alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 36 (Wednesday, February 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 10041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4028]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Eye Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel, NEI Clinical Applications I.
    Date: March 10, 2011.
    Time: 10:30 a.m. to 12 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate cooperative agreement 
applications.
    Place: National Eye Institute, 5635 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 
20852. (Telephone Conference Call.)
    Contact Person: Anne E Schaffner, PhD, Chief, Scientific Review 
Branch, Division of Extramural Research, National Eye Institute, 
National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 1300, MSC 
9300, 301-451-2020. <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2b4a4e586b454e4205454243054c445d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="40212533002e25296e2e29286e272f36">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.867, 
Vision Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 16, 2011.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-4028 Filed 2-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2013269EN.01000201.xml

| 18.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/2

---

Update of reference amounts for the crossing of the external borders, as referred to in Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ C 247, 13.10.2006, p. 19; OJ C 153, 6.7.2007, p. 22; OJ C 182, 4.8.2007, p. 18; OJ C 57, 1.3.2008, p. 38; OJ C 134, 31.5.2008, p. 19; OJ C 37, 14.2.2009, p. 8; OJ C 35, 12.2.2010, p. 7; OJ C 304, 10.11.2010, p. 5; OJ C 24, 26.1.2011, p. 6; OJ C 157, 27.5.2011, p. 8; OJ C 203, 9.7.2011, p. 16; OJ C 11, 13.1.2012, p. 13; OJ C 72, 10.3.2012, p. 44; OJ C 199, 7.7.2012, p. 8; OJ C 298, 4.10.2012, p. 3; OJ C 56, 26.2.2013, p. 13; OJ C 98, 5.4.2013, p. 3)

2013/C 269/02

The publication of reference amounts for the crossing of the external borders, as referred to in Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), is based on the information communicated by the Member States to the Commission in accordance with Article 34 of the Schengen Borders Code.

In addition to the publication in the Official Journal, a monthly update is available on the website of the Directorate-General for Home Affairs.

CROATIA

An alien who submits the request for issuing a visa in a diplomatic mission, i.e. in a consular office of the Republic of Croatia or some other country with which the Republic of Croatia concluded a contract on representation in issuing visas, is obliged to show that he has enough means for subsistence during his stay in the Republic of Croatia and for the return to the country from which he originates or for travelling to the third country.

When entering the Republic of Croatia, the authority competent for the control of crossings of the State border is authorised to require from the alien to present means for subsistence during his stay in the Republic of Croatia and for the return to the country from where he came or for the travel to the third country.

The amount of means under paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article is the counter value of EUR 100 (in letters: one hundred euros) per day of his planned stay in the Republic of Croatia.

If an alien possesses a certified guarantee letter of a physical or legal entity from the Republic of Croatia, a proof of paid travel arrangement or similar document, he is obliged to present a proof of possession of means in counter value of EUR 50 (in letters: fifty euros) per day of his planned stay in the Republic of Croatia.

---
### §14519. Deferment of retirement or separation for medical reasons

(a) Authority.—If, in the case of an officer required to be retired or separated under this chapter or chapter 1409 of this title, the Secretary concerned determines that the evaluation of the physical condition of the officer and determination of the officer's entitlement to retirement or separation for physical disability require hospitalization or medical observation and that such hospitalization or medical observation cannot be completed with confidence in a manner consistent with the officer's well being before the date on which the officer would otherwise be required to retire or be separated, the Secretary may defer the retirement or separation of the officer.

(b) Period of Deferment.—A deferral of retirement or separation under subsection (a) may not extend for more than 30 days after the completion of the evaluation requiring hospitalization or medical observation.

(Added Pub. L. 107–314, div. A, title V, §522(a), Dec. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 2540.)
# C_2013345EN.01001601.xml

| 26.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 345/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 345/16

---

Appointment of the Hearing Officer

2013/C 345/04

On 16 October 2013, the Commission appointed Mr Joos STRAGIER to the post of Hearing Officer, in accordance with Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition cases (OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21).

---
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Global Crossing Limited (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 3007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the report), I, Jean F.H.P. Mandeville, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) 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.

Date: May 10, 2007



|                          
|--------------------------
|                          
|/S/ JEAN F.H.P. MANDEVILLE
|Jean F.H.P. Mandeville    
|Chief Financial Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 23, 2009 

s0615 

Order 

 

June 23, 2009 

137946 & (18) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137946 

 COA: 287563 

Saginaw CC: 73-020425-FC 

MICHAEL DANIEL DRIELICK, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 2, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The 

motion to remand is DENIED.
# C_2013368EN.01001401.xml

| 17.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 368/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 368/14

---

Annual Report 2012

2013/C 368/09

On 12 September 2013, the European Ombudsman presented his Annual Report for the year 2012 to the European Parliament.

The Annual Report as well as a shorter version are available on the European Ombudsman's website in all 24 official languages (http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu).

