c) of OBRA–93, is amended—
3

•HR 2685 EH

1 (A) by adding ‘‘or’’ at the end of clause

2 (v),

3 (B) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of clause

4 (vi), and

5 (C) by striking clause (vii).

Passed the House of Representatives March 12,

1996.

Attest:

Clerk.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 266

Prohibiting the manufacture, sale, delivery, or importation of school buses

that do not have seat belts, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. JACOBS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Commerce

A BILL

Prohibiting the manufacture, sale, delivery, or importation

of school buses that do not have seat belts, and for

other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION.

4 No person shall manufacture, sell, deliver, or import

5 any school bus, constructed after the effective date of this

6 Act, for use by a person described in section 2 to provide

7 transportation service, unless such school bus is equipped

8 with a seat belt, with particular emphasis on the use of

9 an Aaron Gordon type flight attendant double shoulder

10 harness mechanism or other appropriate safety restraint
2

•HR 266 IH

1 device providing equal or greater passenger safety, for

2 each passenger riding in such school bus.

3 SEC. 2. PERSONS TO WHICH PROHIBITION APPLIES.

4 The prohibition set forth in section 1 shall apply to—

5 (1) any school bus, as such term is defined in

6 section 4221(d)(7)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code

7 of 1986; and

8 (2) any Federal, State, or local government en9 tity, school district, or other public or private entity

10 providing transportation to passengers by school

11 bus.

12 SEC. 3. CIVIL PENALTIES; SECRETARY’S AUTHORITY TO

13 COMPROMISE.

14 (a) AMOUNT OF PENALTIES.—Whoever violates any

15 provision of this Act, or any regulation issued thereunder,

16 shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000

17 for each such violation. A violation with respect to each

18 school bus shall constitute a separate violation, except that

19 the maximum civil penalty shall not exceed $800,000 for

20 any related series of violations.

21 (b) COMPROMISE OF PENALTIES.—Any such civil

22 penalty may be compromised by the Secretary of Trans23 portation. In determining the amount of such penalty, or

24 the amount agreed upon in compromise, the appropriate25 ness of such penalty to the size of the business of the per-
3

•HR 266 IH

1 son charged and the gravity of the violation shall be con2 sidered. The amount of such penalty, when finally deter3 mined, or the amount agreed upon in compromise, may

4 be deducted from any sums owing by the United States

5 to the person charged.

6 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

7 This Act shall take effect 90 days after the date of

8 its enactment.

Æ