alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent ofIndependent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No.333-138689) pertaining to $150,000,000 common stock, preferred stock,depositary shares, warrants and debt securities offered by SI International,Inc., (Form S-8 No. 333-127067) pertaining to the 2002 Amended and RestatedOmnibus Stock Incentive Plan,  (Form S-8No. 333-122171) pertaining to the 2002 Stock Incentive Plan, (Form S-8 No.333-101298) pertaining to the 2002 Stock Incentive Plan, the 2001 NonqualifiedStock Option Plan, the 2001 Service Award Option Plan and the 1998 Stock OptionPlan of SI International, Inc., (Form S-8 No. 333-111551) pertaining to theDeferred Compensation Plan of SI International, Inc., and (Form S-3 No.333-113827) pertaining to $100,000,000 common stock, preferred stock,depository shares, warrants and debt securities offered by SI International,Inc. of our reports dated March 6, 2007, with respect to the consolidatedfinancial statements and schedule of SI International, Inc., SI International,Inc. management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting of SI International, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)for the year ended December 30, 2006.

 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

McLean, VirginiaMarch 12, 2007

 

----
### §164. Construction of provisions

#### (a) Supervisors as union members

Nothing herein shall prohibit any individual employed as a supervisor from becoming or remaining a member of a labor organization, but no employer subject to this subchapter shall be compelled to deem individuals defined herein as supervisors as employees for the purpose of any law, either national or local, relating to collective bargaining.

#### (b) Agreements requiring union membership in violation of State law

Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed as authorizing the execution or application of agreements requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment in any State or Territory in which such execution or application is prohibited by State or Territorial law.

#### (c) Power of Board to decline jurisdiction of labor disputes; assertion of jurisdiction by State and Territorial courts

(1) The Board, in its discretion, may, by rule of decision or by published rules adopted pursuant to subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, decline to assert jurisdiction over any labor dispute involving any class or category of employers, where, in the opinion of the Board, the effect of such labor dispute on commerce is not sufficiently substantial to warrant the exercise of its jurisdiction: Provided, That the Board shall not decline to assert jurisdiction over any labor dispute over which it would assert jurisdiction under the standards prevailing upon August 1, 1959.

(2) Nothing in this subchapter shall be deemed to prevent or bar any agency or the courts of any State or Territory (including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands), from assuming and asserting jurisdiction over labor disputes over which the Board declines, pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection, to assert jurisdiction.

(July 5, 1935, ch. 372, §14, 49 Stat. 457; June 23, 1947, ch. 120, title I, §101, 61 Stat. 151; Pub. L. 86–257, title VII, §701(a), Sept. 14, 1959, 73 Stat. 541.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

In subsec. (c)(1), "subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5" substituted for "the Administrative Procedure Act" on authority of Pub. L. 89–554, §7(b), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 631, the first section of which enacted Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

#### Amendments

1959—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 86–257 added subsec. (c).

1947—Act June 23, 1947, amended section generally by inserting new subject matter. Section formerly referred to conflict of laws, see section 165 of this title.

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

#### Effective Date of 1947 Amendment

For effective date of amendment by act June 23, 1947, see section 104 of act June 23, 1947, set out as a note under section 151 of this title.
§ 302.4 Merit personnel systems. ( a ) *Background.* Section 208 of the Intergovernmental Personnel Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4728) authorizes Federal agencies to require, as a condition of participation in Federal assistance programs, systems of a personnel administration consistent with personnel standards prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). OPM has promulgated Standards for a System of Personnel Administration (5 CFR part 900) which prescribe intergovernmental personnel standards on a merit basis as a condition of eligibility in the administration of grant programs. OPM has approved FEMA adoption of these standards by the regulations in this part.
( b ) *Standard.* Participation by each grantee and each subgrantee under the program covered in this part is subject to compliance with the following conditions regarding merit personnel systems: Methods of personnel administration will be established and maintained in public agencies administering or supervising the administration of the civil defense program in conformity with the Standards for a Merit System of Personnel Administration 5 CFR part 900, which incorporate the Intergovernmental Personnel Act Merit Principles (Pub. L. 91-648, section 2, 84 Stat. 1909) prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management pursuant to section 208 of the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970 as amended.
Section 302.3(a)(5) of this part provides, in part, that State administrative plans that fail to provide for fulfilling this condition are not approvable.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-61399-CIV-SMITH

PAMELA TITUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ATLAS ACQUISITIONS LLC,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This matter came before the Court sua sponte. On July 17, 2020, the Court issued its Order 

Requiring Joint Scheduling Report, Certificates of Interested Parties and Corporate Disclosure 

Statement [DE 4], requiring the parties to file their Joint Scheduling Report, Certificates of 

Interested Parties and Corporate Disclosure Statements by September 15, 2020. A review of the 

record indicates that the parties have not complied. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that on or before September 22, 2020, the parties shall file their Joint 

Scheduling Report, Certificates of Interested Parties and Corporate Disclosure Statements or show 

cause why they should not be sanctioned for failing to comply with a Court order. Failure to timely 

respond to this Order may result in dismissal of this case without further notice.