Paper copies of these publications can be requested free of charge from the European Ombudsman's office:

| 1 avenue du Président Robert Schuman |
| --- |
| CS 30403 |
| 67001 Strasbourg Cedex |
| FRANCE |
| Tel. +33 388172313 |
| Fax +33 388179062 |
| E-mail: eo@ombudsman.europa.eu |

1 avenue du Président Robert Schuman

CS 30403

67001 Strasbourg Cedex

FRANCE

Tel. +33 388172313

Fax +33 388179062

E-mail: eo@ombudsman.europa.eu

---
#### § 211.26 [Reserved]
#### State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Wayne Radtke, appellant.

229 N. W. 2d 209

Filed May 22, 1975.

No. 39844.

William G. Line of Kerrigan, Line, Martin & Hanson, for appellant.

Paul L. Douglas, Attorney General, and Marilyn B. Hutchinson, for appellee.

Heard before White,, C. J., Spencer, Boslaugh, McCown, Newton, Clinton, and Brodkey, JJ.

Boslaugh, J.

The defendant was originally charged with felonious assault and robbery. Upon arraignment he pleaded not guilty by reason of mental derangement.

A mental examination was made which disclosed no evidence of an emotional or mental disorder. The de*854fendant then pleaded guilty' to the assault count and the robbery count was dismissed.

The county attorney recommended the defendant be granted probation. This recommendation was made as a part-of the plea bargain and the defendant understood the recommendation was not binding on the court. The trial court sentenced the defendant to imprisonment for 2 years. The defendant has appealed and contends he should have been placed on probation.

The defendant is a construction worker, 40 years of age. He is married and has four children. He has no criminal record other than traffic offenses, and appears to have been a satisfactory employee.

On the day the assault occurred the defendant was not working because of inclement weather. He spent much of the day drinking. Late in the afternoon he drove to a park on the edge of Fremont, Nebraska, with Harold McKee, another man, and two women who had been in a bar with him. After arriving at the park, the defendant struck McKee about the head and face with a claw hammer and more than $100 was taken from his billfold. The defendant, the other man, and the women then left the park. Statements in the police report indicate the defendant may have intended to kill McKee and thought he was dead when they left the park.

The incident was reported to the police by the women. McKee was found badly injured but still alive. The defendant claims he has no recollection of the assault.

The sentence imposed was the minimum provided by statute. § 28-409, R. R. S. 1943. Probation might have been appropriate except for the seriousness of the offense and the violence with which it was committed. Under the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed was not excessive.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Affirmed.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****National emissions report.**
 
1972 | 1973 | 1974 | 1975 | 1976
 
SuDoc Number:EP 1.64:
Item Number:0431-I-49 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001041398
 
January 16, 2018
§ 175.130 What information must I provide when I request service? At a minimum, you must provide the utility with the following information when you request service: ( a ) Your full legal name or the legal name of the entity needing service;
( b ) Your taxpayer identification number;
( c ) Your billing address;
( d ) Your service address; and
( e ) Any additional information required by the utility.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# USS Decatur, USS Spruance Conduct Anti-Submarine Warfare Exercise with Japan 

By Commander, U.S. 3rd Fleet Public Affairs

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More Articles/News
#### Matthew Scialdone et al., Respondents, v Sigmund Majka et al., Appellants.

[824 NYS2d 510]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Anthony F. Shaheen, J.), entered April 15, 2005. The order denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action against defendants, the developers of the subdivision containing plaintiffs’ home, seeking to recover for damages caused by the flooding of their basement. Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. Contrary to the contentions of defendants, we conclude that the complaint, read together with the affidavit and sworn letters submitted in opposition to the motion, makes out a cause of action for fraud *(see generally Guggenheimer v Ginzburg,*43 NY2d 268, 275 [1977]; *Rovello v Orofino Realty Co.,*40 NY2d 633, 635 [1976]; *Gibraltar Steel Corp. v Gibraltar Metal Processing,*19 AD3d 1141, 1142 [2005]). Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged “a misrepresentation or material omission by defendants], on which *1306[they] relied, that induced plaintiff[s] to purchase the [property]” *(New York Univ. v Continental Ins. Co.,*87 NY2d 308, 318 [1995]). We reject defendants’ contention that the alleged breach of contract cause of action accrued in 1994, when work on the sanitary and storm drainage lines for plaintiffs’ property was finished. Because plaintiffs did not enter into a contract with defendants until October 2002, there could have been no breach of that contract in 1994 *(see Kleinschmidt Div. of SCM Corp. v Futuronics Corp.,*41 NY2d 972, 973 [1977]). Present—Hurlbutt, A.P.J., Scudder, Gorski, Centra and Green, JJ.
#### Mutual Milk and Cream Company, Appellant, *v.*Hermann Heldt, Respondent.

First Department,

January 24, 1908.

Injunction, pendente lite — disobedience — contempt.

A defendant who, being enjoined *pendente lite*from serving milk or cream to any customers of the plaintiff, violates the injunction, after service of a certified copy thereof, is guilty of contempt even though the damages resulting are trivial.

