alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §2220. Certain officials and employees of Department and others not subject to restriction on payment of compensation to Government officials and employees

The officials and the employees of the Department of Agriculture engaged in the activities described in section 2279i of this title and paid in whole or in part out of funds contributed as provided therein, and the persons, corporations, or associations making contributions as therein provided, shall not be subject to the provisions of section 209 of title 18; nor shall any official or employee engaged in the cooperative activities of the Forest Service, or the persons, corporations, or associations contributing to such activities be subject to such section.

(July 24, 1919, ch. 26, 41 Stat. 270; Sept. 3, 1954, ch. 1263, §5, 68 Stat. 1227.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

"Section 209 of title 18" substituted in text for "section 1914 of title 18" on authority of section 2 of Pub. L. 87–849, Oct. 23, 1962, 76 Stat. 1126, which repealed section 1914 and supplanted it with section 209, and which provided that exemptions from section 1914 shall be deemed exemptions from section 209. For further details, see Exemptions note set out under section 203 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure.

Section was formerly classified to sections 67 and 564 of Title 5 prior to the general revision and enactment of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, by Pub. L. 89–554, §1, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 378. Thereafter, section was classified to section 450h of this title prior to its transfer to this section.

#### Amendments

1954—Act Sept. 3, 1954, substituted "section 1914 of title 18" for reference to proviso in Act of March 3, 1917 (5 U.S.C. 66).
**UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION**

**OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY**

TO:Assistant Secretary for Legislation

FROM:The Secretary

SUBJECT:Delegation of Authority

I. Delegation of Authority

In accordance with the Department of Education Organization Act (the Act), Public Law 96-88, I hereby delegate to you the following authority:

(1)The authority to carry out the congressional relations functions of the Department.

II. General Reservations

Unless otherwise noted, the following are not delegated:

(1)The authority to promulgate regulations, policy statements, and interpretations;

(2)The authority to enter into agreements with entities outside the Department;

(3)The authority to award contracts or discretionary grants;

(4) The authority to appoint members of advisory councils and fix compensation; and

(5) Unless otherwise provided by law, the authority to submit reports to Congress or the President.

III. Redelegation Authority

Subject to the provisions of the Act and unless otherwise noted, you may:

(1)Redelegate any of the authorities delegated to you; and

(2) Authorize further redelegation.

Page 2 - Assistant Secretary for Legislation

IV.Certification and Effective Date

This delegation is effective upon certification by the Principal Delegation Control Officer and supersedes all previous delegations of this authority.

_________/s/______ 

    William J. Bennett

OGC Clearance and Date:  R. Wexler, 3/19/86

Certified Date:  5/11/86

Departmental Delegations Control Officer:  /s/ Emmett Fleming, Jr.

Control Number:  EA/EJ/1
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549



FORM 6-K

REPORT OF FOREIGN PRIVATE ISSUER

PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-16 OR 15d-16

UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



Dated October 10, 2006



Commission File Number: 001-14666



MITTAL STEEL COMPANY N.V.

(Translation of registrants name into English)



15th Floor, Hofplein 20

3032 AC Rotterdam

The Netherlands

(Address of principal executive offices)



Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.



Form 20-F x Form 40-F o




Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): _____



Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): _____



Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the information contained in this Form is also thereby furnishing the information to the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.



Yes o No x




If Yes marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82-________







| |  | 
| |  | 





---









On October 9, 2006, Mittal Steel Company N.V. issued the press release attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1.

Exhibit List



|             |  |                                                                                             |  | 
|------------ |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Exhibit No.  |  | Description                                                                                 |  | 
|Exhibit 99.1 |  | Press release dated October 6, 2006 announcing the 2007  Arcelor Mittal financial calendar. |  | 







| |  | 
| |  | 





---









SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

Date: October 9, 2006

| | By: | /s/ Henk Scheffer       
| | --- | ------------------------
| |     | Name: Henk Scheffer     
| |     | Title: Company Secretary











| |  | 
| |  | 





---









Exhibit Index



|             |  |                                                                                            |  | 
|------------ |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 
|Exhibit No.  |  | Description                                                                                |  | 
|Exhibit 99.1 |  | Press release dated October 6, 2006 announcing the 2007 Arcelor Mittal financial calendar. |  | 









| |  | 
| |  |
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Inspection 8.0 $ 680.00 $0 $ 680.00 89 $60,520.00

0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $60,520

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
<PAGE>
<PAGE>  1
                            EXHIBIT 23





             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
             -----------------------------------------



     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation of our reports included in and incorporated by
reference in this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 2-93964, 2-93963,
2-87076, 2-72454, 33-16489, 33-36457, 33-43645, 33-67132,
33-67134 and 33-55755) and Form S-3 (Nos. 33-28289 and 33-
50682).







