alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 2003.4 Membership (Article IV). ( a ) *Member organizations and members.* ( 1 ) The Departments of State, Defense, and Justice, the National Archives and Records Administration, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the National Security Advisor each have a member on the Panel.
( 2 ) Additionally, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency may appoint a temporary representative, who meets the member criteria, to participate as a voting member in all Panel deliberations and associated support activities concerning classified information originated by the Central Intelligence Agency.
( b ) *Alternate member.* Each member organization also designates in writing an alternate, or alternates, to represent it on all occasions when the primary member is unable to participate. When serving for a primary member, an alternate assumes all the rights and responsibilities of that primary member, including voting. The alternate member must meet the member criteria. The member organization head, or the organization's deputy or senior agency official for the Order, makes the written designation of an alternate, addressed to the ISCAP Chair.
( c ) *Selection criteria for member.* ( 1 ) Members must be senior-level agency Federal officials or employees, full-time or permanent part-time, and must be designated to serve as a member on the Panel by the respective agency head.
( 2 ) Panel members must meet security access criteria in order to fulfill the Panel's functions.
( d ) *Member vacancies.* Vacancies among the primary members must be filled as quickly as possible. The Chair, working through the Executive Secretary, takes all appropriate measures to encourage the organization to fill the vacancy quickly. In the interim, the organization's designated alternate serves as its member.
( e ) *Liaisons.* Each member organization also designates in writing an individual or individuals (hereafter “liaisons”) to serve as liaison to the Executive Secretary in support of the primary member and alternate(s). The liaisons meet at the call of the Executive Secretary. The agency head, or the deputy or senior agency official for the Order, makes the written designation, addressed to the ISCAP Chair.
( f ) *Chair.* The President of the United States selects the Chair from among the primary members.
( g ) *Vice Chair.* The members may elect from among the primary members a Vice Chair who: ( 1 ) Chairs meetings that the Chair is unable to attend; and
( 2 ) Serves as Acting Chair during a vacancy in the Chair of the ISCAP.
( h ) *Executive Secretary.* The Director of the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), National Archives and Records Administration, is the Executive Secretary of the Panel and oversees the Panel's support staff.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       4,886,011
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,605,473
<ALLOWANCES>                                   199,222
<INVENTORY>                                  4,283,561
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            20,093,251
<PP&E>                                      95,742,983
<DEPRECIATION>                              31,295,936
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              85,402,596
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,838,843
<BONDS>                                     20,501,892
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,645,380
<OTHER-SE>                                  51,822,884
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                85,402,596
<SALES>                                    108,531,461
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           108,531,461
<CGS>                                      102,088,325
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              102,088,325
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,271,728
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                55,165
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,788,958
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                593,509
<INCOME-TAX>                                   433,155
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            160,354
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   160,354
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01


</TABLE>
Exhibit 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

|Entity                                        |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|--------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Serologicals Finance Company                  |  | Delaware                     
|Serologicals Royalty Company                  |  | Delaware                     
|Celliance Corporation                         |  | Delaware                     
|Serologicals Research Products, Inc.          |  | Delaware                     
|Serologicals Global Holding Company Limited   |  | United Kingdom               
|Upstate Group, L.L.C.                         |  | Delaware                     
|Serologicals Investment Company               |  | Delaware                     
|AltaGen Biosciences, Inc.                     |  | California                   
|Celliance Kankakee, Inc.                      |  | Delaware                     
|Celliance Lawrence, Inc.                      |  | Delaware                     
|Celliance Milford, Inc.                       |  | Delaware                     
|Intergen Biomanufacturing Corporation         |  | Delaware                     
|Chemicon International, Inc.                  |  | California                   
|Serologicals European Holding Company Limited |  | United Kingdom               
|Upstate USA, Inc.                             |  | New York                     
|Upstate Limited                               |  | United Kingdom               
|Upstate GmbH                                  |  | Germany                      
|Celliance BioServices, Inc.                   |  | California                   
|Celliance Toronto, Inc.                       |  | Ontario, Canada              
|Chemicon Specialty Media, Inc.                |  | Delaware                     
|Chemicon Australia, Pty.                      |  | Australia                    
|Serologicals UK Holding Company Limited       |  | United Kingdom               
|Chemicon Europe Limited                       |  | United Kingdom               
|Celliance Limited                             |  | United Kingdom               
|Cymbus Biotech Limited                        |  | United Kingdom               

---



QuickLinks
§ 865.121 Complaints concerning decisional documents and index entries. Former members of the Air Force or their counsel or representative may submit complaints with respect to the decisional document issued in the former member's case. ( a ) All complaints should be processed in accordance with 32 CFR part 70 and should be forwarded to: Assistant Secretary of Defense, Manpower, Reserve Affairs and Logistics, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20331
( b ) The Air Force Discharge Review Board will respond to all complaints in accordance with 32 CFR part 70.
#### In the Matter of Anthony Fasolo, a Person Adjudged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, et al., Appellants, v. Probation Department — Family Court, State of New York, Oneida County, et al., Respondents.