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 17th day of September, 2020.

cc: Counsel of Record

Case 0:20-cv-61399-RS Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/18/2020 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                       CERTIFICATION FURNISHED 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 Annual Report of Tufco Technologies, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned Vice
President and 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:

        3.      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
                or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

        4.      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
                material respects, the financial condition and results of
                operations of the Company.



Date: August 14, 2003                /s/Michael B. Wheeler
                                     Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### Helen Caretti, Appellant, v. Henry Caretti, Respondent.

No opinion. Settle order on notice. Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ.
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ,, 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 

;-MlTMcNT Or 

•,i^~;?CRTATION 

uV 18 ^ 2: 5 5 

Motion of 

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. 

for confidential treatment under Rule 

12 (Form 41, Schedule B-7) 

DOT-OST-1996-1203 

MOTION OF AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. FOR 

CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT UNDER RULE 12 

Communications with respect to this document should be sent to: 

VIRASB VAHIDI 

Senior Vice President -

Marketing and Planning 

and Chief Commercial Officer 

American Airlines, Inc. 

P.O. Box 619616, MD 5528 

DFW Airport, Texas 75261 

WILLIAM K. RIS, JR. 

Senior Vice President -

Government Affairs 

American Airlines, Inc. 

1101 17th Street, N.W. 

Suite 600 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

CARL B. NELSON 

Associate General Counsel 

American Airlines, Inc. 

1101 17th Street, N.W. 

Suite 600 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

(202) 496-5647 

carl.nelson@aa.com 

November 14, 2011 
BEFORE THE 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 

Motion of 

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. 

for confidential treatment under Rule 

12 (Form 41, Schedule B-7) 

DOT-OST-1996-1203 

MOTION OF AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. FOR 

CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT UNDER RULE 12 

American Airlines, Inc., under 14 CFR 302.12, hereby 

moves that its Form 41, Schedule B-7 for 3Q2011 be accorded 

confidential treatment and be withheld from public disclosure. 

The information for which confidential treatment is requested 

pertains to American's airframe and aircraft engine acquisitions and retirements. 

In accordance with the Department's Final Rule on Submitting Airline Data via the Internet, 75 Fed. Reg. 41580, 

41582, July 16, 2010, we are uploading our confidential reports 

electronically to http://esubmit.rita.dot.gov 

On June 5, 1995, by letter of James W. Mitchell, Director, Office of Airline Statistics, the Department granted 

confidential treatment for a 10-year period to similar data 

filed by American. For the reasons stated in that letter, the 

current submission should also receive confidential treatment. 
- 2 -

WHEREFORE, American moves that the schedules being 

submitted electronically to the above-referenced email address 

be withheld from public disclosure under Rule 12 for a period 

of 10 years. 

Respectfully submitted. 

GJit>M SHJ 

CARL B. NELSON 

Associate General Counsel 

American Airlines, Inc. 

August 9, 2011
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 153 (Friday, August 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 46408]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18775]

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

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED

Procurement List; Proposed Addition

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled.

ACTION: Proposed Addition to the Procurement List.

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

SUMMARY: The Committee is proposing to add a product to the Procurement 
List that will be furnished by a nonprofit agency employing persons who 
are blind or have other severe disabilities.
    Comments Must Be Received on or Before: 9/8/2014.

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 10800, Arlington, Virginia, 
22202-4149.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR TO SUBMIT COMMENTS CONTACT: Barry S. 
Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email 
CMTEFedReg@AbilityOne.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published pursuant to 41 USC 
8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested 
persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed action.

Addition

    If the Committee approves the proposed addition, the entity of the 
Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to 
procure the product listed below from the nonprofit agency employing 
persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
    The following product is proposed for addition to the Procurement 
List for production by the nonprofit agency listed:

Product

NSN: 8520-01-432-2618--Hand Soap, Liquid, Biobased, BX (4) 1 gallon 
jugs.
NPA: Lighthouse for the Blind, St. Louis.
Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Fort Worth, 
TX.
Coverage: A-List for the Total Government Requirement as aggregated 
by the General Services Administration, Fort Worth, TX.

Barry S. Lineback,
Director, Business Operations.
[FR Doc. 2014-18775 Filed 8-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ABBY JO OVITSKY,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF FAIR

EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING,

 Defendant,

 and

K12.COM, DBA California Virtual

Academy, DBA Cava, DBA Delaware

K12, Inc., DBA K12, Inc., DBA

Washington Virtual Academy, in

Washington State, DBA WAVA; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-55221

D.C. No. 2:11-cv-10142-DMGJCG

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding

FILED

FEB 27 2015

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.
Submitted February 17, 2015** 

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Abby Jo Ovitsky appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing her action alleging violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act

(“ADA”) and various state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of standing, Canatella v.

