alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. Dept Commerce/NOAA/NMFS/NWFSC/PublicationsFigure 1.--Location map of Illinois River, Oregon. See Figure 2 for detail. Figure 2.--Collecting sites in the Rogue River basin and surrounding area for samples used in the genetic analysis. Collections were also made in the Smith and Klamath Rivers in northern California, and Yaquina and Nehalem Rivers in northern Oregon (Table 12). Figure 3.--Dendrogram depicting genetic relationships between coastal steelhead populations analyzed for this study. The figure was constructed by clustering of Nei's (1978) unbiased genetic distance values between pairs of samples. The four Illinois River samples are denoted by asterisks (*). Note the change of scale involving genetic distances to samples from the Snake River, which were included to provide a comparison with inland steelhead populations. Figure 4.--Oregon statewide total angler fishing effort and steelhead catch. Effort is indexed by annual salmon-steelhead punchcards issued (heavy line, squares). Catch (thin line, diamonds) is statewide total, all runs. Effort for 1972 to 1977 omitted because reported totals include daily punchcards in addition to annual punchcards. Based on data from Koski (1963), Phelps (1973), Berry (1983), and ODFW (1992b). Figure 5.--Winter steelhead exploitation rates for the upper North Umpqua River (heavy line, squares) and upper Rogue River (thin line, diamonds). Rates are calculated as the ratio of angler catch to total run size estimated from adult dam passage counts, as in Kenaston (1989). Catch data are from ODFW (1992b); passage counts for Winchester Dam (North Umpqua River) are from Loomis and Liscia (1990); passage counts for Gold Ray Dam (Rogue River) are from ODFW (1990) and ODFW (unpubl. data. 2501 SW First Avenue, P.O. Box 59, Portland, OR 97207). Table of Contents
#### 208.7301 Definitions.

As used in this subpart—

*Defense Supply Center, Philadelphia (DSCP)* means the Defense Logistics Agency field activity located at 700 Robbins Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19111-5096, which is the assigned commodity integrated material manager for refined precious metals and is responsible for the storage and issue of such material.

*Refined precious metal* means recovered silver, gold, platinum, palladium, iridium, rhodium, or ruthenium, in bullion, granulation or sponge form, which has been purified to at least .999 percentage of fineness.

[56 FR 36306, July 31, 1991, as amended at 65 FR 14398, Mar. 16, 2000; 65 FR 52951, Aug. 31, 2000; 65 FR 58607 Sept. 29, 2000; 71 FR 39005, July 11, 2006]
#### 1646.301 Contractor inspection requirements.

The clause set forth at 1652.246-70 shall be inserted in all FEHBP contracts.

[52 FR 16044, May 1, 1987]
EXHIBIT 31(a)  CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER  I, Haim Aviv, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Pharmos Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.  /s/ HAIM AVIV ------------------------- Haim Aviv Chief Executive Officer Date: March 15, 2007
#### § 208.406-1 Order placement.

Follow the procedures at PGI 208.406-1 when ordering from schedules.

[71 FR 14107, Mar. 21, 2006]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6866

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SHAHID HASSAN MUSLIM, a/k/a Sharp, a/k/a Sean Williams,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cr-00307-RJC-DCK-1)

Submitted: November 17, 2020 Decided: November 20, 2020

Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shahid Hassan Muslim, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Shahid Hassan Muslim appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for an 

extension of time in which to file a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. United States v. Muslim, No. 3:13-cr-00307-RJC-DCK-1 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 28, 2020). 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
2415.203 Requests for proposals. ( a ) ( 3 ) The contracting officer may limit the size of the technical and management portion of offers submitted in response to a request for proposals when the contracting officer determines that it is in the Government's best interest to do so.
[77 FR 73526, Dec. 10, 2012]
#### Inman *v.*Mathews.

February 26, 1913.

Partition. Before Judge Bawlings. Bulloch superior court. December 30, 1911.

*E. B. Strange,*for plaintiff.

*W. E. Fleming*and *Johnston & Cone,*for defendant.