Order unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Although there were many procedural irregularities, we do not find that any substantial right of the infant was violated and the order should be affirmed. The Family Court Judge assumed to appoint a law guardian to represent both the infant and his parents. This he had no right to do but the law guardian called attention.to the invalidity of his assignment as to the parents and he actually represented only the infant. The law guardian admitted in open court that his client had violated his probation. The result at which the Family Court arrived was proper. (Appeal from order of Oneida *776Family Court revoking an order of probation and placing the child in custody of Commissioner of Public Welfare for not to'exceed 18 months.) Present* — - Williams, P. J., Goldman, Halpem, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
#### 1.602 Contracting officers.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**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 Escalade, Incorporated (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 14, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Terry D. Frandsen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/   Terry D. Frandsen   |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
|                           |   |
| Terry   D. Frandsen       |   |
| Chief   Financial Officer |   |
| August   2, 2007          |   |
### §415–1. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–79, title VII, §7514, Feb. 7, 2014, 128 Stat. 903

Section, Pub. L. 110–234, title VII, §7523, May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1272; Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title VII, §7523, June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 2034, related to seed distribution.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JUL 17 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

JIMMIE ODELL BRUNER,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v. RON CHAMPION; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,

Respondents-Appellees. No. 97-7071 (D.C. No. 95-CV-293-S) (E. D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before KELLY, BARRETT, and HENRY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Petitioner Jimmie Odell Bruner appeals the districtcourt’s decision to dismiss his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court neither issued nor denied petitioner’s reques t for a certificate of appealability. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appella te Procedure 22(b) and Tenth Circuit protocol, we assume that the district courtdenied petitioner a certificate of appealability. Petitioner requests this court issu e a certificate of appealability and reverse the district court’s dismissal of his § 225 4 petition. After a mistrial, petitioner was retried and convic ted of first degree rape, first degree burglary, and robbery by force and fea r. Petitioner’s conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal to the Oklahoma Co urt of Criminal Appeals. Petitioner filed his § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma . The district court adopted the findings and recommendation of the magistrate j udge and dismissed the petition. In order to obtain a certificate of appealability, petitioner must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitut ional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Based upon our review of the record as a whole, we conclude that petitioner has failed to make the requisite sh owing.-3-

Petitioner’s “Motion for Order Requiring Answer Bri ef” is DENIED. We DENY petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS his appeal. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

MICHELLE MERRITT,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner

of Social Security,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 11 C 9071

Magistrate Judge Denlow

COMMISSIONER’S MOTION TO AFFIRM THE COMMISSIONER’S DECISION

Defendant, Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, by Patrick J. Fitzgerald,

United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, moves pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g),

for judgment to be entered affirming the Commissioner’s decision.

A memorandum in support is filed with this motion.

Respectfully submitted,

PATRICK J. FITZGERALD

United States Attorney

By: s/ Zachary D. Clopton

 ZACHARY D. CLOPTON

 Assistant United States Attorney

 219 South Dearborn Street

 Chicago, Illinois 60604

 (312) 353-6630

 zachary.clopton@usdoj.gov
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-08-30T21:45:32-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
#### Raymond E. Ruhlmann, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 57823.)

— Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: We affirm for the reasons stated in the Court of Claims. Since the court’s decision, we have held that the amendment to the Court of Claims Act (§ 10, subd 6, as amd by L 1976, ch 280) is inapplicable to a claim when the time within which the court could have exercised its discretion to allow late filing of that claim under the previous statute had elapsed prior to the effective date of the amendment *(Fuoco v State of New York,*64 AD2d 1030; see *Sessa v State of New York,*63 AD2d 334). (Appeal from order of Court of Claims — late claim.) Present — Cardamone, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Callahan and Witmer, JJ.
AFS-13-362-E

June 7, 2013

 Exemption No. 9576C

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2007-29162

Mr. John W. Hazlet, Jr.

