alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 172 (Thursday, September 9, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 50496]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19409]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 172

[Docket No. FDA-2021-F-0926]


Monaghan Mushrooms Ireland Unlimited Company; Filing of Food 
Additive Petition

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notification of petition.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing 
that we have filed a petition, submitted by Monaghan Mushrooms Ireland 
Unlimited Company, proposing that the food additive regulations be 
amended to provide for the safe use of vitamin D<INF>2</INF> mushroom 
powder produced by exposing dried and powdered edible cultivars of 
Agaricus bisporus to ultraviolet light.

DATES: The food additive petition was filed on June 8, 2021.

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the 
docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document into 
the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts, and/or go to the Dockets 
Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katie Overbey, Center for Food Safety 
and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., 
College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-7536.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
Act (section 409(b)(5) (21 U.S.C. 348(b)(5)), we are giving notice that 
we have filed a food additive petition (FAP 1A4828), submitted by 
Monaghan Mushrooms Ireland Unlimited Company, Tullygony, Tyholland, 
County Monaghan, H18 FW95, Ireland. The petition proposes to amend the 
food additive regulations in Sec.  172.382 (21 CFR 172.382) Vitamin D2 
mushroom powder to provide for the safe use of vitamin D<INF>2</INF> 
mushroom powder produced by exposing dried and powdered edible 
cultivars of Agaricus bisporus to ultraviolet light.
    The petitioner has claimed that this action is categorically 
excluded under 21 CFR 25.32(k) because the substance is intended to 
remain in food through ingestion by consumers and is not intended to 
replace macronutrients in food. In addition, the petitioner has stated 
that, to their knowledge, no extraordinary circumstances exist that 
would warrant at least an environmental assessment (see 21 CFR 25.21). 
If FDA determines a categorical exclusion applies, neither an 
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is 
required. If FDA determines a categorical exclusion does not apply, we 
will request an environmental assessment and make it available for 
public inspection.

     Dated: September 2, 2021.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-19409 Filed 9-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
DISMISS and Opinion Filed September 7, 2023 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00640-CV 

PIPELINE HEALTH, LLC AND PIPELINE EAST DALLAS, LLC D/B/A 

CITY HOSPITAL AT WHITE ROCK A/K/A 

WHITE ROCK MEDICAL CENTER, Appellants 

V. 

SADKIKA SEEGAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF 

J.E.S., A MINOR, DORTHEA FRANCES SEEGAN, AND 

KERBY KELLER, INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF THE 

ESTATE OF JAMES SEEGAN, DECEASED, Appellees 

On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-01842 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Reichek, and Breedlove 

Opinion by Justice Reichek 

Before the Court is appellants’ unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal. We 

grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). 

220640F.P05 

 

/Amanda L. Reichek/

AMANDA L. REICHEK 

JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

PIPELINE HEALTH, LLC AND 

PIPELINE EAST DALLAS, LLC 

D/B/A CITY HOSPITAL AT WHITE 

ROCK, A/K/A WHITE ROCK 

MEDICAL CENTER, Appellants 

No. 05-22-00640-CV V. 

SADKIKA SEEGAN, 

INDIVIDUALLY AND FOR THE 

BENEFIT OF J.E.S., A MINOR, 

DORTHEA FRANCES SEEGAN, 

AND KERBY KELLER, 

INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF 

THE ESTATE OF JAMES SEEGAN, 

DECEASED, Appellees 

 On Appeal from the 14th Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-01842. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Reichek. 

Justices Partida-Kipness and 

Breedlove participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is 

DISMISSED. 

 It is ORDERED that the parties bear their own costs of this appeal. 

Judgment entered September 7, 2023
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Rivera, Appellant.

On appeal, the defendant contends that the hearing court erred in denying his motion to suppress the statements he made to the police, because he was arrested without probable cause, and because, contrary to the hearing court’s finding, he invoked his right to counsel when he was arrested.

Contrary to the defendant’s claim, the codefendant’s statements made to the police and to an Assistant District Attorney specifically implicated the defendant in the crime and provided probable cause for the defendant’s arrest *(see, People v Berzups,*49 NY2d 417; *People v Crawford,*113 AD2d 771). Further, the findings of the hearing court that the defendant was given his *Miranda*warnings and that he knowingly and voluntarily waived those rights and confessed to the police are supported by the record *(see, People v Yukl,*25 NY2d 585, *cert denied*400 US 851).

