alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.2


                         IDI Global, Inc.


                 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                      18 U.S.C. Section 1350

      I, Melanie Young, Principal Financial Officer of IDI Global, Inc.
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:

     (1)   the annual report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended
December 31, 2002, 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 Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.



Date: March 28, 2003

                                       /s/ Melanie Young
                                       Melanie Young
                                       Principal Financial Officer
# L_2021075EN.01001801.xml

| 4.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 75/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 75/18

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 183/2018

of 21 September 2018

amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2021/297]

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/605 of 19 April 2018 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 by setting out scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine disrupting properties (1), as corrected by OJ L 111, 2.5.2018, p. 10, is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/605 of 19 April 2018 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 by setting out scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine disrupting properties (1), as corrected by OJ L 111, 2.5.2018, p. 10, is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Annex II to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Annex II to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following indent is added in point 13 (Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council) of Chapter XV of Annex II to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘— | 32018 R 0605: Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/605 of 19 April 2018 (OJ L 101, 20.4.2018, p. 33), as corrected by OJ L 111, 2.5.2018, p. 10.’. |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32018 R 0605: Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/605 of 19 April 2018 (OJ L 101, 20.4.2018, p. 33), as corrected by OJ L 111, 2.5.2018, p. 10.’.

Article 2

The text of Regulation (EU) 2018/605, as corrected by OJ L 111, 2.5.2018, p. 10, in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 22 September 2018, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 21 September 2018.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Oda Helen SLETNES

---

(1)  
  OJ L 101, 20.4.2018, p. 33.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
No. I-10-031 

Contact: Diane Screnci, 610/337-5330 

 Neil Sheehan, 610/337-5331 

July 8, 2010 

E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov

NRC TO HOLD ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION JULY 14 ON VERMONT YANKEE 

 The Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Gregory B. Jaczko will hold a 

roundtable discussion with Vermont Yankee area-stakeholders in Brattleboro, Vt., Wednesday, 

July 14, and then visit the Vermont Yankee nuclear facility in nearby Vernon. The Chairman will 

also meet with reporters prior to his plant tour. 

The roundtable discussion with invited stakeholders will take place from 9:30 a.m. to 

11:00 a.m. at the Ramada Hotel and Conference Center, at 1380 Putney Road in Brattleboro, Vt. 

Members of the public are invited to observe this discussion. 

Following the roundtable, the Chairman will meet with reporters at 11:10 at the Ramada 

Hotel for a media availability. 

The Chairman then will travel to Vermont Yankee. While there, he will meet with the 

NRC resident inspectors who carry out the NRC’s inspection program at the site on a daily basis. 

They are “the eyes and ears” of the agency on site. In addition, he will tour the site, talk with 

plant officials and hold an all-hands meeting with plant employees. 

 Chairman Jaczko was designated Chairman of the NRC by President Barack Obama on 

May 13, 2009. He was first sworn in as a Commissioner on Jan. 21, 2005, and his term runs 

through June 2013. 

### 

News releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE 

link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site. 

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs, Region I 

475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa. 19406 

Site: http://www.nrc.gov
REGIONAL CORNER: NOVGOROD, RUSSIA

----

**November 1997**
By Laurel Henderson
Among Russia's regions, Novgorod oblast shows promise and potential for U.S. businesses. Theoblast, which spans 55,300 square kilometers and is situated at one of the main transportationcrossroads that connects Moscow, St. Petersburg, and the Baltic States, has abundant forest andother natural resources as well as significant heavy industry. The local administration,spearheaded by a governor with a reformist reputation, has been taking measures to encourageprivatization and foreign investment by implementing legislation to ease and encourage growth. In addition, the U.S. Government has identified Novgorod as a pilot site for its RegionalInvestment Initiative under the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission.  More and more foreigncompanies are being drawn to the region, but U.S. activity remains relatively low.  
**Forestry and Natural Resources**
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-14-00040-CR

IN RE CHARLES RAY BAKER

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

AL SCOGGINS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Petition denied

Opinion delivered and filed February 20, 2014

[OT06]
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. AMERICAN TELEVISION, Inc., a Missouri Corporation.

No. 15265.

United States Court of Appeals . Eighth Circuit.

April 8, 1955.

Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C, for petitioner.

