alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 27, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 62653]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23987]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Defense Advisory Committee on Military Personnel Testing

AGENCY: Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that a 
meeting of the Defense Advisory Committee on Military Personnel Testing 
is scheduled to be held. The purpose of the meeting is to review 
planned changes and progress in developing computerized and paper-and-
pencil enlistment tests and renorming of the tests.

DATES: November 18, 2004, from 8 a.m. to 5.p.m., and November 19, 2004, 
from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Mayflower Park Hotel, 405 Olive 
Way, Seattle, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Jane M. Arabian, Assistant 
Director, Accession Policy, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense 
(Personnel and Readiness), Room 2B271, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 
20301-4000, telephone (703) 697-9271.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Persons desiring to make oral presentations 
or submit written statements for consideration at the Committee meeting 
must contact Dr. Jane M. Arabian at the address or telephone number 
above no later than November 5, 2004.

    Dated: October 20, 2004.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 04-23987 Filed 10-26-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
#### In the Matter of the Will of Frederick S. Reeves, Deceased. Leona H. Frankenbach, Executrix Named in the Will, Appellant-Respondent; Emily R. Cookerly, Respondent-Appellant.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied on the ground that an appeal lies as a matter of right; Motion for. reargument for the limited purpose of amending the decision and order of this court handed down on May 24, 1943 *[ante,*p. 799], so as to incorporate therein a statement, pursuant to Civil Practice Act, section 602, that the findings of fact made by the Surrogate’s Court have been affirmed by this court, will be treated as a motion to amend the decision. The motion is granted. The findings of fact made by the Surrogate’s Court were passed upon in this court. Said decision is, therefore, amended *nwnc ;pro tune*as of May 24, 1943, without prejudice to any of the proceedings taken thereafter, to read as follows: “ Proceeding in the Surrogate’s Court of Suffolk County to probate a script executed by the decedent on April 11, 1940. Appeal by proponent from a decree denying probate upon the findings of a jury that the instrument was the product of undue influence and fraud. Cross appeal by contestant from so much of the decree as denied her motion to assess the costs against the proponent personally and granted costs to the proponent, payable out of the estate. Decree modified on the law by' striking therefrom the provisions awarding costs, disbursements and other expenses, aggregating $11,340.18, to the proponent, payable out of the estate. As thus modified, the decree, insofar as appealed from, is unanimously affirmed, with costs to the contestant, payable by the proponent personally. The findings of fact made in the Surrogate’s Court have been considered and are affirmed. Costs may not be awarded to an unsuccessful proponent of a will where probate is denied on a ground that imputes to the proponent personally wrongful conduct in connection with the instrument propounded for probate. *(Matter of Marshall,*189 App. Div. 477; *Matter of Jackson,*127 Misc. 187.) The script failed of probate because of undue influence and fraud practiced by the proponent personally. This determination, however, involved no reflection upon the draftsman of the will, because the finding of the court, supported by the evidence, was that the will was executed in compliance with the statute and that the decedent had testamentary capacity. The vice in the situation was not and could not be known to the draftsman under the peculiar circumstances herein, and there was no claim that he was a party to or aware of the effect of the conduct of the proponent upon the decedent.” The order is amended accordingly. Pending an appeal to the Court of Appeals this court has the power to amend its decision and order to accord with the facts, and to make such amendment retroactive. *(National City Bank of N. Y.*v. *N. Y. Gold Exchange Bank,*97 N. Y. 645; *Judson*v. *Central Vermont R. R. Co.,*158 N. Y. 597, 600.) Present—Close, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Taylor and Lewis, JJ.
#### Josephine Giunta, Appellant, v. City of New York, Respondent.

Order denying appellant’s motion for the examination of a witness before trial, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. The bare fact that a witness to an accident, who has made a statement for one party to the action, refuses to be interviewed or to make a statement to the other party does not constitute *“*special circumstances ” within the purview of section 288 of the Civil Practice Act. Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ., concur. [191 Mise. 832'.]
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.26

                        AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT ("Amendment") is made as of
January 24, 2003, between Somanetics Corporation, a Michigan corporation (the
"Company"), and Bruce J. Barrett ("Employee").

                                    RECITALS

         A.       Employee and the Company entered into the Employment
Agreement, dated as of May 13, 1994, as amended July 21, 1994, April 13, 1997,
April 18, 2000 and March 5, 2001 (the "Agreement").

         B.       Employee and the Company desire to amend the Agreement
further.

         THEREFORE, Company and Employee agree as follows:

         1.       Amendment. Effective January 24, 2003, the first sentence of
Section 2 of the Agreement is replaced with the following: "The term of
Employee's employment under this Agreement shall begin on June 1, 1994 and shall
continue until April 30, 2006, unless earlier terminated pursuant to Section 4."

         2.       Amendment. Effective December 1, 2002, Section 3(a) of the
Agreement is amended and restated to read as follows:

                  "(a)     Salary and Bonus. (i) As salary for Employee's
         services to be rendered under this Agreement, the Company shall pay
         Employee an annual salary of $225,500, increased from time to time by
         an amount determined by the Board of Directors. Such salary shall be
         paid semi-monthly in arrears (or at such other interval, not less
         frequently than monthly, as the Company shall designate). (ii) As a
         bonus, Employee will participate in the Bonus Plan established by the
         Compensation Committee of the Board."