We also note that the court did not err in admitting the codefendant’s confession into evidence at this joint trial, since the confessions of the defendant and the codefendant were interlocking *(see, People v Cruz,*66 NY2d 61, *cert granted*— US —, 106 S Ct 2888; *People v Safian,*46 NY2d 181, *cert denied sub nom. Miner v New York,*443 US 912; *People v McNeil,*24 NY2d 550; *People v Brensic,*119 AD2d 281).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those set forth in his *pro se*brief, and find that they are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, J. P., Brown and Fiber, JJ., concur.
ORDER to pay EAJA fees– 3:15-cv-01641-JE Page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON

JESSICA LINN KIMBLE

Plaintiff, 

vs.,

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting

COMISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY

Defendant.

Civil No. 3:15-cv-01641-JE

ORDER TO PAY 

EAJA FEES

Jelderks, Magistrate Judge:

Following my review of Plaintiff’s Motion and supporting documentation, and after 

consideration of Defendant’s stipulation, and pursuant to the Equal Access to

Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, $ 12,637.31 is awarded to Plaintiff in care of her attorney, 

Nancy J. Meserow, and the check for EAJA fees shall be made payable to Nancy J. 

Meserow, based upon Plaintiff’s assignment of these amounts to Plaintiff’s attorney Nancy 

J. Meserow, subject to the satisfaction of Plaintiff's debts, if any, under Astrue v. Ratliff, 

130 S. Ct. 2521 (2010); and in addition, Plaintiff is awarded $10.00 for postage expenses, 

and $5.00 in photocopying costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1920. Any check issued for EAJA 

fees or for costs and expenses shall be sent to Plaintiff in care of his attorney, Nancy J. 

Meserow, at her office, located at the following address: 

Law Office of Nancy J. Meserow

7540 SW 51st Ave.

Portland, OR

97219.
ORDER to pay EAJA fees– 3:15-cv-01641-JE Page 2 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this __________________ day of ______________________, 2017 

_____________________________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, John Jelderks 

11th October

/s/ John Jelderks
#### Noroton Heights Fire Department *v.*Vuono-Lione, Inc.

House, C. J., Loiselle, MacDonald, Bogdanski and Longo, Js.

Argued March 4

decision released April 1, 1975

*James V. Joy, Jr.,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*William F. Rickey, Jr.,*for the appellee (defendant).

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court which denied the plaintiff’s application to stay arbitration proceedings. The case arose from a dispute over the execution of a *277contract for the reconstruction of the main floor concrete slab of the plaintiff’s firehouse. It is the claim of the plaintiff that the defendant contractor violated provisions of the contract calling for the floor to be of green color and to be free of blemishes from poor workmanship. The contract provided for the arbitration of any claim or dispute “except those relating to artistic effect.” As to “matters relating to artistic effect,” it was provided that the architect’s decision should be final “if consistent with the intent of the Contract Documents.” The specifications provided that “six pounds of green color pigment would be added to each bag of cement to produce a deep green color of concrete.” The architect-engineer on the project approved the defendant’s bill for payment of the contract price plus extras of $800.

The court granted the defendant’s motion that the parties proceed to arbitration of their dispute and denied the plaintiff’s application to stay arbitration proceedings. The plaintiff has appealed, claiming error in the court’s ruling that disputes over floor color and blemishes from defective workmanship are not excluded from the arbitration agreement as matters of “artistic effect.”

The basic question, of course, is whether the contractor properly fulfilled its obligations under the contract, including among the specifications for the work the color achieved by compliance with those specifications. A dispute on these questions is clearly subject to arbitration under the terms of the parties’ agreement while leaving any question as to the “artistic effect” to the decision of the architect.

We find no error in the court’s ruling.

There is no error.
# L_2009112EN.01000501.xml

| 6.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 112/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 112/5

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 367/2009

of 5 May 2009

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Znojemské pivo (PGI))

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Czech Republic’s application to register the name ‘Znojemské pivo’ has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the Czech Republic’s application to register the name ‘Znojemské pivo’ has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, this name should be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, this name should be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following 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 2009.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 244, 25.9.2008, p. 23.

2

---

ANNEX

Foodstuffs listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 510/2006:

Class 2.1.   Beers

CZECH REPUBLIC

Znojemské pivo (PGI)

---
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as Adopted

Pursuant to
§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 in his capacity as an officer of Sangamo BioSciences, Inc. (the Company), that:

(1) the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Edward O. Lanphier II                           
|Edward O. Lanphier II                               
|President and Chief Executive Officer               
|(Principal Executive Officer)                       
|                                                    
|Date: May 6, 2011                                   
|                                                    
|/s/ H. Ward Wolff                                   
|H. Ward Wolff                                       
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)        
|                                                    
|Date: May 6, 2011
GCDAMP and NPS River Trips and Field Activities, June through October, 2018. 

