alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Waiver of Restrictions on Assistance to Russia under the Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 1993 and Title V of the FREEDOM Support Act

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State

Consistent with the authority vested in me by section 1306 of the national Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314), I hereby certify that waiving the restrictions contained in subsection (d) of section 1203 of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 1993 (22 U.S.C. 5952), as amended, and the requirements contained in section 502 of the FREEDOM Support Act (22 U.S.C. 5852) during Fiscal Year 2005 with respect to the Russian Federation is important to the national security interests of the United States. 

                    You are authorized and directed to transmit to the Congress this certification and the associated report (including its classified annex) that has been prepared by my Administration consistent with section 1306(b) of Public Law 107-314. You are further authorized and directed to arrange for the publication of this certification in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                 

[FR Doc. 04-27465

Billing code 4710-10-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Harold Purdie, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County, rendered June 28, 1976, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of sexual abuse in the first degree. In a two-count indictment, defendant was charged with the crime of sexual abuse in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child in violation of section 260.10 of the Penal Law. He pleaded guilty to the first count and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a minimum term of three and one-half years and a maximum of seven years. On this appeal he raises the single issue that the sentence, the maximum allowable, was unduly harsh and excessive. We disagree. The record reveals that defendant was a second felony offender and has a long history of criminal behavior. Since the sentence does not exceed the maximum allowed, we are unable to say, on this record that the court abused its discretion. Consequently, we will not disturb the sentence *(People v Dittmar,*41 AD2d 788). Judgment affirmed. Koreman, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

G:\CRBALL\2007\5634\Order re March 12 hearing.wpd

Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE TRANSPACIFIC PASSENGER AIRTRANSPORTATION ANTITRUSTLITIGATION                                                                      /

This document relates to: ALL ACTIONS                                                                      /

No. C 07-05634 CRB

MDL 1913

ORDER

The Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss will be held in abeyance pending a

determination of the applicability of the Bankruptcy Court’s injunction to these proceedings. 

The merits of those motions will therefore not be the subject of the hearing scheduled for

March 12, 2010.  Instead, the parties should be prepared to discuss the merits of Defendants’

Motion To Stay Proceedings Upon Notice of Injunction in In Re: Japan Airlines.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2010                                                            CHARLES  R. BREYERUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01140-CRB   Document 8   Filed 03/03/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-13T08:21:06-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
### §4013a. Policy disclosures

#### (a) In general

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in addition to any other disclosures that may be required, each policy under the National Flood Insurance Program shall state all conditions, exclusions, and other limitations pertaining to coverage under the subject policy, regardless of the underlying insurance product, in plain English, in boldface type, and in a font size that is twice the size of the text of the body of the policy.

#### (b) Violations

The Administrator may impose a civil penalty of not more than $50,000 on any person that fails to comply with subsection (a).

(Pub. L. 112–141, div. F, title II, §100234, July 6, 2012, 126 Stat. 956.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, and also as part of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, also known as the MAP–21, and not as part of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 which comprises this chapter.

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

#### Definitions

For definitions of terms used in this section, see section 4004 of this title.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Omtool, Ltd. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Daniel A.Coccoluto, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, to my knowledge, that:

 

(1)           The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange 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/ Daniel A. Coccoluto |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Daniel A. Coccoluto     |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| July 28, 2005           |

 

----
#### Josefa Simek, appellee, v. Vaclav Novy et al., appellants.

Gen. No. 27,577.

Suit to foreclose a trust deed. Decree of foreclosure. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Ira Ryner, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1922.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 30, 1922.

