alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                             Washington, D.C. 20549
                             ______________________

                                    FORM 6-K

                        REPORT OF FOREIGN PRIVATE ISSUER

                    Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16 of the
                         Securities Exchange Act of 1934



                           For the month of: May 2005
                                             --------


                               Given Imaging Ltd.
                               ------------------
               (Exact name of registrant as specified in charter)



                   13 Ha'Yetzira Street, Yoqneam 20692, Israel
                   -------------------------------------------
                    (Address of principal executive offices)



     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual
reports under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.

                       Form 20-F  X          Form 40-F
                                 ---                   ---


     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the information
contained in this Form is also thereby furnishing the information to the
Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                       Yes                   No  X
                                                ---
<PAGE>

                                EXPLANATORY NOTE


     On May 3, 2005, Given Imaging Ltd. held a conference call entitled "Q1 2005
Given Imaging Ltd. Earnings Conference Call". A copy of the transcript from this
conference call is attached to this Form 6-K as Exhibit 99.1.

                                       2
<PAGE>

                                    SIGNATURE

     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.


                                        GIVEN IMAGING LTD.


Date:  May 5, 2005                      By: /s/ Zvi Ben David
                                            -----------------------
                                            Name:  Zvi Ben David
                                            Title: Vice President and
                                                   Chief Financial Officer

                                       3
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT INDEX


The following exhibit is filed as part of this Form 6-K:


Exhibit           Description
-------           -----------

99.1.             Transcript of conference call held on May 3, 2005, entitled
                  "Q1 2005 Given Imaging Ltd. Earnings Conference Call".
### **CHAPTER 1—BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS**

Sec.
1.
Commissioner of Indian Affairs.
1a.
Delegation of powers and duties by Secretary of the Interior and Commissioner of Indian Affairs.
2.
Duties of Commissioner.
2a.
Assistant or deputy commissioners; appointment; powers and duties.
3.
Compilation of statutes regulating duties of Indian agents and inspectors.
4.
Defective record of deeds and papers legalized.
5.
Record of deeds by Indians requiring approval.
6.
Seal; authenticated and certified documents; evidence.
7.
Fees for furnishing certified copies of records.
8.
Accounts for claims and disbursements.
9.
Regulations by President.
10.
Employee to sign letters.
11.
Employee or employees to sign approval of tribal deeds.
12.
Agent to negotiate commutation of annuities.
13.
Expenditure of appropriations by Bureau.
13–1.
Authorization of appropriations for funds for basic educational support through parent committees.
13a.
Carryover funding.
13b.
Payment of care, tuition, assistance, and other expenses of Indians in boarding homes, institutions, and schools; payment of rewards.
13c.
Source of funds to pay cost of lunches for nonboarding public school students.
13d.
Limits on use of appropriated funds by Bureau for general or other welfare assistance.
13d–1.
Standards of need as basis for general assistance payments by Bureau of Indian Affairs; ratable reductions.
13d–2.
Enrollment and general assistance payments.
13d–3.
Tribal authority to change eligibility for, or amount of, general assistance payments.
13e.
Expenses of exhibits; advance payments for services; termination of Federal supervision; treaty expenses.
13f.
Tribal priority allocations in Alaska.
14.
Money accruing to Indians from Department of Veterans Affairs or other governmental agencies.
14a.
Deposit of grant funds received by Bureau from other Federal agencies.
14b.
Disposition of funds received from public for goods and services provided by Bureau of Indian Affairs.
15.
Utility facilities used in administration of Bureau; contracts for sale, operation, maintenance, repair or relocation of facilities; terms and conditions; exception; Congressional approval.
16.
Transportation of Indians in Bureau vehicles.
17.
Use of Bureau facilities.

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

#### National Council on Indian Opportunity; Appropriations Authorization; Termination Date

Pub. L. 91–125, Nov. 26, 1969, 83 Stat. 220, provided for annual appropriations of $300,000 and a termination date of Nov. 26, 1974 for the National Council on Indian Opportunity which was established by Ex. Ord. 11399.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Executive Order No. 11399

Ex. Ord. No. 11399, Mar. 6, 1968, 33 F.R. 4245, as amended by Ex. Ord. 11551, Aug. 11, 1970, 35 F.R. 12885; Ex. Ord. No. 11688, Dec. 1, 1972, 37 F.R. 25815, established the National Council on Indian Opportunity and provided for the functions, compensation, assistance, and meetings with respect to the Council.
Editorial Note on Part 1600
Editorial Note: At 82 FR 60555, Dec. 21, 2017, as required by the Congressional Review Act and Public Law 115-12, the Bureau of Land Management removed all amendments to part 1600 made effective on Jan. 11, 2017, at 81 FR 89661, Dec. 12, 2016.