Launch Take 

out Project Number, Agency, and Project Description Location 

14-Jun 29-Jun Project F, GCMRC, Aquatic food base monitoring and Grand 

Canyon Youth "Partners in Science" 

Glen and Grand 

Canyons 

15-Jun 6-Jul Project G, GCMRC, Juvenile humpback chub monitoring Grand Canyon 

18-Jun 26-Jun NPS, Humpback chub monitoring, Shinumo Creek Grand Canyon 

29-Jun 10-Jul Project G, GCMRC, Humpback chub monitoring in the LCR Little Colorado R. 

9-Jul 13-Jul Project H, AZGFD, Lees Ferry trout monitoring Glen Canyon 

9-Jul 18-Jul NPS, Larval razorback sucker and small-bodied fish 

monitoring Grand Canyon 

12-Jul 27-Jul GCMRC, Grand Canyon Youth "Partners in Science" Glen and Grand 

Canyons 

6-Aug 15-Aug NPS, Larval Razorback sucker and small-bodied fish 

monitoring Grand Canyon 

8-Aug 10-Aug Project C, GCMRC, Riparian vegetation monitoring Glen Canyon 

15-Aug 31-Aug Project A, GCMRC, Quality of water and fine sediment 

monitoring Grand Canyon 

18-Aug 4-Sep Project C, GCMRC, Terrestrial vegetation monitoring Grand Canyon 

22-Aug 7-Sep Project G, USFWS/GCMRC, Humpback chub aggregation 

monitoring Grand Canyon 

25-Aug 4-Sep Hopi Tribe, Cultural monitoring Grand Canyon 

3-Sep 13-Sep NPS, Humpback chub monitoring Grand Canyon 

4-Sep 13-Sep NPS, Larval razorback sucker and small-bodied fish 

monitoring Grand Canyon 

7-Sep 17-Sep Navajo Nation, Cultural monitoring Grand Canyon 

8-Sep 14-Sep Project H, GCMRC, Trout reproductive and growth 

demographics, Lees Ferry Glen Canyon 

15-Sep 28-Sep Project I, GCMRC, Mainstem fish monitoring (seining) Grand Canyon 

18-Sep 21-Sep Project H, AZGFD, Lees Ferry trout monitoring Glen Canyon 

26-Sep 12-Oct Project B/C, GCMRC, Sandbar and vegetation monitoring Grand Canyon 

28-Sep 1-Oct Project I, AZGFD, Mainstem fish monitoring downstream of 

Diamond Creek Grand Canyon 

2-Oct 6-Oct NPS, Humpback chub monitoring, Havasu Creek Grand Canyon 

6-Oct 26-Oct Project G, GCMRC, Juvenile humpback chub monitoring Grand Canyon
NOTE


$3,000,000                                               As of December 19, 2001


         Dick Simon Trucking, Inc., a Utah corporation ("Borrower"), promises to
pay to the order of the Jerry and Vickie Moyes Family Trust ("Lender") the
principal sum of Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000) in immediately available
funds at 2200 South 75th Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85043, together with interest on
the unpaid principal amount hereof at the rate of seven percent (7%) per annum,
on or before January 31, 2002; provided, in the event of default in payment on
this Note, the rate of interest to be paid from and after the date of such
default shall be the lesser of twelve percent (12%) per annum, or the maximum
rate allowed under applicable law. Borrower shall pay the principal of and
accrued and unpaid interest on this Note in full on or before January 31, 2002,
without penalty for prepayment.

         This Note is secured by a Deed to Secure Debt dated as of December 19,
2001 on certain Conley, DeKalb County, Georgia real estate ("Property"), in
which Borrower is the Grantor and Lender is the Grantee.

         Title to the Property may not be transferred, unless such transfer is
pursuant to the Deed to Secure Debt. In the event the title to the Property is
transferred, or contracted to be transferred, from Borrower for any reason or by
any method whatsoever, except pursuant to the terms of the Deed to Secure Debt,
the entire principal sum shall at once become due and payable at the election of
Lender.

         Upon breach of any promise made in this Note, including without
limitation, a failure to make payment within five (5) days after the same
becomes due and payable (whether by extension, acceleration, or otherwise),
Lender may, at its option, declare this Note and the entire indebtedness hereby
evidenced to be immediately due and payable and collectable then or thereafter
as Lender may elect, regardless of the date of maturity, and the notice of the
exercise of said option is hereby expressly waived by any party hereto.

