alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 918.1 Introduction.

Pursuant to section 207 of the National Sea Grant College Program Act, as amended (Pub. L. 94-461, 33 U.S.C. 1121 *et seq.*), herein referred to as the Act, the following guidelines establish the procedures by which organizations can qualify for designation as Sea Grant Colleges or Sea Grant Regional Consortia, and the responsibilities required of organizations so designated.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2090
PAUL K. GUNDOTRA; RITA GUNDOTRA, Petitioners - Appellants, and PKG FOUNDATION CORPORATION; TRADING INTERNATIONAL MARKETS CORPORATION, Petitioners, versus INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. Nos. 93-21652, 93-21653, 93-21654) Submitted: May 26, 1998 Decided: June 18, 1998 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Paul K. Gundotra, Rita Gundotra, Petitioners Pro Se. Gilbert Steven Rothenberg, Gary R. Allen, David English Carmack, Janet A. Bradley, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Paul K. and Rita Gundotra appeal from the tax court’s final decision upholding the Commissioner’s determination of a deficiency and addition to tax pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6662 with respect to their 1989 federal income tax liability. We have reviewed the record and the tax court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the tax court. Gundotra v. Internal Revenue , Tax Ct. No. 93-21652 (U.S. Tax Ct., Oct. 24, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
INFORMATION REPORT

April 21, 2015 SECY-15-0060

For: The Commissioners 

From: Melanie A. Galloway

 Assistant for Operations 

 Office of the Executive Director for Operations 

Subject: WEEKLY INFORMATION REPORT - WEEK ENDING 

 APRIL 10, 2015 

Contents Enclosure

Office of Information Services A 

Office of the Secretary B 

 /RA/ 

 Melanie A. Galloway 

 Assistant for Operations, OEDO 

Contact: L. Rakovan, OEDO 

 301-415-2589 
APRIL 10, 2015 ENCLOSURE A 

Office of Information Services (OIS) 

Items of Interest 

Week Ending April 10, 2015

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act (PA) Requests and Appeals Received 

During the Period of April 3 – April 9, 2015: 

Any and all records relating to Burns and Roe entities as specified at 

the Shippingport Nuclear Power Station and Hanford Nuclear Facility. FOIA/PA-2015-0212

All communications and documents pertaining to revisions to the 

Nuclear Energy Institute's "Personnel Access Requirements for Nuclear 

Power Plants."

FOIA/PA-2015-0213

Appeal: Redaction of information on records related to documents of 

allegation of professional misconduct by an employee 

(FOIA/PA-2015-0170).

FOIA/PA-2015-

0023A

Copies of all documents related to named individual’s job duties and 

security clearance(s). FOIA/PA-2015-0214

Copies of all documented correspondence with the US Office of Special 

Counsel, January 2014-present. FOIA/PA-2015-0215

All agency records and information regarding the Office of Investigation 

Case Nos. 3-2013-0096 and 3-2013-0097. FOIA/PA-2015-0216
APRIL 10, 2015 ENCLOSURE B 

Office of the Secretary (SECY) 

 Items of Interest 

Week Ending April 10, 2015 

Document Released to Public Date of 

Document

Subject

Decision Documents

1. SECY-15-0040 03/19/2015 Proposed Revisions to Policy Statement on 

Reporting Abnormal Occurrences Criteria

2. SECY-15-0044 03/27/2015 Proposed Variable Annual Fee Structure for 

Small Modular Reactors

Information Papers 

1. SECY-15-0052 04/06/2015 Weekly Information Report – Week Ending,

March 20, 2015

2. SECY-15-0053 04/06/2015 Weekly Information Report – Week Ending,

March 27, 2015

Commission Correspondence

1. Letter to John Boehner, Joseph Biden, and Orrin Hatch; Senators Ron Johnson and James 

Inhofe; Representatives Fred Upton and Jason Chaffetz; Jenny Yang, Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission; Eric Holder, Department of Justice; and Katherine Archuleta, 

Office of Personnel Management, provides the NRC's FY 2014 Annual Report on the 

Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation (No FEAR) Act of 

2002, dated March 31, 2015. 

2. Letter to Senator James Inhofe, et al. responds to his letter urging the NRC to integrate the 

remaining post-Fukushima issues into the agency's ongoing work, dated April 2, 2015. 