§ 1610.1 Resource management planning guidance. ( a ) Guidance for preparation and amendment of resource management plans may be provided by the Director and State Director, as needed, to help the Field Manager and staff prepare a specific plan. Such guidance may include the following: ( 1 ) National level policy which has been established through legislation, regulations, executive orders or other Presidential, Secretarial or Director approved documents. This policy may include appropriately developed resource management commitments, such as a right-of-way corridor crossing several resource or field office areas, which are not required to be reexamined as part of the planning process.
( 2 ) Analysis requirements, planning procedures and other written information and instructions required to be considered in the planning process.
( 3 ) Guidance developed at the State Director level, with necessary and appropriate governmental coordination as prescribed by § 1610.3 of this title. Such guidance shall be reconsidered by the State Director at any time during the planning process that the State Director level guidance is found, through public involvement or other means, to be inappropriate when applied to a specific area being planned.
( b ) A resource management plan shall be prepared and maintained on a resource or field office area basis, unless the State Director authorizes a more appropriate area.
( c ) An interdisciplinary approach shall be used in the preparation, amendment and revision of resource management plans as provided in 40 CFR 1502.6. The disciplines of the preparers shall be appropriate to the values involved and the issues identified during the issue identification and environmental impact statement scoping stage of the planning process. The Field Manager may use any necessary combination of Bureau of Land Management staff, consultants, contractors, other governmental personnel, and advisors to achieve an interdisciplinary approach.
[48 FR 20368, May 5, 1983, as amended at 70 FR 14566, 14567, Mar. 23, 2005; 70 FR 29208, May 20, 2005; 81 FR 89661, Dec. 12, 2016; 82 FR 60555, Dec. 21, 2017]
# Trace Metal Geochemistry and Mobility in the Marcellus Shale

Tracy Bank Department of Geology University at Buffalo

# Marcellus Shale Samples • 22 samples including core, outcrop and well cuttings • All samples from NY and northern PA • 16 core and outcrop samples analyzed

# Shale Mineralogy & Geochemistry • Mineralogy is dominated by quartz (19 - 56%), calcite (.3 - 15%), feldspars (few %), pyrite (.3 - 7%), and clay minerals (42 - 69%) • Clay minerals are dominated by illite, Fe -chlorite, Mg-chlorite, and kaolinite • Total Organic Carbon (TOC) of samples ranges 

### from 2.4 – 13.7 wt % • Mineralogy of outcrop and core samples differs slightly

– Cores contain more calcite (up to 15 wt%)

– Outcrops contain more quartz ( 47 wt % vs ~30 wt%)0

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Metal Concentration ( ppm )

As Co Cr Cs Mo Rb Sb Sc Th U Zn

Outcrop (n=5) Core (n=9) Max Co = 44 ppm

Max Mo = 255 ppm

Max Zn = 2290 ppm Max Cr = 100 ppm

# Uranium in the Marcellus Shale • Uranium concentrations range from 8- 53 ppm • Concentrations up to 100 ppm reported in other studies • Uranium is elevated due to reducing conditions in the shale which likely favour 

### insoluble U(IV) and/or U sorption onto organic matter • Uranium is positively correlated to TOC

# Uranium vs TOC
y = 4.0455x + 2.591 R2 = 0.4847 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 U (ppm) TOC (wt %)

# Uranium vs TOC

y = 5.6194x - 7.2779 R2 = 0.1693 y = 3.8975x + 4.1445 R2 = 0.5643
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