Joseph C. Pisha and Ewart Harris, for appellants. Frank Posvic and Otto F. Ring, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.
§ 309.13 Scope. ( a ) The provisions of this section apply to collection by salary offset under 5 U.S.C. 5514 of debts owed to Peace Corps and debts owed to other Federal agencies by Peace Corps' employees. Peace Corps will make reasonable and lawful efforts to administratively collect amounts owed by employees prior to initiating salary offset action. This section does not apply to debts where collection by salary offset is explicitly provided for or prohibited by another statute (*e.g.* travel advances).
( b ) *References.* The following statutes and regulations apply to Peace Corps' recovery of debts due the United States by salary offset: ( 1 ) 5 U.S.C. 5514, as amended, governing the installment collection of debts;
( 2 ) 31 U.S.C. 3716, governing the liquidation of debts by administrative offset;
( 3 ) 5 CFR part 550, subpart K, setting forth the minimum requirements for executive agency regulations on salary offset; and
( 4 ) 31 CFR parts 900 through 904, the Federal Claims Collections Standards.
( c ) Nothing in this subpart precludes the compromise, suspension, or termination of collection actions where appropriate under the standards implementing the Federal Claims Collection Standards.
#### F. E. Edwards, appellee, v. Sol H. Goldberg, appellant.

Gen. No. 27,382.

Action for a sum due for services in testing a process for rebuild"ing automobile tires. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William N. Gemmill, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1921.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 30, 1922.

Bassler, Bippus & Rose, for appellant. Samuels, Lawton & Wittelle, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Dever

delivered the opinion of the court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,187
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   99,953
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     10,125
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               133,124
<PP&E>                                          81,017
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,131
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 512,336
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           55,572
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           146
<OTHER-SE>                                     292,699
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   512,336
<SALES>                                        106,162
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               106,162
<CGS>                                           68,278
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   68,278
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,482
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,131
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,271
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,483
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,788
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,788
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.43
        

</TABLE>
#### Dorothy Kowalski, Petitioner, v Nassau County Board of Supervisors et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to section 298 of the Executive Law to review an order of the State Human Rights Appeal Board, dated January 5, 1977, which affirmed a determination of the State Division of Human Rights, dated August 7, 1975, which dismissed petitioner’s complaint of an unlawful discriminatory act on the ground of age for lack of probable cause. Order confirmed and petition dismissed, without costs or disbursements. The determination of the State Division of Human Rights was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The determination that no probable cause existed is supported by the evidence in the record. Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEVEN WITBECK,

Petitioner,

v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Respondent,
CH2M PARTIES,

Respondent

- Intervenor. No. 17

- 71397

LABR Nos. 0

- 1650

- 11

- 028

0

- 1650

- 13

- 008

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Administrative Review Board, Department of Labor

Submitted May 15, 2018 **

Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Steven Witbeck petitions pro se for review of the Department of Labor’s

Administrative Review Board ’s (“ARB”) order denying his complaint under the
whistleblower provisions of the Sarbanes

- Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”), 18 U.S.C.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 71397

§ 1514A, and the Federal Water Pollution Con trol Act (“Clean Water Act”), 33
U.S.C. § 1367. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b)(2)(A) and 33
U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1) . We review the ARB’s decision pursuant to the standard

established in the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) , 5 U.S.C. § 70 6 . Under
the APA, “ w e will reverse an agency’s decision only if it is arbitrary, capricious,
an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Coppinger

Martin v. Solis , 627 F.3d 745, 748 (9th Cir. 201 0 ) (citation and internal quotation

m arks omitted)). We deny the petition.
The ARB properly denied Witbeck’s complaint because Witbeck fail ed to
present evidence in support of his claims to the administrative law judge. See 29
C.F.R. § 1980.109(a) (to prevail on a SOX whistleblower claim, t he complainant
must “demonstrate[] by a preponderance of the evidence that protected activity was
a contributing factor in the adverse action alleged in the complaint ”); 29 C.F.R.
§ 24.109(b)(2) (to prevail on a Clean Water Act whistleblower claim, the

com plainant must “demonstrate[] by a preponderance of the evidence that the
protected activity caused or was a motivating factor in the adverse action alleged in
the complaint ”).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Witbeck’s claim under 29 U.S.C. § 660(c)3 17

- 71397

becaus e “an agency’s decision not to take enforcement action [is] presumed
immune from judicial review” and Witbeck failed to rebut th e presumption.
Heckler v. Chaney , 470 U.S. 821, 83 2 (1985).
We reject as meritless Witbeck’s contentions concerning CH2M Partie s’
alleged failure to respond to his complaints, and the application of the shifting
burdens of proof.
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)