Appeal by the plaintiff, the Mutual Millc and Cream Company, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 30th day of ApUl, 1901, denying the plaintiff’s motion to .punish the defendant for contempt of court because of his violation of an injunction order theretofore granted against him,

*Felix H.*Levy, for the appellant.

*Joseph H.*Hayes, for the respondent.

Houghton, J.:

This action was instituted to restrain defendant from violating a contract ^alleged to have been made by him with plaintiff. A motion was made for an injunction during the pendency of the action, which was denied. On appeal to this court that order was reversed and an injunction *pendente life*was granted restraining *510defendant from serving milk or cream to any person who was a customer of plaintiff between November Id, 1905, and April 15,, 1907, and who was still a customer of plaintiff on the last-mentioned day. (120 App. Div. 795.)

After servicé of a certified copy of this injunction order upon the defendant he delivered milk on one occasion to three of such customers. , A motion was made to punish him for contempt for such disobedience, which was denied, and from-such order the plaintiff appeals.

While the damages resulting from the violation are comparatively trivial there was a clear violation of the injunction order which cannot be ignored. The excuse offered by defendant is insufficient. As .'long as the injunction stands the defendant must obey it, whatever the seeming nécessity for violating it may be. .

The order refusing to punish the defendant must be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements,- and an order adjudging him in contempt granted, and fining him ten dollars as a punishment therefor.

Patterson, P. J., Ingraham, Clarke and Scott, JJ7, concurred.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and order directed as stated in opinion. Settle'order on notice.
EXHIBIT 16









































Ontario Securities Commission


British Columbia Securities Commission


Alberta Securities Commission








Dear Sirs and Mesdames:








RE:    Atlas Financial Holdings, Inc. (the "Company")- Notice of Change of Auditor





We have read the Notice of Change of Auditor of the Company dated May 17, 2011 (the "Notice") and are in agreement with the statements contained in the Notice, except that we have no basis to agree or disagree with the statement regarding the Audit Committee approval of nomination of Johnson Lambert & Co. LLP as auditor of the company.





Yours very truly,











/s/KPMG LLP Chicago, Illinois





May 17, 2011
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 16

- 00363

- CV

CECIL B. YATES

, Appellant

v.

J. MCMILLAN ENTERPRI SES, LLC

, Appellee

From the 87th District Court

Leon County, Texas

Trial Court No. NOT

- 13

- 285

ORDER

By letter dated February 2, 2017, the Court was informed by the mediator that a

settlement of all issues was reached in this proceeding. As of this date, we have not

received any disposition documents or requests by the parties.

Appellant must provide a status report to the Court within 14 days of the date of

this order . Failure to provide a report as ordered will result in t he dismissal of this appeal

without further notification. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.3(b), (c).

PER CURIAMCecil B. Yates v. J. McMillan Enterpr ises, LLC Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Order issued and filed March 22, 2017
### **CHAPTER 245—TASK AND DELIVERY ORDER CONTRACTS (MULTIPLE AWARD CONTRACTS)**

Sec.
3401.
Task and delivery order contracts: definitions.
3402.
[Reserved].
3403.
Task and delivery order contracts: general authority.
3404.
[Reserved].
3405.
Task order contracts: advisory and assistance services.
3406.
Task and delivery order contracts: orders.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior chapter 245 "TASK AND DELIVERY ORDER CONTRACTS (MULTIPLE AWARD CONTRACTS)", as added by Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §801(a), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1827, and consisting of reserved section 3401, was repealed by Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title XVIII, §1820(a), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4191.

#### Amendments

**2021**—Pub. L. 117–81, div. A, title XVII, §1701(b)(8)(A), Dec. 27, 2021, 135 Stat. 2133, amended Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title XVIII, §1820(a), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4191, which added this analysis, by substituting "[Reserved]" for "Guidance on use of task and delivery order contracts" in item 3404.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Provisions Not Affected by Pub. L. 103–355

Pub. L. 103–355, title I, §1004(d), Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3253, as amended by Pub. L. 108–136, div. A, title X, §1045(f), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1613, provided that: "Nothing in section 2304a [now 10 U.S.C. 3403], 2304b [now 10 U.S.C. 3405], 2304c [now 10 U.S.C. 3406], or 2304d [now 10 U.S.C. 3401] of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), and nothing in the amendments made by subsections (b) and (c) [amending former sections 2304 of this title (now 10 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.) and 2331 of this title (now 10 U.S.C. 4507)], shall be construed as modifying or superseding, or as intended to impair or restrict, authorities or responsibilities under chapter 11 of title 40, United States Code."
#### § 166.410 When are grazing rental payments due?

The initial grazing rental payment is due and payable as specified in the permit or 15 days after the BIA approves the permit, whichever is later. Subsequent payments are due as specified in the permit.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                 CERTIFICATE 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 Satellite Enterprises Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2 005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
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 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/ Randy Hibma
---------------------------------
Randy Hibma
Chief Financial Officer

May 23, 2005