alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Army

# AGENCY:

Department of the Army, DoD. 

# ACTION:

Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting; cancellation.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Department of the Army published a notice of a Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the U.S. Army Science Board (ASB) in the                         **Federal Register**                         on Monday, December 21, 2020. The purpose of the meeting on January 5, 2021 was for ASB members to review, deliberate, and vote on the findings and recommendations on the following study: “An Independent Assessment of the 2040 Battlefield and its Implications for 5th Generation Combat Vehicle Technologies”. The meeting on January 5, 2021 is cancelled.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Ms. Heather J. Gerard, (703) 545-8652,                         *heather.j.gerardi.civ@mail.mil*                         or Ms. Gloria Mudge at                         *gloria.l.mudge.civ@mail.mil.*                        Mailing address is Army Science Board, 2530 Crystal Drive, Suite 7098, Arlington, VA 22202. Website:                         *https://asb.army.mil/​.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Department of Defense and the Designated Federal Officer for the U.S. Army Science Board was unable to provide public notification required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a) concerning the cancellation of the previously noticed January 5, 2021 meeting of the U.S. Army Science Board. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.

James W. Satterwhite Jr.,

Alternate, Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2020-29275 Filed 1-5-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5061-AP-P
§ 872.26 What are minimum program make up funds? ( a ) “Minimum program make up funds” are additional moneys we distribute each Federal fiscal year to eligible States and Indian tribes to make up the difference between their total distribution of other funds and $3 million. The source of these funds is moneys in the Secretary's 20 percent share of the Fund that are authorized for mandatory distribution.
( b ) To be eligible to receive funds under this section, you must meet the following criteria: ( 1 ) You must have and maintain an approved reclamation plan under part 884 of this chapter;
( 2 ) You cannot have certified under section 411(a) of SMCRA;
( 3 ) The total amount you receive annually from State share funds (§ 872.14) or Tribal share funds (§ 872.17), historic coal funds (§ 872.21), and prior balance replacement funds (§ 872.29) must be less than $3 million; and
( 4 ) You must need more than the total of funds you will receive from State or Tribal share, historic coal, and prior balance replacement funds to reclaim Priority 1 and 2 coal problems under sections 403(a)(1) and (2) of SMCRA in your State or on Indian lands within your jurisdiction.
( c ) We will make funds available to the States of Missouri and Tennessee under this section to reclaim Priority 1 and 2 coal problems included in the AML inventory, provided each State has a reclamation plan approved under part 884 of this chapter.
Exhibit 99.6  OUR INTEGRATED   VALUE CHAIN Our integrated value chain, centered on our gas-to-liquids,   coal-to-liquids and chemical processes, is at the heart of our differentiated   value proposition. As we are becoming a more chemicals-biased company, we   will continue to leverage off the benefits of the value chain as well as   improve our processes in ways that ensure safe, reliable and efficient   operations with reduced environmental impacts. cumulatively generate up   NATURAL GAS internal electricity Reforming OWN HYDROCARBON FEEDSTOCK chemical   SYNTHOLTM Bottom Gasification COAL PURCHASED FEEDSTOCK CHEMICALS PROCESS E   ETHYLEN ETHANE CRACKER Ethylene also sold directly to market. ETHANE Wax   AFFIN AX FROM CRUDE OIL LAB, alcohols LAB CRUDE OIL LIQUID FUELS AND PAR AND   W Bed (Sasol® Dry FBDB) Gas engine power plant requirements in South Africa.   COAL-TO-LIQUIDS (CTL) PROCESS SASOL ADVANCED REACTOR (SASTM) High temperature   Gas and components Light Sasol Fixed hydrocarbons SASOL SLURRY DISTILLATE   (SASOL SPDTM) PROCESS Low temperature hydrocarbons Wax   Lower-carbonGAS-TO-LIQUIDS (GTL) PROCESS electricity Allows us the capacity   to Light to 70% of our total PHASE