3. Letter to Representative Joseph J. Heck, responds to his letter regarding barriers to patient 

access to radiolabeled products and the shortage of Authorized Users able to administer 

therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals, April 3, 2015.
Exhibit
10.2


FIRST AMENDMENT TO MANAGEMENT
SERVICES AGREEMENT


WITH THL
EQUITY ADVISORS IV, LLC


This is the First Amendment to the Management Services Agreement with
THL Equity Advisors IV, LLC between Vertis Holdings, Inc., successor in
interest to Big Flower Holdings, Inc. (“Vertis Holdings”), a Delaware
corporation, and THL Equity Advisors IV, LLC, a Massachusetts limited liability
company, (“Consultant”) dated December 7, 1999 (“Agreement”).  The parties wish to amend the Agreement, and
agree as follows:


1.                                       Paragraph 4(a) of the Agreement shall be
amended such that Vertis Holdings shall not be required to make a cash payment
of the annual fee to Consultant beginning January 1, 2007; provided, however
that Vertis Holdings shall accrue the annual fee and pay out the accrued
balance after Vertis Holdings experiences a Change In Control as defined under
the Credit Agreement dated December 22, 2004 by and among Vertis, Inc., Vertis
Digital Services Limited, General Electric Capital Corporation, GECC Capital Markets
Group, Inc., Bank of America, N.A. and the other lenders and credit parties
named therein (the “Credit Agreement”) or Vertis, Inc. refinances the Credit
Agreement.


2.                                       All initial capitalized terms used within
this First Amendment shall have the definitions given to them in the Agreement
unless otherwise defined in this First Amendment.


3.                                       All other terms and conditions of the
Agreement shall remain the same and in full force and effect.  To the extent the provisions of the Agreement
conflict with the terms and provisions of this First Amendment, this First
Amendment shall control.


This
First Amendment is executed by the parties as of April 11, 2007.


	
  VERTIS HOLDINGS, INC.

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /S/ John V. Howard, Jr.

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Printed Name:

  	
  John V. Howard, Jr.

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Title:

  	
  Secretary

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  THL EQUITY ADVISORS IV, LLC

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /S/ Anthony J. DiNovi

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Printed Name:

  	
  Anthony J. DiNovi

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Title:

  	
  Managing Director
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-548

ALFRED RONSDORF, Petitioner, versus THE CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, N.A., Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-95- 2729-L) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 22, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alfred Ronsdorf, Petitioner Pro Se. David Bart Goldstein, DANEKER,MCINTIRE, DAVIS, SCHUMM, PRINCE & GOLDSTEIN, P.C., Baltimore, Maryland, for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Alfred Ronsdorf petitions this court, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 5(a), for permission to appeal an interlocutory order under 28U.S.C. § 1292(b) (1994). The district court issued an order certifying its decision administratively closing Ronsdorf’s civil actionagainst Chase-Manhattan Bank. The court closed the case administratively based on the unavailability of a witness whose testimony is crucial to the resolution of several issues dispositive in this case. Because we find that there is no “substantial basis for a difference of opinion” regarding the necessity of this witness’stestimony, we decline to exercise our discretion and assert jurisdiction over this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 5(b). The petition for appeal is denied. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
### §13822. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 13822 was editorially reclassified as section 12182 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
A!

A!

A!