. To the extent Witbeck requests reconsideration of the denial of his motion to
compel the production of the record before OSHA (Docket Entry No s . 6 and 16 ),
we deny the request.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING NUANCE’S MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT AND AMEND 

INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS

CASE NOS. C 08-4227 JSW MEJ; C 08-04942 JSW MEJ 

4033260_1.DOC 

RON E. SHULMAN, State Bar No. 178263 

rshulman@wsgr.com 

JULIE M. HOLLOWAY, State Bar No. 196942 

jholloway@wsgr.com 

S. MICHAEL SONG State Bar No. 198656 

msong@wsgr.com 

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 

Professional Corporation 

650 Page Mill Road 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 

Telephone: (650) 493-9300 

Facsimile: (650) 565-5100 

M. CRAIG TYLER (Pro Hac Vice)

ctyler@wsgr.com 

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 

Professional Corporation 

900 South Capital of Texas Highway 

Las Cimas IV, Fifth Floor 

Austin, Texas 78746-5546 

Telephone: (512) 338.5400 

Facsimile: (512) 338.5499 

Attorneys for Plaintiff in Case No. C 08-04227 

NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ECOPY, INC., et al., 

Defendants. 

AND CONSOLIDATED CASE 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

) 

) 

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 08-04227 JSW MEJ 

Consolidated with Case No.: C 08-04942 JSW MEJ 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING NUANCE 

COMMUNICATIONS, INC.’S MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT AND AMEND 

INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS ON THE 

NINE REPRESENTATIVE CLAIMS OF U.S. 

PATENT NOS. 5,381,489; 6,038,342; AND 

5,261,009 

Date: August 27, 2010 

Time: 9:00 a.m. 

Dept: Courtroom 11, 19th Floor 

 Hon. Jeffrey S. White 

Case 3:08-cv-04227-JSW Document 206 Filed 08/10/10 Page 1 of 2 Case3:08-cv-04227-JSW Document203 Filed07/23/10 Page1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING NUANCE’S MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT AND AMEND 

INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS

CASE NOS. C 08-4227 JSW MEJ; C 08-04942 JSW MEJ 

-1- 4033260_1.DOC 

Having considered Nuance Communications, Inc.’s motion for leave to supplement and 

amend infringement contentions on the nine representative claims of United States Patent Nos. 

5,381,489; 6,038,342; and 5,261,009, the papers in support and all other matters presented to the 

Court and good cause appearing; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

Nuance Communications, Inc.’s motion for leave to supplement and amend infringement 

contentions on the nine representative claims of United States Patent Nos. 5,381,489; 6,038,342; 

and 5,261,009 is GRANTED. 

Dated: 

 The Honorable Jeffrey S. White 

 United States District Court Judge 

Presented by: 

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 

 /s/ M. Craig Tyler 

M. Craig Tyler 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 

Case3:08-cv-04227-JSW Document203 Filed07/23/10 Page2 of 2

August 10, 2010

Case 3:08-cv-04227-JSW Document 206 Filed 08/10/10 Page 2 of 2
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2518

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit disclosure of 

Social Security numbers on Medicare-related mailings. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 23, 2005

Mr. FILNER (for himself and Mr. FOLEY) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, 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 amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to prohibit 

disclosure of Social Security numbers on Medicare-related mailings.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stop the Theft of Our 

5 Social Security Numbers Act of 2005’’. 
2 

•HR 2518 IH 

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF DISCLOSURE OF SOCIAL SECU2 RITY NUMBERS ON MEDICARE-RELATED 

3 MAILINGS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1874 of the Social Secu5 rity Act (42 U.S.C. 1395kk) is amended by adding at the 

6 end the following new subsection: 

7 ‘‘(d)(1) In any case in which an individual’s identi8 fying number for purposes of this title is the social secu9 rity account number issued to such individual for purposes 

10 of section 205(c)(2)(A), no officer or employee of the De11 partment of Health and Human Services may include such 

12 number— 

13 ‘‘(A) as part of any medicare-related mailing to 

14 any person, including the mailing of any medicare 

15 card that contains such number; or 

16 ‘‘(B) as part of the contents of any tax-related 

17 mailing to any person unless— 

18 ‘‘(i) the contents are in an envelope (or 

19 other appropriate wrapper) which is sealed; and 

20 ‘‘(ii) such number may not be viewed with21 out opening such envelope (or wrapper). 