MARKETING AND   SELLING OF PRODUCTS LOWER-CARBON ELECTRICITY Gas-to-power Electricity LIQUID   FUELS low-emission, premium grade fuel and as a blend stock for Vehicle fuel   Jet fuel METHANE-RICH AND NATURAL GAS chemical mponents Energy for   factories/homes upgraded and marketed together with conventional fuels   produced CHEMICALS (COMMODITY) Polymers Co-products Wax Surfactants CHEMICALS   (HIGH-VALUE) Alumina Alcohols Ethoxylates Chemical derivative units Crude oil   refinery Fuel components Refine and blend In the liquid fuels business,   synthetic fuels components are in a refinery from crude oil. Recovery and   beneficiation Coal gasification produces co-products for recovery and   beneficiation. Gas and Chemical processes Chemical intermediates from the FT   process are separated, purified co and, together with conventional chemical   raw materials, converted into a range of final products. Fuel components   Refine and blend Our GTL diesel is of ultra-high purity and therefore is   ideal as a upgrading conventionally derived diesels.
## Subpart F—Labor-Management and Employee Relations
#### § 875.10 Information collection.

In accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.,* the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection requirements of part 875 and assigned it control number 1029-0103. This information establishes procedures and requirements for State and Indian tribes to conduct noncoal reclamation under abandoned mine land funding. The information is needed to assure compliance with SMCRA and the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. Persons must respond to obtain a benefit. A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and you are not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

[73 FR 67640, Nov. 14, 2008]
187 So. 659

#### SUCCESSION OF GRAVOLET (ADEMA REALTY CO., Inc., Intervener).

No. 35084.

March 6, 1939.

See, also, 191 La. 599, 186 So. 41.

Rudolph M. McBride, McCloskey & Moore, and A. Brown Moore, all of New Orleans, for intervenor-appellant, Adema Realty Co., Inc.

Oliver S. Livaudais, of New Orleans, for defendant-appellee Mrs. Anson Gravolet, testamentary executrix of estate of Anson Gravolet.

Neil A. Armstrong, Jr., of New Orleans, for intervening creditors-appellees, Oliver Pivert and others.

PONDER, Justice.

We have stated the pertinent facts in this case in our opinion overruling and denying the motion to dismiss the appeal herein, 191 La. 599, 186 So. 41. It appears that since the appeal was taken in this matter the leased property and the lease have been sold at public sale and the adjudicatee has assumed the payment of the rental for the full unexpired term, the rental to be paid in advance annually. The proces verbal of the sale and adjudication was attached to the motion to dismiss the appeal and filed in this Court. This Court could not receive the evidence originally and refused to dismiss the appeal. However, in the briefs of the defendant, appellee and the intervening creditors, appellees, it is asked that this cause be remanded to the lower court for further hearing on the subsequent developments since the taking of the appeal as shown by the evidence produced and annexed to the motion to dismiss the appeal. In view of the attending circumstances this cause should be remanded to the lower court.

For the reasons assigned, this case is remanded to the lower court to be proceeded with according to law. All costs to await the final determination of the case.
Exhibit 15.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration StatementNo. 333-111310on Form S-8 of our report dated March 2, 2006 (March 1, 2007 as to the effect of the restatement), relating to the financial statements of Ellara Ltd. (formerly A.M.T. Advanced Metal Technologies Ltd.) for the year ended December 31, 2005 (not presented separately herein), appearing in the annual report on Form 20-F of Elron Electronic Industries Ltd for the year ended December 31, 2007.

Brightman Almagor & Co.
Certified Public Accountants
A member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

Tel Aviv, Israel
June 25, 2008

---
<PAGE>   1




                                  EXHIBIT 11
                      COMPUTATION OF NET EARNINGS SHARE
                   (In thousands, except per share amounts)


                                                

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      QUARTER ENDED           TWO QUARTERS ENDED
                                                    8/02/97  8/03/96           8/02/97  8/03/96
                                                    -------  -------           -------  -------

<S>                                                 <C>     <C>                 <C>      <C>
Weighted average of shares outstanding
     during quarter ......................          10,913   10,854             10,895   10,860

Weighted average common equivalent
     shares attributable to stock options
     granted, computed using the treasury
     stock method on a fully diluted basis             636      556                636      556

Weighted average common and common
     equivalent shares ...................           11,549   11,410            11,531   11,416

Net income applicable to common stock               $ 1,378  $ 1,160           $ 3,166  $ 2,187

Net income per common and common
     equivalent share ....................          $  0.12  $  0.10           $  0.27  $  0.19
</TABLE>