         3.       No Other Change. Except as modified by this Amendment, the
Agreement shall continue in full force according to its terms and is hereby
ratified.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and Employee have executed this
Amendment as of the date set forth in the introductory paragraph of this
Amendment.

                                              SOMANETICS CORPORATION

                                              By:  /s/ H. Raymond Wallace
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                       H. Raymond Wallace

                                              Its: Chairman
                                                   -----------------------------

                                              /s/ Bruce J. Barrett
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              BRUCE J. BARRETT
### §711. Disposition of obsolete or condemned property

Each State, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands shall, upon receiving new property issued to its National Guard to replace obsolete or condemned issues of property, return the replaced property to the Department of the Army or the Department of the Air Force, as the case may be, or otherwise dispose of it, as the Secretary concerned directs. No money credit may be allowed for property disposed of under this section.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 616; Pub. L. 100–456, div. A, title XII, §1234(b)(1), Sept. 29, 1988, 102 Stat. 2059; Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title X, §1057(b)(2), Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3441.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 711 | 32:46. | June 3, 1916, ch. 134, §85, 39 Stat. 204. |

The words "to its National Guard" are inserted for clarity. The word "it" is substituted for the words "all property so replaced or condemned". The last sentence is substituted for 32:46 (last 8 words).

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2006—Pub. L. 109–163 substituted "State, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands" for "State and Territory, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia".

1988—Pub. L. 100–456 struck out "the Canal Zone," after "Puerto Rico,".
#### § 1636.140 Employment.

No qualified individual with handicaps shall, on the basis of handicap, be subjected to discrimination in employment under any program or activity conducted by the agency. The definitions, requirements, and procedures of section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791), as established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 29 CFR part 1614, shall apply to employment in federally conducted programs or activities.
## State of N ew York Su p reme C ou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: September 17, 2015 520140

________________________________ In the Matter of the Claim of NAUM VOLFSON, Appellant. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: August 10, 2015 Before: Garry, J.P., Rose, Devine and Clark, JJ.

__________ Naum Volfson, New York City, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Linda D. Joseph of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 3, 2014, which ruled that claimant's request for a hearing was untimely. Decision affirmed. No opinion. Garry, J.P., Rose, Devine and Clark, JJ., concur.-2- 520140

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-11-00180-CR

TOMMY LEON JONES,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 85th District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 20852-85-B

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Tommy Leon Jones attempts to appeal from an order denying his motion to 

recuse. By letter dated May 20, 2011, the Clerk of this Court notified Jones that the 

appeal was subject to dismissal because it appeared the order denying Jones’ motion to 

recuse was an interlocutory order and was not appealable. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a(f) (“If 

the motion is denied, it may be reviewed for abuse of discretion on appeal from the final 

judgment.”) (Emphasis added); Means v. State, 825 S.W.2d 260, 260-61 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no pet.); see also Apolinar v. State, 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. 
Jones v. State Page 2

Crim. App. 1991) (“The courts of appeals do not have jurisdiction to review 

interlocutory orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law.”). The 

Clerk also warned Jones that the appeal would be dismissed unless, within 21 days of 

the date of the letter, a response was filed showing grounds for continuing the appeal. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.3. We have not received a response from Jones.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed June 15, 2011

Do not publish 

[CR25]
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 Office of Public Affairs, Region I

 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa. 19406

 www.nrc.gov

No. I-04-002 February 6, 2004

CONTACT: Diane Screnci, 610/337-5330 Email: opa1@nrc.gov

Neil Sheehan, 610/337-5331

NRC TO HOLD PUBLIC MEETING IN CONNECTICUT 

ON LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR MILLSTONE 2 & 3

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold a public information meeting on

Tuesday, February 17, in Waterford, Conn., to discuss how the agency will review the

application submitted by the Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., to renew the operating

licenses for Millstone Units 2 and 3. The plants are located in Waterford.

The meeting will be held from 7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in the Waterford Town Hall, 15

Rope Ferry Road in Waterford, Conn. The NRC’s presentation will include information on how

the process works and how the public can participate. Members of the public are invited to ask

questions on the NRC’s license renewal review process. 

Under NRC regulations, the original operating license for a nuclear power plant is issued

for up to 40 years. The license may be renewed for up to an additional 20 years if NRC

requirements are met. 

Dominion has submitted an application to renew the operating license of the Millstone

Power Station, Units 2 and 3, for an additional 20 years. The current operating licenses for Units

2 and 3 expire on July 31, 2015, and November 25, 2025, respectively. 

The license renewal process requires that both a technical review of safety issues and an

environmental review be performed for each application. The NRC staff is currently reviewing

Dominion’s application to determine whether it contains enough information to begin the

required formal review. If the application has sufficient information, the NRC will formally

docket, or file, the application and will announce an opportunity to request a hearing. 