                                           ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
March 12, 1996<PAGE>
Exhibit 15.7

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC
ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent
to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of Elron
Electronic Industries Ltd. on form S-8 (File No. 333-111310) of our report
dated March 7, 2006 with respect to the consolidated balance sheet as of
December 31, 2005 and consolidated statements of operation, changes in
shareholders equity (capital deficiency) and cash flows for the years ended
December 31, 2005 and 2003, on our audits of the aforementioned financial
statements of Notal Vision Inc., which is included in the Elron Electronic
Industries Ltd. annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31,
2005.

|                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------
|/s/
  Kesselman & Kesselman                               
|Certified
  Public Accountants (Isr.)                     
|A member of
  PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited

|                  
|------------------
|Tel-Aviv,
  Israel
|June 25, 2006     

---
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 17, 2024

NO. 03

- 24

- 00361

- CV

M. B. , Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 466TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE CH IEF JUSTIC E BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND KELLY

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’ S MOTION

-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE

This is an appeal from the order signed by the tr i a l court on May 23, 2024

. Appellant has filed a

motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the motion , the Court agrees that the motion

should be granted . Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismiss es the appeal

. Because

appellant is indigent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs is made.
---

---

EXHIBIT 14(a)(3)

# [Chaikin, Cohen, Rubin
& Gilboa. Letterhead]

# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We
hereby consent to the inclusion in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Scitex Corporation
Ltd. (Scitex) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 (the Annual
Report), and to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
Scitex on Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-34233, Registration No. 33-46861, Registration No.
33-87614, Registration No. 33-97622, Registration No. 33-97624 and Registration No.
33-39364), of our Report dated March 2, 2005, with respect to the financial statements
Objet Geometries Ltd. as of December 31, 2004.

| |  | Sincerely yours,/s/ Chaikin, Cohen, Rubin & Gilboa 
Chaikin, Cohen, Rubin & GilboaCertified Public Accountants (Isr.)
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tel-Aviv, Israel June 28,
2005



---

---
EXHIBIT 32.1


        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,
            AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                   SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of DYNASIL CORPORATION
OF AMERICA (the "Company") on Form 10QSB for the period ended
March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), We, Craig T
Dunham, President and Chief Executive Officer of The Company and
Laura Lunardo, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



                                    /s/ Craig T Dunham
                                   -------------------
                                   Craig T Dunham
                                   President and Chief Executive
                                   Officer


                                   /s/ Laura Lunardo
                                   -------------------
                                   Laura Lunardo
                                   Chief Financial Officer

May 14, 2007
MEMORANDUM

TO : Deputy Director of the Office of Special Education Programs

FROM : Michael Yudin, Acting Assistant Secretary

SUBJECT: Delegation of Authority to Request Closure/Certification of Internal Audit Reports

I. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY

In accordance with the policy and procedures set forth in the Department’s Handbook for the Post 

Audit Process and my responsibilities as Action Official for the Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services under the Department’s ACS Directive OCFO-01, I hereby delegate to 

you the authority to serve as the Action Official in issuing the Request for Closure/Certification 

Memorandum. This delegation of authority covers internal audits defined in this context as EDOIG and GAO issued audits as well as alternative products issued by ED0-OIG, and tracked by 

the Department’s automated tracking system. 

Unless otherwise noted in future delegations of authority, amendments to the authority cited 

herein are included within the scope of this delegation.

II. RESERVATIONS

None.

III. REDELEGATION

This authority may not be redelegated.

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This delegation is effective upon certification by the Department’s Delegation Control Officer.

__________-s- __________

Michael Yudin,

Acting Assistant Secretary

Date Certified: February 19, 2015

Departmental Delegations Control Officer: Jim Clemmens

Control Number: EH/EHE/102
#### HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO. v. PIERCE

No. 420A97

Case below: 127 N.C.App. 123

Joint motion to dismiss appeal allowed 5 February 1998.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                          22,271
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,698
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,747
<INVENTORY>                                      8,548
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                68,496
<PP&E>                                          18,984
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,301
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  95,571
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,321
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           110
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    95,571
<SALES>                                         56,403
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                56,403
<CGS>                                           21,908
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,908
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   617
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,425)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,247
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,672)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,672)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.22)
        

</TABLE>
### §421. Additional provisions with respect to the Department of Energy

(a) Authority To Prohibit Access to Certain Materials.—The Secretary of Energy may prohibit the Inspector General of the Department of Energy from accessing Restricted Data and nuclear safeguards information protected from disclosure under chapter 12 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2161 et seq.) and intelligence or counterintelligence, as defined in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003), if the Secretary of Energy determines that the prohibition is necessary to protect the national security or prevent the significant impairment to the national security interests of the United States.