                                      9
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER










18 U.S.C. Certification of Donny R. Johnson


Chief Financial Officer of


Duckwall-ALCO Stores, Inc. and Subsidiaries





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Duckwall-ALCO Stores, Inc. and Subsidiaries, a Kansas corporation (the “Company”), for the quarter ended August 2, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned officer of the Company
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge:




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




(b)
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Duckwall-ALCO Stores, Inc.  and Subsidiaries and will be retained by Duckwall-ALCO Stores, Inc. and Subsidiaries and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





Date:  September 10, 2009




By:    /s/ Donny R. Johnson


Donny R. Johnson


Executive Vice President-Chief Financial Officer
### §443. Risk management

#### (a) In general

#### (1) Liability insurance required

Any person or entity that sells or otherwise provides a qualified anti-terrorism technology to Federal and non-Federal Government customers ("Seller") shall obtain liability insurance of such types and in such amounts as shall be required in accordance with this section and certified by the Secretary to satisfy otherwise compensable third-party claims arising out of, relating to, or resulting from an act of terrorism when qualified anti-terrorism technologies have been deployed in defense against or response or recovery from such act.

#### (2) Maximum amount

For the total claims related to 1 such act of terrorism, the Seller is not required to obtain liability insurance of more than the maximum amount of liability insurance reasonably available from private sources on the world market at prices and terms that will not unreasonably distort the sales price of Seller's anti-terrorism technologies.

#### (3) Scope of coverage

Liability insurance obtained pursuant to this subsection shall, in addition to the Seller, protect the following, to the extent of their potential liability for involvement in the manufacture, qualification, sale, use, or operation of qualified anti-terrorism technologies deployed in defense against or response or recovery from an act of terrorism:

(A) Contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, vendors and customers of the Seller.

(B) Contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, and vendors of the customer.

#### (4) Third party claims

Such liability insurance under this section shall provide coverage against third party claims arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the sale or use of anti-terrorism technologies.

#### (b) Reciprocal waiver of claims

The Seller shall enter into a reciprocal waiver of claims with its contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, vendors and customers, and contractors and subcontractors of the customers, involved in the manufacture, sale, use or operation of qualified anti-terrorism technologies, under which each party to the waiver agrees to be responsible for losses, including business interruption losses, that it sustains, or for losses sustained by its own employees resulting from an activity resulting from an act of terrorism when qualified anti-terrorism technologies have been deployed in defense against or response or recovery from such act.

#### (c) Extent of liability

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, liability for all claims against a Seller arising out of, relating to, or resulting from an act of terrorism when qualified anti-terrorism technologies have been deployed in defense against or response or recovery from such act and such claims result or may result in loss to the Seller, whether for compensatory or punitive damages or for contribution or indemnity, shall not be in an amount greater than the limits of liability insurance coverage required to be maintained by the Seller under this section.

(Pub. L. 107–296, title VIII, §864, Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2240.)
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Robert L. Bailey hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in my capacity as an officer of PMC-Sierra, Inc. (PMC), that, to my knowledge, the Annual Report of PMC on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13 (a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PMC.





|                    |  |     |  |                                      
|------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: March 1, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ Robert L. Bailey                 
|                    |  |     |  | Robert L. Bailey                     
|                    |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 15.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC
ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to
the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8, No.
333-111310) of Elron Electronic Industries Ltd pertaining to the Employees
Stock Option Plans of Elron Electronic Industries Ltd. of our report dated
March 14, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Elbit
Systems Ltd for the year ended December 31, 2004, included in Elron Electronic
Industries Ltd.s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31,
2005.

/s/ Kost Forer
Gabbay & Kasierer
A member of Ernst & Young Global

Haifa, Israel 
June 25, 2006

---
Not for P ubl ication in West's Fe deral Report er Citation Limit ed P ursuan t to 1st C ir. Loc. R. 32.3 

# U nit ed Sta tes C ou rt o f A pp eal s

For t h e Firs t C ircu it

No. 05-2444 UNITED STATES, Appellee,

v. PERRY A. SANTIAGO-SALAZAR, Defendant, Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. Jay Garcia-Gregory, U.S. District Judge]

Before Boudin, Chief Judge, Stahl, Senior Circuit Judge, and Lipez, Circuit Judge.