HELCO - Puna Power Plant

HELCO - Shipman Power Plant

HELCO - Kanoelehua Hill Generating Station

HAVO

HACR

HALE

Hawai'i Volcanoes NP

Haleakala National Park

Hawaii

Maui

Lanai

Kahoolawe

Molokai

Ü

A! Monitor Location

Class I Area

EGU with SO2 Emissions

480.2 tons per year

480.3 - 1392.2 tons per year

1392.3 - 2876.4 tons per year

2876.5 - 2885.9 tons per year

HAWAII REGIONAL HAZE FIP - OVERVIEW

0 10 20 Miles

AIR1200051_1.mxd

5/21/2012

Sources: Hawaii DOH (2012), EPA(2012), US Census Bureau (2006), GEBCO, NOAA, National Geographic, AND, and Esri.
§ 1000.12 Organizational structure. The Consumer Product Safety Commission is composed of the principal units listed in this section. ( a ) The following units report directly to the Chairman of the Commission: ( 1 ) Office of the General Counsel;
( 2 ) Office of Congressional Relations;
( 3 ) Office of the Inspector General;
( 4 ) Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Minority Enterprise;
( 5 ) Office of the Executive Director.
( b ) The following units report directly to the Executive Director of the Commission: ( 1 ) Office of Financial Management, Planning and Evaluation;
( 2 ) Office of Hazard Identification and Reduction;
( 3 ) Office of Information and Public Affairs;
( 4 ) Office of Compliance and Field Operations;
( 5 ) Office of Human Resources Management;
( 6 ) Office of Information and Technology Services;
( 7 ) Office of International Programs and Intergovernmental Affairs.
( c ) The following units report directly to the Assistant Executive Director for Hazard Identification and Reduction: ( 1 ) Directorate for Economic Analysis;
( 2 ) Directorate for Epidemiology;
( 3 ) Directorate for Health Sciences;
( 4 ) Directorate for Engineering Sciences;
( 5 ) Directorate for Laboratory Sciences.
### Part C—Administrative Simplification
** **

**Exhibit 32.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

**                                               **In connectionwith the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Little Sioux Corn Processors,L.L.C. (the “Company”) for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2008, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Gary Grotjohn, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|     | /s/  Gary Grotjohn         |
|----------|----------------------------|
|     | Gary  Grotjohn             |
| * * | *Chief  Financial Officer* |
|     |                       |
|     | Dated:  May 15, 2008  |

 

 

----
EXHIBIT
      32.2








CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
      Carl A. Chase,  certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
      adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906 of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Edgeline Holdings,
      Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2007, fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such  Form
      10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
      results of operations of Edgeline Holdings, Inc.





Date:  February
      19, 2008














By:  /s/ 
      Carl A. Chase_____________


Carl
      A. Chase


Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer
#### Nahoum A. Mokarzel, Appellant, v. Saada Rihani Mokarzel, Respondent.

The parties hereto having stipulated in open court that this case may be disposed of by a court of four, the decision is as follows: Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Jenks, P. J., Carr, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred.
FORM 10-Q CERTIFICATION

I, Dale G. Rettinger, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this amended annual report on Form 10-Q of PDC 2002-A Limited Partnership;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this report 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 with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

4.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(c)	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

	(b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  August 7, 2003                
 /s/ Dale G. Rettinger                                 

Dale G. Rettinger

Chief Financial Officer of Petroleum Development Corporation 

Managing General Partner of PDC 2002-A Limited Partnership
§ 296.21 Evaluation criteria. A proposal must be determined to be competitive against the Evaluation Criteria set forth in this section to receive funding under the Program. Additionally, no proposal will be funded unless the Program determines that it has scientific and technical merit and that the proposed research has strong potential for meeting identified areas of critical national need. ( a ) ( 1 ) The proposer(s) adequately addresses the scientific and technical merit and how the research may result in intellectual property vesting in a United States entity including evidence that: ( i ) The proposed research is novel;
( ii ) The proposed research is high-risk, high-reward;
( iii ) The proposer(s) demonstrates a high level of relevant scientific/technical expertise for key personnel, including contractors and/or informal collaborators, and have access to the necessary resources, for example research facilities, equipment, materials, and data, to conduct the research as proposed;
( iv ) The research result(s) has the potential to address the technical needs associated with a major societal challenge not currently being addressed; and
( v ) The proposed research plan is scientifically sound with tasks, milestones, timeline, decision points and alternate strategies.
( 2 ) Total weight of (a)(1)(i) through (v) is 50%.
( b ) ( 1 ) The proposer(s) adequately establishes that the proposed research has strong potential for advancing the state-of-the-art and contributing significantly to the United States science and technology knowledge base and to address areas of critical national need through transforming the Nation's capacity to deal with a major societal challenge(s) that is not currently being addressed, and generate substantial benefits to the Nation that extend significantly beyond the direct return to the proposer including an explanation in the proposal: ( i ) Of the potential magnitude of transformational results upon the Nation's capabilities in an area;
( ii ) Of how and when the ensuing transformational results will be useful to the Nation; and
( iii ) Of the capacity and commitment of each award participant to enable or advance the transformation to the proposed research results (technology).
( 2 ) Total weight of (b)(1)(i) through (iii) is 50%.
Ex-4.3



 





EXHIBIT 4.3

STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT WITH MS. KAREN GARZA



 






 



	 	 	 
	
	

	
    

    Notice of Grant of Stock Options

    and Option Agreement	 	
    ChromaVision Medical Systems, Inc.