California, 304 F.3d 843, 852 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Ovitsky’s claim for injunctive relief

under the ADA because Ovitsky failed to allege a “real and immediate threat of

repeated injury in the future.” Chapman v. Pier 1 Imps. (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939,

946, 949 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)

(per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, the requests for

oral argument are denied.

2 13-55221
§ 123.9 What happens if I don't use loan proceeds for the intended purpose? ( a ) For disaster loans authorized under Section 7(b), when SBA approves each application, it issues a loan authorization which specifies the amount of the loan, repayment terms, any collateral requirements, and the permitted use of loan proceeds. If you wrongfully misapply the proceeds of a disaster loan authorized under Section 7(b), you will be liable to SBA for one and one-half times the proceeds disbursed to you as of the date SBA learns of your wrongful misapplication. Wrongful misapplication means the willful use of any loan proceeds without SBA approval contrary to the loan authorization. If you fail to use loan proceeds for authorized purposes for 60 days or more after receiving a loan disbursement check, such non-use also is considered a wrongful misapplication of the proceeds.
( b ) If SBA learns that you may have misapplied your loan proceeds from a disaster loan authorized under Section 7(b), SBA will notify you at your last known address, by certified mail, return receipt requested. You will be given at least 30 days to submit to SBA evidence that you have not misapplied the loan proceeds or that you have corrected any such misapplication. Any failure to respond in time will be considered an admission that you misapplied the proceeds. If SBA finds a wrongful misapplication, it will cancel any undisbursed loan proceeds, call the loan, and begin collection measures to collect your outstanding loan balance and the civil penalty.
( c ) If you misapply loan proceeds of any disaster loan under this Part, including an IDAP loan, you may face criminal prosecution or civil or administrative action.
[61 FR 3304, Jan. 31, 1996, as amended at 75 FR 60598, Oct. 1, 2010]
HomeAbout NRCHow We RegulateCRGR Reviews

# Contact Us About The Committee To Review Generic Requirements (CRGR)

If you need to report a safety concern, please do not use this page. Instead, please see Report a Safety or Security Concern.

Would you like to remain anonymous?:*

YesNo

Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, October 26, 2021

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - CRGR Membership
          - Procedures for Requesting a CRGR Review
          - Categories of CRGR Reviews
          - Content Requirements for Packages Submitted for CRGR Review
          - Results of Previous CRGR Reviews
          - Related Information About Backfitting and Regulatory Analysis
          - Contact Us

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, October 26, 2021
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

      ( print page 61867)    
                    Notice is hereby given that, on August 12, 2004, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Caterpillar Inc.: Consortium to Develop Positioning System for Machine Information System (“CAT”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties to the venture and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture.  The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                 

Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties to the venture are: Caterpillar Inc., Mossville, IL; and Applanix Corporation, Richmond Hill, Ontario, CANADA. The general areas of CAT's planned activities are to investigate methods to compensate for satellite shading that cause Caterpillar's information-based products such as CAES to cease giving useful positioning data.  The activities of this Consortium will be partially funded by an award from the Department of Energy/National Energy Technology Laboratory. 

Dorothy F. Fountain, 

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 04-23510  Filed 10-20-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-96-45 August 7, 1996

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Dauginas 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF PROPOSES $1,000 FINE AGAINST DIAGNOSTIC REAGENTS, INC

FOR DELIBERATELY POSSESSING AND RECEIVING RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS

IN AN UNAUTHORIZED LOCATION

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a

$1,000 fine against Diagnostic Reagents, Inc., Dearborn,

Michigan, for receiving radioactive materials at a location not

authorized by the NRC and for the unauthorized altering of its

NRC license to show the new location.

NRC is taking this action based on the findings by NRC's

Office of Investigations (OI) and NRC inspectors. The

investigation was conducted in August of last year after NRC mail

to the company was returned as "undeliverable."

Inspectors and investigators found that, in May 1993, the

company moved to a location different from the one authorized by

its license. NRC also found that, in order to continue receiving

nuclear materials from other companies, the company deliberately

altered the address on its NRC license.

Diagnostic Reagents distributes prepackaged kits used for

medical diagnostic procedures. These kits contain small

quantities of radioactive iodine-125.

"The NRC regulatory program is based on the candor and

integrity of each licensee and their employees; therefore NRC

cannot and will not condone willful violations," said NRC

Regional Administrator A. Bill Beach in notifying the company of

the fine.

Diagnostic Reagents has until September 3 to pay the fine or

to protest it. If the fine is protested and subsequently imposed

by the NRC staff, the company may request a hearing.

####