0 5 10 15 U (ppm) TOC (wt %) Outcrop Cutting Core

# ELEMENT MAPPING TOF SIMS • Used to identify physical and chemical relationship between metals 

### and organic matter

# Uranium and Hydrocarbons Hydrocarbon UH+

# Uranium and Hydrocarbons

# Chromium and Uranium

# Uranium Mobility

-80 -70 - 60 -50 -40 - 30 - 20 - 10 0 % Change Outcrop Samples Core samples

# Results to Date • Heavy (and toxic) metals are associated with the organic matter in the Marcellus Shale • Association is both physical and chemical • Metal concentrations increase in the most organic- rich shales 

### • A percentage of the metal is extractable by HCl and oxidizing fluids • Flowback fluids are going to be “enriched” in these heavy metals
**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 302(A)**


**OF
      THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**











I,
      Kazuhiko Kazama, certify that:




(1)  I
      have
      reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containing
      distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periods included in the
      year covered by this annual report, of Nissan Auto Receivables 2005-B Owner
      Trust;




(2)  Based
      on
      my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, does not
      contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
      fact
      necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
      which
      such statements were made, not misleading as of the last day of the period
      covered by this annual report;




(3)  Based
      on
      my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to be provided
      to the trustee by the servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar
      agreement, for inclusion in these reports, is included in these
      reports;




(4)  Based
      on
      my knowledge and upon the annual compliance statement included in the report
      and
      required to be delivered to the trustee in accordance with the terms of the
      pooling and servicing agreement, or similar agreement, and except as disclosed
      in the reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing
      agreement; and




(5)  The
      reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the servicer’s
      compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the report provided
      by an independent registered public accountant, after conducting a review in
      compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers
      or
      similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar
      agreement that is included in these reports.








June
      28,
      2006











By:  /s/
      Kazuhiko Kazama_______________


Kazuhiko
      Kazama


Treasurer


Nissan
      Auto Receivables Corporation II























8
### §1300b–12. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 97–429, §3, Jan. 8, 1983, 96 Stat. 2269, which set out definitions, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
### §1300n–2. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 106–568, title XIV, §1404, Dec. 27, 2000, 114 Stat. 2939, which provided for restoration of Federal recognition of the tribe and of all rights and privileges of the tribe and its members, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
### §§80 to 82. Repealed. Aug. 13, 1946, ch. 957, title XI, §1131(9), (10), (22), 60 Stat. 1036

Section 80, R.S. §1712; acts June 18, 1888, ch. 393, 25 Stat. 186; Feb. 9, 1889, ch. 122, §§1, 4, 25 Stat. 659; July 14, 1890, ch. 707, 26 Stat. 288; Apr. 5, 1906, ch. 1366, §3, 34 Stat. 100, related to commercial and agricultural reports.

Section 81, acts Jan. 27, 1879, ch. 28, §1, 20 Stat. 273; Apr. 5, 1906, ch. 1366, §3, 34 Stat. 100, related to reports on exports, imports, and wages.

Section 82, R.S. §1713; acts June 18, 1888, ch. 393, 25 Stat. 186; Feb. 9, 1889, ch. 122, §§1, 4, 25 Stat. 659, related to reports on current prices of merchandise, etc.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective three months after Aug. 13, 1946, see act Aug. 13, 1946, ch. 957, title XI, §1141, 60 Stat. 1040.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RONNIE S. MARTIN,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MORRIS, Dr., Individually; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-56672

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-05232-PSG-PJW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 18, 2014** 

Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Ronnie S. Martin, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an Eighth

Amendment claim challenging the conditions of his confinement. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo cross-motions for

FILED

DEC 3 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
summary judgment. Ford v. City of Yakima, 706 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2013). 

We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc.,

575 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.

Summary judgment for defendants was proper because Martin failed to raise

a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately

indifferent in refusing to prescribe special soap and lotion. See Farmer v. Brennan,

511 U.S. 825, 832, 837 (1994) (a prison official is not liable under the Eighth

Amendment for depriving an inmate “humane conditions of confinement” unless

he or she “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health”).

We reject Martin’s contention that the district court should have stricken

Barnett’s Declaration.

Martin’s motion to expand the record on appeal and request for judicial

notice, filed on October 3, 2013, are denied as unnecessary.

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See

Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

2 13-56672
#### George W. Harper, Jr., v. Francis E. Babcock and Others.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied, with ten dollars costs. Present—Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40699-40700]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16842]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee Teleconference on 
Transport Airplane and Engine Issues

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of public teleconference.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a public teleconference of the FAA's 
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) to discuss transport 
airplane and engine (TAE) issues.