22 ‘‘(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term 

23 ‘medicare-related mailing’ means any mailing related 

24 to the administration of this title.’’. 

25 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

26 subsection (a) shall apply to mailings made on or after 
3 

•HR 2518 IH 

1 the first day of the first month beginning after the date 

2 of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
### §3797s–6. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3797s–6 was editorially reclassified as section 10596 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
From: Thomas, Amanda [mailto:Amanda_L._Thomas@omb.eop.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 3:55 PM

To: Cogliano, Gerain <Cogliano.Gerain@epa.gov>

Cc: Jones, Danielle <Danielle_Y_Jones@omb.eop.gov>

Subject: conf call

Gerain, would you call me for a quick call on the one sentence in the RIA? I don’t think I can agree with 

EPA’s edits and would like to see whether this is a matter of facts (e.g., EPA can produce the original 

RMP that demonstrate the costs associated with compliance was in fact account for in the original 

RIA. In other words, qualitative treatment in the original RIA would not be satisfactory in this case) or 

whether my suggested edits are more accurate description of EPA’s RIA. Thanks! Amanda
APPENDIX Q: WATER QUALITY DATA 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Georgetown University Boathouse 

Environmental Assessment 

April 2006 
Schnabel Engineering North, LLC

NEPA-Environmental Assessment Report, Proposed Georgetown University 

Non-Motorized Boathouse, Water Street, N.W., Washington D.C. 

1.0 Surface Water

Schnabel obtained existing water quality information data from monitoring stations in the 

near vicinity of the subject site. The Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has a 

monitoring station identified as Middle Potomac River – Little Falls (POT1184), which is 

located just north of the District of Columbia. This station is a shallow, non-tidal, fresh water 

site where water temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), and pH are measured. We obtained 

monthly data for these parameters for the 2004 monitoring year and graphed it on Figure 1. In 

addition, on Figure 1, is monthly rainfall data obtained from nearby Reagan National Airport for 

the same time period. Review of the graph shows that pH levels are fairly constant throughout 

the year. In addition, since air temperatures decrease in the winter, so do the stream 

temperatures, and the graph shows a decrease in stream temperature during the winter months. 

Also, the DO levels show an opposite effect during winter months by showing increased DO 

levels during that time. This is due to the fact that aquatic life becomes less active during the 

winter and therefore uses less dissolved oxygen. In addition, DO levels are affected by 

temperature in that cold water ‘holds’ more oxygen than warmer water. 

The DNR station did not provide any data on turbidity, so the Maryland Department of 

the Environment (MDE) was contacted for a nearby location with this data. MDE provided us 

with daily turbidity and rainfall information obtained by Washington Suburban Sanitary 

Commission (WSSC) at a station in Great Falls, just north of the proposed boathouse site. The 

data provided to us was graphed and is presented as Figure 2. The graphs show some voids in 

the data, where information was not provided to us. However, a review of Figure 2 shows that 

rainfall events generally produce an increase in turbidity levels. In addition, higher turbidity 

levels are visible in the fall, which do not appear to be linked to precipitation events. This may 

be related to algal blooms, which often occur during the fall months. 
Figure 1 - 2004 Water Quality Data from Middle Potomac River - Little Falls Monitoring Station

0

908070605040302010

1/1/04 2/20/04 4/10/04 5/30/04 7/19/04 9/7/04 10/27/04 12/16/04

Date

Value

876543210

Rainfall (inches)

pH Water Temperature (degrees F) DO (mg/L) Rainfall
Figure 2 - Potomac River Water Quality

0

50

300250200150100

2/1/2004 3/22/2004 5/11/2004 6/30/2004 8/19/2004 10/8/2004 11/27/2004

Date

Turbidity (NTU)

2.521.510.50

Rainfall (inches)

Turbidity Rainfall