    ID: 752649072

    33171 Paseo Cerveza

    San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
    
	

	
    Karen K. Garza

    1018 Calle Venezia

    San Clemente, CA USA 92672	 	
    Option Number: 00000749

    Plan:                  KG
	






Effective 4/28/2003, you have been granted a(n)
Incentive Stock Option to buy 100,000 shares of
ChromaVision Medical Systems, Inc. (the Company) stock at
$0.9800 per share.




The total option price of the shares granted is
$98,000.00.




Shares in each period will become fully vested on
the date shown.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Shares		Vest Type		Full Vest		Expiration
	
		
		
		

	 	25,000	 	 	
    On Vest Date
    	 	 	4/28/2004	 	 	 	4/28/2013	 
	 	75,000	 	 	
    Monthly
    	 	 	4/28/2007	 	 	 	4/28/2013	 










By your signature and the Company’s
signature below, you and the Company agree that these options
are granted under and governed by the terms and conditions of
the Company’s Stock Option Plan as amended and the Option
Agreement, all of which are attached and made a part of this
document.










	 	 	 
	
    
    /s/ Stephen T. D. Dixon
    

    	 	
    6/30/03
    
	
	 	

	
    
    ChromaVision Medical Systems, Inc.
    

    	 	
    Date
    
	 
	
    
    /s/ Karen K. Garza
    

    	 	
    6/30/03
    
	
	 	

	
    
    Karen K. Garza
    

    	 	
    Date
### §10507. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 10507 was editorially reclassified as section 50107 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
§ 303.9 Use of fur-bearing animal names and symbols prohibited. ( a ) The advertising or the labeling of a textile fiber product shall not contain any names, words, depictions, descriptive matter, or other symbols which connote or signify a fur-bearing animal, unless such product or the part thereof in connection with which the names, words, depictions, descriptive matter, or other symbols are used is a fur product within the meaning of the Fur Products Labeling Act.
( b ) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section and § 303.6 of this part, a textile fiber product shall not be described or referred to in any manner in an advertisement or label with: ( 1 ) The name or part of the name of a fur-bearing animal, whether as a single word or a combination word, or any coined word which is phonetically similar to a fur-bearing animal name, or which is only a slight variation in spelling of a fur-bearing animal name or part of the name. As for example, such terms as “Ermine,” “Mink,” “Persian,” “Broadtail,” “Beaverton,” “Marmink,” “Sablelon,” “Lam,” “Pershian,” “Minx,” or similar terms shall not be used.
( 2 ) Any word or name symbolic of a fur-bearing animal by reason of conventional usage or by reason of its close relationship with fur-bearing animals. As for example, such terms as “guardhair,” “underfur,” and “mutation,” or similar terms, shall not be used.
( c ) Nothing contained herein shall prevent: ( 1 ) The nondeceptive use of animal names or symbols in referring to a textile fiber product where the fur of such animal is not commonly or commercially used in fur products, as that term is defined in the Fur Products Labeling Act, as for example “kitten soft”, “Bear Brand”, etc.
( 2 ) The nondeceptive use of a trademark or trade name containing the name, symbol, or depiction of a fur-bearing animal unless: ( i ) The textile fiber product in connection with which such trademark or trade name is used simulates a fur or fur product; or
( ii ) Such trademark or trade name is used in any advertisement of a textile fiber product together with any depiction which has the appearance of a fur or fur product; or
( iii ) The use of such trademark or trade name is prohibited by the Fur Products Labeling Act.
[24 FR 4480, June 2, 1959, as amended at 28 FR 722, Jan. 16, 1963]
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT KULTAR S. GORAYA, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-1605 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed November 30, 2018. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Lee County; Margaret O. Steinbeck, Judge. Kultar S. Goraya, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Betancourt v. State, 804 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 2001); Carpenter v. State, 884 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Burttram v. State, 846 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Williams v. State, 907 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

KHOUZAM, MORRIS, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.