Mariángela Tirado-Vales on brief for appellant. Mariana E. Bauzá-Almonte, Assistant United States Attorney, Nelson Pérez-Sosa, Assistant United States Attorney, and H.S. Garcia, United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

August 1, 2006-2- Per Curiam
. Perry Santiago-Salazar pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine with intent to distribute after law enforcement officials seized a cocaine-filled suitcase that he had placed aboard an airline flight from Puerto Rico to New York. At his sentencing hearing in the District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, Santiago-Salazar requested a downward adj u stment in his federal Sentencing G u i delines offense level, arguing that he had played only a minor role in the offense. S e e USSG § 3B1.2. The court denied the adjustment and , a fter making other applicable adjustments, sentenced the defendant to 87 months in prison.

On appeal, Santiago-Salazar contends that the district court erred in declining to grant him the downward adjustment. We review a district court's role-in-the-offense determination for clear error. See United States v. Ortiz-Santiago, 211 F.3d 146, 148-49 (1st Cir. 2000) (citing United States v. Ocasio, 914 F.2d 330, 333 (1st Cir. 1990)). The determination whether a defendant has played only a "minor" or "minimal" role in the offense, USSG § 3B1.2, is "notoriously fact-sensitive." Id. at 148. A defendant seeking a minor-role adjustment bears the burden of showing that he is (1) less culpable than most other people involved in the particular offense for which he was convicted and (2) less culpable than most other perpetrators of comparable crimes. See United
States v. Mateo-Es p e j o , 4 2 6 F.3d 508, 512 (1st Cir. 2005). The defendant here ha s m ade no such showing. To the contrary, the-3-

facts indicate that Santiago-Salazar was in charge of the illicit transaction, since he not only orchestrated th e shipment of the suitcase but had follow-up co n v e rsations and meetings with a confidential source to determine t h e status of the suitcase and obtain a r e c e i p t f o r t h e d r u g s . T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t c i t e d these follow-up activities as cause to deny the minor

- r o le adjustment. We see no clear error in this logical determination. In fact, we have affirmed denials of minor-role adjustments to defendants who were simply couriers of contraband and did not engage in follow-up activities like the defendant in this case. See Mateo-Espejo, 426 F.3d at 512-13 (collecting cases).

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1702

ENGRA M. BELLAMY,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ALYSSA CAMPBELL WELLS; BRENT UZDANOVICS,

Defendants – Appellants, 

and 

DOUG DAVIS, Waynesboro Police Department; WAYNESBORO POLICE 

DEPARTMENT, 

Defendants. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson, 

District Judge. (5:07-cv-00035-sgw)

Submitted: March 29, 2010 Decided: July 12, 2011

Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard H. Milnor, ZUNKA, MILNOR, CARTER & INIGO, LTD., 

Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellants. Dean E. Lhospital, 

SNEATHERN & LHOSPITAL, LLP, Charlottesville, Virginia, for 

Appellee.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Defendants challenge the district court’s denial of 

their motion for summary judgment in Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 (2006) action, in which they asserted the affirmative 

defense of qualified immunity. Such orders are immediately 

appealable, Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985), 

provided the denial rests on a purely legal determination that 

the facts, as viewed by the district court at the summary 

judgment stage, establish a violation of a clearly established 

right, Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 319-20 (1995). If, for 

example, the appealing official “seeks to argue the 

insufficiency of the evidence to raise a genuine issue of 

material fact, this Court does not possess jurisdiction under 

[28 U.S.C.] § 1291 [(2006)] to consider the claim.” 

Valladares v. Cordero, 552 F.3d 384, 388 (4th Cir. 2009).

We conclude that the district court did not err when

it denied Defendants qualified immunity. We thus affirm the 

district court’s order denying Defendants’ summary judgment 

motion, as well as its order finding no basis to alter its 

previous ruling upon sua sponte reconsideration.*

 * Although Defendants ask this court to determine what 

remedies are available to Plaintiff based on the conduct about 

which he complains, this issue is not “inextricably intertwined” 

with the qualified immunity question that is properly before us

on interlocutory appeal. See Swint v. Chambers Cnty. Comm’n, 

 Bellamy v. 

(Continued)
4

Wells, No. 5:07-cv-00035-sgw (W.D. Va. May 15, 2009; June 10, 

2009). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before us and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 

514 U.S. 35, 51 (1995); Rux v. Republic of Sudan, 461 F.3d 461, 

475 (4th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we express no opinion on this 

issue.