I. Harvey Levinson, Washington, D. C, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Withdrawal of petition for enforcement of Order of National Labor Relations Board, certified record and proposed decree from consideration by Court granted, on stipulation of parties*
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 12, 2015

No. 04-14-00916-CR

Eberto A. MENDEZ,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2009CR2760

Honorable Mary D. Roman, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On April 13, 2015, appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 368 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on 

appeal. Counsel has informed the appellant of his right to file his own brief and obtain a copy of 

the record. Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns 

v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Counsel provided 

appellant with an “Appellant’s Motion for Pro Se Access to the Appellate Record.” On April 13, 

2015, the State filed a letter waiving its right to file an appellee’s brief unless the appellant files a 

pro se brief. 

Appellant has not requested a copy of the appellate record. If the appellant desires to file 

a pro se brief, he must do so no later than June 26, 2015. See Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. If 

the appellant files a pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no later than thirty days 

after the date the appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court. It is further ORDERED that the 

motion to withdraw, filed by appellant’s counsel, is HELD IN ABEYANCE pending further 

order of the court.

We further ORDER the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on appellant, 

appellant’s counsel, the attorney for the State, and the clerk of the trial court.
_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 12th day of May, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1907 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1907

 To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to ensure the availability of 
funds to provide technical assistance for certain conservation programs 
                   of the Department of Agriculture.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 1, 2003

   Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma (for himself and Mr. Holden) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to ensure the availability of 
funds to provide technical assistance for certain conservation programs 
                   of the Department of Agriculture.

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

SECTION 1. SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR DEPARTMENT OF 
              AGRICULTURE CONSERVATION PROGRAMS.

    (a) Subsection (b) of section 1241 of the Food Security Act of 1985 
(16 U.S.C. 3841), as amended by section 2106 of the Emergency Wartime 
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003 (Public Law 108-11; 117 Stat. 
590), is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Effective beginning on 
        the date of enactment of the Agricultural Assistance Act of 
        2003, subject to paragraph (2)'' and inserting ``Effective as 
        of February 20, 2003, subject to paragraphs (2) and (3)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(3) Farmland protection program, grassland reserve 
        program, and environmental quality incentives program.--
        Effective as of February 20, 2003, with respect to the 
        conservation programs specified in paragraphs (4) through (6) 
        of subsection (a), the funds reserved pursuant to paragraph (1) 
        for the provision of technical assistance shall be available 
        only for the conservation program from which the funds were 
        reserved and shall not be available for other conservation 
        programs specified in subsection (a).''.
                                 <all>
```
108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2075

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1905 West Blue Heron Boulevard in West Palm Beach, Florida, as the

‘‘Judge Edward Rodgers Post Office Building’’.

108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2075

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 1905 West Blue Heron Boulevard in West

Palm Beach, Florida, as the ‘‘Judge Edward Rodgers

Post Office Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 2075 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 1905 West Blue Heron Boulevard in West Palm

4 Beach, Florida, shall be known and designated as the

5 ‘‘Judge Edward Rodgers Post Office Building’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

10 to the ‘‘Judge Edward Rodgers Post Office Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives September 30,

2003.

Attest:

Clerk.
### §10451. Polygraph testing prohibition

#### (a) In general

In order to be eligible for grants under this subchapter, a State, Indian tribal government, territorial government, or unit of local government shall certify that, not later than 3 years after January 5, 2006, their laws, policies, or practices will ensure that no law enforcement officer, prosecuting officer or other government official shall ask or require an adult, youth, or child victim of an alleged sex offense as defined under Federal, tribal, State, territorial, or local law to submit to a polygraph examination or other truth telling device as a condition for proceeding with the investigation of such an offense.

#### (b) Prosecution

The refusal of a victim to submit to an examination described in subsection (a) shall not prevent the investigation, charging, or prosecution of the offense.

(Pub. L. 90–351, title I, §2013, as added Pub. L. 109–162, title I, §101(g), Jan. 5, 2006, 119 Stat. 2975.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 3796gg–8 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

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

#### Effective Date

Section not effective until the beginning of fiscal year 2007, see section 4 of Pub. L. 109–162, set out as an Effective Date of 2006 Amendment note under section 10261 of this title.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, 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

July 25, 2011 

t0718 

Order 

 

July 25, 2011 

142415 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142415 

 COA: 298817 

Saginaw CC: 08-031760-FH 

MICHAEL DERAIL FLOYD, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 15, 2010 

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

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).
```

[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 219 (Monday, November 15, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 65613]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25277]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    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 Institute of General Medical 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel, R13 Application Review.
    Date: November 23, 2004.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 11 a.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, 45 
Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Contact Person: Arthur L. Zachary, PhD, Office of Scientific 
Review, National Institutes of General Medical Sciences, National 
Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, Room 3AN-12, Bethesda, MD 
20892. (301) 594-2886; [email protected].
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, 
Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and 
Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and 
Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental 
Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, 
Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS.)