DATES: The teleconference is scheduled for Wednesday, July 25, 2012, 
starting at 10 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time. Arrange for oral 
presentations by July 18, 2012.

ADDRESSES: FAA--Northwest Mountain Region, Fred Isaac conference room, 
1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ralen Gao, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-
209, FAA, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, Telephone 
(202) 267-3168, Fax (202) 267-5075, or email at ralen.gao@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. app. III), notice is 
given of an ARAC teleconference to be held July 25, 2012.
    The agenda for the teleconference includes discussion of Materials 
Flammability Working Group Recommendations and a decision on whether to 
forward the recommendation to the FAA.
    Attendance is open to the public, but will be limited to the 
availability of teleconference lines. Participation will be by 
teleconference only. Please confirm your participation with the person 
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section no later than 
July 18, 2012.
    To participate, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section by email or phone for the teleconference 
call-in number and passcode. Anyone calling from outside the Renton, 
WA, metropolitan area will be responsible for paying long-distance 
charges.
    The public must make arrangements by July 18, 2012, to present oral 
statements at the teleconference. Copies of the documents to be 
presented to ARAC may be made available by contacting the person listed 
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    If you need assistance or require a reasonable accommodation for 
the

[[Page 40700]]

meeting or meeting documents, please contact the person listed in the 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 5, 2012.
Lirio Liu,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2012-16842 Filed 7-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Juan Lopez, Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Dore, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Yan Yoorhis and Shientag, JJ.; Van Yoorhis and Shientag, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse and dismiss the information upon the ground that the guilt of the defendant was not established beyond a reasonable doubt.
###### Editorial Note on Part 17

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 17 appear at 68 FR 51376, Aug. 26, 2003.

#### § 17.232 Postsecondary education.

This section applies to postsecondary education and activities, including postsecondary vocational education programs or activities, that receive Federal financial assistance and to recipients that operate, or that receive Federal financial assistance for the operation of such programs or activities. For the purposes of this section, all recipients shall comply with the section 504 requirements promulgated by the Department of Education at 34 CFR part 104, subpart E.
498 P.2d 686

#### Manuel B. LOPEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION, Employer and Insurer, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 893.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

June 16, 1972.

*800Patricio S. Sanchez, Serna & Sanchez, Silver City, for plaintiff-appellant.

Robert J. Young, Shantz, Dickson & Young, Silver City, for defendant-appellee.

-.OPINION

HENDLEY, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals the denial of workmen compensation benefits. It is plaintiff’s contention that -the uncontradicted evidence shows that plaintiff sustained an injury on October 27, 1970 while in the course and scope of his employment. The trial court found that the injury to pjanitiff’s back did not arise out of and in the course of his. employment and that the injury complained of was a natural and direct result of an off-the-job injury. We affirm.

In reviewing workmen compensation cases, we consider only evidence and inferences that may be reasonably drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to support the findings. Quintana v. East Las Vegas Municipal School District, 82 N.M. 462, 483 P.2d 936 (Ct.App.1971).

There was evidence that plaintiff had been, visiting, doctors prior to the date of the accident for .which compensation is claimed. Plaintiff had .seen one doctor on October 26th and “told him . . . [he] was getting running pains .up to . [his] back.” He told another doctor on the date of the purported accident he had had pain in his back fot the past two weeks.' He told the assistant shift foreman on-October 5, 1970 that he had fallen off his house and hurt his back.

We think the foregoing evidence to be substantial to support the trial court’s-finding.

Plaintiff further contends that his testimony regarding the happening of the'injury is not subject to reasonable doubt and cannot be arbitarily disregarded by the trial court. We would agree with plaintiff if his testimony were to stand alone, however, as we have heretofore stated there was -substantial evidence to the contrary which supports the trial court’s findings. We do not weigh conflicting -evidence or credibility of the witnesses but only view such evidence and inferences to be drawn therefrom as will support the findings. Quintana v. East Las Vegas Municipal School District, supra.

Affirmed.

It 'is so ordered.

SUTIN, and HERNANDEZ, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Ricardo Narganes.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.