The Dominion application is posted on the NRC web page at: 

www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/millstone.html. It is also

available for review at the NRC’s Public Document Room in Rockville, Md., at the Waterford
-2-

Public Library, 49 Rope Ferry Road in Waterford and at the Three Rivers Community College,

Thames River Campus, 574 New London Turnpike in Norwich, Conn.

###
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-98-11 February 3, 1998

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Greenman 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF RATES QUAD CITIES "GOOD" IN OPERATIONS AND PLANT

SUPPORT AND "ACCEPTABLE" IN MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING

The Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, operated by

Commonwealth Edison Company, has received performance ratings of

"good" in operations and plant support and "acceptable" in

maintenance and engineering in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

staff’s latest Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance

(SALP) report for the facility. The plant is located in Cordova,

Illinois.

The assessment covers the period from October 27, 1996,

through December 20 of last year.

The NRC staff and Commonwealth Edison officials will discuss

the evaluation at a meeting that will be scheduled at a future

date. The meeting will be open for public observation.

NRC SALP reports rate utilities in four functional areas --

plant operations, maintenance, engineering, and plant support --

and assign ratings of Category 1,2, or 3 depending on whether

their performance in those areas is superior, good or acceptable.

The report on Quad Cities gives the plant a "Category 2" rating -

- indicating good performance -- in operations and plant support

and a "Category 3" rating -- indicating acceptable performance --

in maintenance and engineering.

NRC Regional Administrator A. Bill Beach, in a letter to

the utility, noted that while the ratings were the same as the

previous SALP report, the "conduct of nuclear activities in

connection with the Quad Cities facility declined from the

previous assessment period."

He added: "Improvement was noted in some areas; however,

substantial problems were discovered involving implementation of

the maintenance rule, procedures and analyses to achieve safe

shutdown in the event of a fire, and the conduct of hydrostatic

testing of the reactor vessel."
"Aspects of each of these problems extended into each of the

SALP functional areas," Mr. Beach continued. "Further,

insufficient oversight and support from both the Commonwealth

Edison Corporate Engineering and Quality and Safety Assurance

organizations contributed to the problems."

He told the utility, "At the SALP meeting you should be

prepared to discuss our assessments and your plans to improve

performance in the areas of Maintenance and Engineering.

Additionally, you are requested to respond in writing, within 30

days after the meeting, specifically addressing corrective

actions planned to improve performance in these areas."

SALP Report Results:

Functional Area Current Period Previous Period

Operations 2 2

Maintenance 3 3

Engineering 3 3

Plant Support 2 2

####

Note: SALP reports are available for review on the NRC’s

internet web site at http://www.nrc.gov/OPA.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1548 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1548

 To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for 
  any population control or population planning program or any family 
                           planning activity.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 1, 2003

   Mr. Paul introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on International Relations, and in addition to the Committee 
 on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by 
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for 
  any population control or population planning program or any family 
                           planning activity.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Freedom of Conscience Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST FEDERAL FUNDING FOR POPULATION CONTROL.

    No Federal official may expend any Federal funds for any population 
control or population planning program or any family planning activity 
(including any abortion procedure), irrespective of whether such 
program or activity is foreign or domestic.
                                 <all>
```
### §2141. Supervision of Botanic Garden

The supervision of the Capitol police shall extend over the Botanical Garden.

(R.S. §1826.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was classified to section 215 of former Title 40, prior to the enactment of Title 40, Public Buildings, Property, and Works, by Pub. L. 107–217, §1, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1062.

R.S. §1826 derived from Res. July 15, 1870, No. 131, 16 Stat. 391.
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov 

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. 04-139 October 28, 2004

NRC APPROVES STRETCH POWER UPRATE FOR INDIAN POINT UNIT 2

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved a request by Entergy Nuclear Operations to

increase the generating capacity of Unit 2 at the Indian Point Energy Center by 3.26 percent. The NRC

staff determined that Entergy could safely increase the reactor’s power output primarily by upgrading

minor plant components, as well as performing evaluations that showed the plant’s existing design can

handle the increased power level.

Stretch power uprates are typically on the order of up to 7 percent and usually involve changes

to instrument settings. The stretch power uprate for the Indian Point unit, located 24 miles north of

New York City, will increase its generating capacity from approximately 995 to 1040 megawatts

electric. Entergy intends to operate Indian Point Unit 2 at the higher power level following its fall

refueling operations.

NRC previously published a notice about the power uprate application in the Federal Register

providing the public an opportunity to comment or request a hearing. No comments or hearing

requests were received by the NRC.

 The NRC's safety evaluation of the plant’s proposed stretch power uprate focused on several

areas, including nuclear steam supply systems, instrumentation and control systems, electrical systems,

accident evaluations, radiological consequences, operations, and other technical specification changes. 

###
Exhibit 32.1/Exhibit 32.2



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 American Bio Medica Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30,
2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 14, 2012 (the “Report”), I, Stan Cipkowski, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
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/ Stan Cipkowski                                     
| | -------------------------------------------------------
| | Stan Cipkowski                                         
| | Chief Executive Officer/Chief Financial Officer        
| | Principal Executive Officer/Principal Financial Officer
| | Principal Accounting Officer                           
| |                                                        
| | August 14, 2012