    Dated: November 5, 2004.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 04-25277 Filed 11-12-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
```
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OFA MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 01-4962



# 
S TEPHENA UBREY M C I NINCH ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge.

(CR-01-20) Submitted: April 25, 2002 Decided: June 3, 2002 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL Dennis P. Brumberg, Paul A. Dull, BRUMBERG, MACKEY & WALL, P.L.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Thomas J. Bondurant, Jr., Chief, Criminal Division, Tara J. Mooney, Third Year Law Intern, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION
PER CURIAM: Stephen Aubrey McIninch was found guilty following a jury trial of two counts of maliciously damaging, or attempting to damage, by means of a fire, a building used in or affecting interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 844(i) (West 2000). Finding no reversible error, we affirm. On appeal, McIninch first contends that the district court erred in denying his motions for a judgment of acquittal on both counts. A reviewing court must uphold a jury’s verdict if the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, is sufficient for a rational trier of fact to have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Glasser v. United States , 315 U.S.60, 80 (1942). We have reviewed the record and are satisfied that substantial evidence supports McIninch’s convictions.
McIninch also claims that the district court abused its discretion in admitting a videotape recreation of a fire occurring at Pebble Creekapartments. Recognizing the potential prejudicial effects of such recreations, we have "established a requirement that video taped evidence purporting to recreate events at issue must be substantially similar to the actual events to be admissible." Hinkle v. City of Clarksburg , 81 F.3d 416, 425 (4th Cir. 1996). McIninch contends that the videotape was not substantially similar to the actual event because the light used to simulate the fire was not flickering and the apartment lights were on during the taping. Even assuming, without deciding, that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the videotape, we find that any resulting error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence against McIninch presented at trial. See Talkington v. Atria Reclamelucifers Fabrieken BV , 152 F.3d 254, 266 (4th Cir. 1998) (finding that any resulting error from district court’s decision to admit a videotape of a burn test in a products liability case was harmless). 2 U NITED S TATES v. M C I NINCHAccordingly, we affirm McIninch’s convictions and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentionsare adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED 3 U NITED S TATES v. M C I NINCH
U n i t e d S t a t e s G o v e r n m e n t

MEMORANDUM

FORM 0-1 ISf (1-92)

R a i l r o a d R e t i r e m e n t B o a r d

L-2001-07

TO : Philip H. Arnold 

Chief of Records Analysis and Systems 

Through: Ronald Russo

JUN 1 9 2001

Director of Policy and Systems

FROM Steven A. Barth 

General Counse

SUBJECT : Common Law Marriage - Idaho

Recently, one of the attorney advisors in the Office of General Counsel was asked for 

informal advice regarding a common law marriage alleged to have occurred in Idaho. 

While researching the question, the attorney noted that Idaho enacted legislation in 1995 

providing that common law marriages entered into in Idaho on or after January 1,1996 

will no longer be recognized. This change is found in Chapter 2 of Title 32 of the Idaho 

Code, which states as follows:

32-201. What constitutes marriage - No common-law marriage after

January 1,1996.—(1) Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil 

contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of parties 

capable of making it is necessary. Consent alone will not constitute 

marriage; it must be followed by the issuance of a license and a 

solemnization as authorized and provided by law. Marriage created by a 

mutual assumption of marital rights, duties or obligations shall not be 

recognized as a lawful marriage.

(2) The provisions of subsection (1) of this section requiring the 

issuance of a license and a solemnization shall not invalidate any marriage 

contract in effect prior to January 1,1996, created by consenting parties 

through a mutual assumption of marital rights, duties or obligations.

Consequently, effective January 1,1996, the state of Idaho no longer recognizes common 

law marriages. However, if the common law marriage was entered into prior to January 1, 

1996, Idaho will still recognize that marriage as a valid marriage, presuming the marriage 

was created by consenting parties through a mutual assumption of marital rights, duties or 

obligations.

H:\OPINIONS\Marriage-ID.NVR.doc