VP – Safety & Standards; Director of Operations

Ameriflight, LLC

4700 Empire Avenue, Hangar 1

Burbank, CA 91505

Dear Mr. Hazlet:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption 

No. 9576, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated May 9, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Ameriflight, LLC (Ameriflight) for an extension of Exemption No. 9576, as 

amended. That exemption from §§ 91.411(b) and 91.413(c) of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations allows Ameriflight to perform air traffic control transponder tests and 

inspections, altimeter system and altimeter reporting equipment tests, and inspections for its 

part 135 aircraft maintained under an approved aircraft inspection program based on 

Ameriflight’s continuous aircraft maintenance program.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Ameriflight.
2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 9576, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. 

Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 9576, as amended, to 

December 31, 2015, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 9576, as amended, remain the same. This 

letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 9576.

Sincerely,

/s/

John M. Allen

Director, Flight Standards Service
AMENDMENT
      NO. 2

    to

    Terms
      of Employment

    of

    Blaine
      Robinson

    with

    CONCORD
      CAMERA CORP.

    


    AMENDMENT
      NO. 2, dated April 1, 2006, to Terms of Employment having an Effective Date
      of
      February 11, 2003, as heretofore amended (as amended, the “Agreement”) by and
      between CONCORD CAMERA CORP. (the “Company”) and Blaine Robinson (the
“employee”).

    


    FOR
      GOOD
      AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
      acknowledged, the Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

    


    
      	 	
              1.

            	
              In
                Section 5, Compensation,
                the salary amount is increased to $175,000 per annum.
                

            


    

     

    Car
      Allowance :
      the car
      allowance is increased to $750 per month. 

     

    
      	 	
              2.

            	
              This
                Amendment No. 2 is effective February 11, 2005. Except as hereby
                amended,
                the Agreement shall continue in full force and
                effect.

            


    

     

    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the date
      first above written.

    


    
      
        	Accepted and
                Agreed: 	 	 	Accepted and
                Agreed: 
	 	 	 	 
	EMPLOYEE: 	 	 	CONCORD CAMERA CORP. 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Blaine
                Robinson	 	
                By:

              	/s/ Ira
                B.
                Lampert
	
                
Blaine
                Robinson	 	 	
                
Ira
                B. Lampert
	 	 	 	
                Chairman,
                  CEO and President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S 1997 10-K
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          17,502
<SECURITIES>                                     2,843
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,172
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,114
<INVENTORY>                                     28,376
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               100,096
<PP&E>                                          27,477
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,170
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 130,687
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           36,135
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           135
<OTHER-SE>                                      94,417
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   130,687
<SALES>                                        137,723
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               155,426
<CGS>                                           78,837
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   91,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                45,798
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (205)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 419
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,425
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,247
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,178
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,178
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .980<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .930
<FN>
<F1>For Purposes of This Exhibit, Primary means Basic.
</FN>


</TABLE>
### §6415. Amendments

#### (a) Amendments to order

Subject to subsection (b), the Secretary may issue such amendments to an order as may be necessary to carry out this chapter.

#### (b) Amendment to assessment rates

#### (1) In general

The Secretary may conduct at any time a referendum of persons who, during a representative period as determined by the Secretary, have been fluid milk processors on adjusting the assessment rate under the order issued under this chapter then in effect, and shall hold such a referendum on request of the Board or any group of such processors that among them marketed during a representative period, as determined by the Secretary, 10 percent or more of the volume of fluid milk products marketed by all processors.

#### (2) Adjustment to assessment rate

The Secretary shall adjust the assessment rate under the order whenever the Secretary determines that the adjustment is favored—

(A) by at least 50 percent of fluid milk processors voting in the referendum; and

(B) by fluid milk processors that marketed during a representative period, as determined by the Secretary, 60 percent or more of the volume of fluid milk products marketed by all processors;

In no event shall the rate of assessment prescribed by the order exceed 20 cents per hundredweight.

#### (3) Effective date

The adjusted assessment rate shall be effective on a date, as determined by the Secretary, after the results of the referendum are known, but not later than 30 days after the referendum.

#### (4) Costs; manner

Subsections (c) and (d) of section 6413 of this title shall apply to a referendum conducted under this subsection.

(Pub. L. 101–624, title XIX, §1999P, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3926.)
#### Mitchell Stock *v.*John W. Cobb et al.

*Allan M. Cane,*in support of the motion.

Submitted January 24

decided February 4, 1975

The application by the defendants William and Constance Whitehead to expedite the appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County at Stamford is denied.