(b) Notification to Inspector General and Statement to Congress.—Not later than 7 days after the date on which the Secretary of Energy exercises any power authorized under subsection (a), the Secretary shall notify the Inspector General of the Department of Energy in writing of the reasons for such exercise. Within 30 days after receipt of any such notice, the Inspector General of the Department of Energy shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a statement concerning such exercise.

(Pub. L. 117–286, §3(b), Dec. 27, 2022, 136 Stat. 4252.)

#### Amendments Not Shown in Text

This section was derived from section 8N of the Inspector General Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95–452, which was set out in the former Appendix to this title, and as it existed as of Oct. 19, 2021. Section 8N of Pub. L. 95–452 was amended by Pub. L. 117–263, div. E, title LII, §5272(8), Dec. 23, 2022, 136 Stat. 3241, prior to being repealed and reenacted as this section by Pub. L. 117–286, §§3(b), 7, Dec. 27, 2022, 136 Stat. 4252, 4361. For applicability of those amendments to this section, see section 5(b) of Pub. L. 117–286, set out in a Transitional and Savings Provisions note preceding section 101 of this title. Section 8N of Pub. L. 95–452 was amended in subsection (b) by striking "committees of Congress" and inserting "congressional committees". For definition of "appropriate congressional committees", which would result from application of the amendment by Pub. L. 117–263, see Amendments Not Shown in Text note set out under section 401 of this title.

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 421 | 5 U.S.C. App. (IGA §8N) | Pub. L. 95–452, §8N, as added Pub. L. 114–317, §6(7), Dec. 16, 2016, 130 Stat. 1604. |

Section

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, referred to in subsec. (a), is act Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, as added by act Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1073, §1, 68 Stat. 919. Chapter 12 of the Act is classified generally to subchapter XI (§2161 et seq.) of chapter 23 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2011 of Title 42 and Tables.
#### § 1802.25 Action on challenge.

Action by Coordinator. The Coordinator shall provide a summation memorandum for consideration of the Director, NACIC; the complete package consisting of the challenge, the information at issue, and the findings of the originator and interested parties shall also be provided. The Director, NACIC shall personally decide each case; no personal appearances shall be permitted without the express permission of the Director, NACIC.
#### Joseph Strenger, Respondent, v. Bettleon Realty Corp. et al., Defendants, and Warburton Hall, Inc., Appellant.

Motion by respondent to dismiss appeal denied, on condition that appellant perfect the appeal and be ready to argue or submit it at the February Term, beginning January 30, 1961. The appeal is ordered on the calendar for said term. The record and appellant’s brief must be served and filed on or before January 25,1961. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
#### Gerald Schaubman et al., Petitioners, v Barbara Blum, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, Respondent.

Determination of respondent, dated July 7, 1978, finding that petitioners engaged in an unacceptable practice pursuant to 18 NYCRR 515.1 (a) and permanently disqualifying petitioners from participating in the Medicaid program, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of *677reducing the penalty to a disqualification for one year from the date of the determination, without costs and without disbursements, and otherwise confirmed. Petitioner, Jarrett Drug Corporation, is a pharmacy, and so registered with the New York State Education Department. Petitioner, Schaubman, a licensed pharmacist, is one of three principals in Jarrett, its treasurer, and a practicing pharmacist in the corporation. The corporation was registered as a provider of services under the Medical Assistance Program (Medicaid) established pursuant to section 363-a of the Social Services Law. In 1976, the corporation pleaded guilty to the charge of offering a false instrument for filing and a $2,000 fine was imposed. As developed in the hearing thereafter conducted by respondent, Schaubman had substituted the generic equivalent for the brand name for a drug but billed the Medicaid program for the brand name drug. The invoice submitted to Medicaid was $9.09, the drug actually supplied (the generic equivalent) was $5.70, and the difference, $3.39 represented an amount unlawfully obtained. Respondent concluded that the petitioners had engaged in an unacceptable practice pursuant to 18 NYCRR 515.1 (a) and permanently disqualified both from participation in the Medicaid program. The determination that petitioners had engaged in an unacceptable practice is clearly correct and not seriously challenged. At issue here is the punishment that was imposed. We do not doubt that the misconduct involved here, although involving only one single incident, merited some penalty in addition to the $2,000 fine imposed following the criminal conviction. The penalty imposed, however, seems to us clearly excessive. The reality cannot be blinked that a permanent disqualification may well destroy the corporate business and make it impossible for the individual petitioner to pursue his profession as a pharmacist. Under all the circumstances, we think that a one-year disqualification would represent an adequate penalty and the determination is modified accordingly. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Evans, Markewich, Lynch and Sandler, JJ.