         Borrower hereby waives presentment, protest, notice of protest, all
notice of dishonor and diligence in collection, and any and all other prior
notices of defenses except payment, and further agrees that, without notice to
it and without discharging it, this Note may be from time to time extended or
renewed for any term or terms by agreement between Lender and Borrower.


                                   DICK SIMON TRUCKING, INC.

                                By:
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                        Print name:
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                             Title:
                                   ---------------------------------------------
#### In the Matter of Christopher W., Respondent. Erie County Attorney, Appellant.

[946 NYS2d 767]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Margaret O. Szczur, J.), entered April 5, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3. The order dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is denied and the petition is reinstated.

Memorandum: In this juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, petitioner appeals from an order granting respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition. We agree with petitioner that Family Court erred in granting respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition as facially insufficient based on the court’s finding that the alleged victim, an infant, was unable to give sworn testimony *(see*§ 343.1 [2]). A *1592delinquency petition is facially sufficient provided that the nonhearsay allegations “of the factual part of the petition or of any supporting depositions establish, if true, every element of each crime charged and the respondent’s commission thereof’ (§ 311.2 [3]; *see Matter of Nelson R.,*90 NY2d 359, 362 [1997]).

Here, the nonhearsay allegations in the victim’s supporting deposition, if true, establish that respondent subjected her to sexual contact by touching her vagina when she was three years old. The petition is therefore facially sufficient to allege that respondent committed acts that, if committed by an adult, constitute the crime of sexual abuse in the first degree *(see*Penal Law § 130.65 [3]). The fact that the alleged victim is unable to give sworn testimony is a latent defect that does not affect the facial sufficiency of the petition *(see Nelson R.,*90 NY2d at 361; *Matter of Edward B.,*80 NY2d 458, 464 [1992]; *Matter of Jermaine G.,*38 AD 3d 105, 109-110 [2007]). Contrary to the further contention of respondent, the court’s determination that the alleged victim “cannot understand the nature of the oath and therefore cannot provide the Court with sworn testimony” does not amount to an implicit determination that she does not have “sufficient intelligence and capacity” to provide unsworn testimony (Family Ct Act § 343.1 [2]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Peradotto, Carni and Lindley, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

CHERYL LYNN ALO, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

COMMISSIONER, 

Social Security Administration, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 1:16-cv-00180-BR 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR 

ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO 42 

U.S.C. § 406(b) 

Plaintiff Cheryl Lynn Alo brought this action seeking review of the Commissioner’s final 

decision denying her application for disability benefits under the Social Security Act. The U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the Commissioner’s decision and remanded the 

case to the district court with instructions to remand for further proceedings. This Court entered 

Judgment of Remand on May 23, 2019. The Commissioner subsequently found Plaintiff entitled 

to disability benefits beginning February 2011. 

Plaintiff now seeks an award of fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Defendant has not 

objected to the request. I have reviewed the record in this case, the motion, and the supporting 

materials, including the award of benefits, the fee agreement with counsel, and the recitation of 

Case 1:16-cv-00180-BR Document 30 Filed 01/05/21 Page 1 of 2
ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) 

1:16-cv-00180-BR 

Page 2 of 2 

counsel’s hours and services. Applying the standards set by Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 

789, 796 (2002), the Court finds that the requested fees are reasonable. 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 406(b) is hereby GRANTED, 

and Plaintiff’s counsel is awarded $30,295.00 in attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). 

Previously, the Court awarded Plaintiff attorney fees in the amount of $10,713.15 under the 

Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. When issuing the § 406(b) check for 

payment to Plaintiff’s attorney, the Commissioner is directed to subtract the amount awarded for 

EAJA and send the balance of $19,581.85, less any applicable processing or user fees prescribed 

by statute, to Plaintiff’s attorneys at HARDER, WELLS, BARON & MANNING, P.C., 474 

Willamette Street, Eugene, Oregon 97401. Any amount withheld after all administrative and 

court attorney fees are paid should be released to the claimant. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of January, 2021. 

___________________________________ 

ANNA J. BROWN 

United States Senior District Judge 

Proposed Order submitted by: 

Katherine L. Eitenmiller 

HARDER, WELLS, BARON & MANNING, P.C. 

474 Willamette Street 

Eugene, OR 97401 

(541) 686-1969

keitenmiller@hwbm.net

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff

/s/ Anna J. Brown

Case 1:16-cv-00180-BR Document 30 Filed 01/05/21 Page 2 of 2