Fish, C. *3.*

The court did not err in giving the instructions to which exceptions were taken, nor in' refusing to give the instructions requested. The evidence authorized the verdict, and a new trial was properly refused.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Engle, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County *916Court, Orange County, rendered January 13, 1978, convicting him of criminal possession of' a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon a plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Case remitted to the County Court to hear and report with respect to the questions of (1) whether the additional "confidential affidavit” of the informant, mentioned in the police officer’s affidavit, specifies the date of the sighting of the drugs, and (2) whether such additional "confidential affidavit” was actually read by the issuing court prior to granting the search warrant. The appeal is held in abeyance in the interim. Upon the return of the case to this court, counsel for the respective parties are directed to serve and file supplemental briefs. The appellant was convicted of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree based upon physical evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant. The police officer’s affidavit in support of the application for the warrant sets forth that a reliable informant had reported to the police that he was present in the appellant’s apartment and had personally observed illicit drugs. While such averments are ordinarily sufficient to establish the existence of probable cause (see *Aguilar v Texas,*378 US 108, 114; *People v West,*44 NY2d 656, 657; *People v Slaughter,*37 NY2d 596, 599), this is only true where there is some indication as to the *date*of the informant’s observations. The latter is necessary inasmuch as no search warrant may issue upon information obtained in the remote past and founded upon so-called "stale” information (see *Zurcher v Stanford Daily,*436 US 547, 556-557, n 6; *Sgro v United States,*287 US 206, 210; *People v Hanlon,*36 NY2d 549, 557). In the case at bar, there is no indication whatsoever in the police officer’s affidavit as to *when*the observation was made. However, that affidavit states that "Deponent also has additional affidavit to make available to Judge 'incamera’ *[sic]*if the Judge so wishes as the affidavit is a confidential affidavit.” As a result, it is not clear to this court whether the additional "confidential affidavit” contains the requisite information as to the time of the sightings and whether the issuing court read the "confidential affidavit” prior to granting the application. Consequently, a remand for a hearing on these twin questions is indicated. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on January 14, 2021, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), ODVA, Inc. (“ODVA”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, KOFLOC Corp., Kyoto, JAPAN; Carlo Gavazzi Ltd., Zejtun, MALTA; Acuity Brands, Inc., Conyers, GA; BBH Products GmbH, Weiden, GERMANY; Thermo Gamma-Metrics LLC, San Diego, CA; IDEM Safety Switches Ltd., Wigan, UNITED KINGDOM; Rexnord Industries, LLC, Milwaukee, WI; Caterpillar, Inc., Deerfield, IL; and AQ M-TECH AB, Uppsala, SWEDEN, have been added as parties to this venture.                

Also, SAMWON ACT Co., Ltd., Busan, SOUTH KOREA; and The Controls Group, Inc. dba Logix, Kirkland, WA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and ODVA intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On June 21, 1995, ODVA filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on February 15, 1996 (61 FR 6039).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on September 17, 2020. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on October 15, 2020 (85 FR 65424).                

Suzanne Morris, 

Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2021-01894 Filed 1-27-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas October 5, 2021 No. 04-19-00737-CR, 04-19-00738-CR

Aidan VITELA , Appellant
v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 5942, 6023 Honorable Kirsten Cohoon, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R On September 29, 2021, this court issued its opinion and judgment in this appeal. On September 30, 2021, Appellant timely filed a motion for a sixteen-day extension of time to file a motion for rehearing. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 49.1, 49.8. Appellant’s motion for extension of time is GRANTED. Appellant’s motion for rehearing is due on November 1, 2021.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 5th day of October, 2021.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
**MARKING THE ONE-YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF BOSTOCK, WITH PRIDE**

##### **June 16, 2021**

 

Today, the Office for Civil Rights issued a Notice of Interpretation explaining that we will enforce Title IX’s prohibition on sex discrimination to include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, consistent with the reasoning in *Bostock v. Clayton County*, issued one year ago this week.

In *Bostock*, the Supreme Court recognized that “it is impossible to discriminate against a person” because of their sexual orientation or gender identity “without discriminating against that individual based on sex.” That reasoning should—and does—apply regardless of whether the individual is an adult in a workplace or a student in school. As we celebrate Pride Month and recognize the many ways that the LGBTQ+ community has contributed to  our country, OCR affirms our commitment to guaranteeing all students—including those who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+)—an educational environment free from discrimination. 

As Secretary Cardona said, the LGBTQ+ community has “fought to be treated fairly, to live their lives without fear of harassment, exclusion, and discrimination,” and to “be who they are — without exception, and with understanding and appreciation.”  

Sadly, the pandemic has only exacerbated some of the hardships faced by LGBTQ+ students. Last week, OCR released “Education in a Pandemic: The Disparate Impacts of COVID-19 on America’s Students,” which showed, among other things, that LGBTQ+ students often face barriers to participating fully and equally in school because of disproportionate and persistent bullying, harassment, and victimization. And many LGBTQ+ students have lost access to affirming school-based services, counseling, affinity groups, and other supports important to well-being. These findings merit concern, outrage, and action. Achieving equity in education means fighting to ensure that all students have access to schools that support them as they learn. That fight—against harassment, exclusion, and discrimination—defines the mission of the Office for Civil Rights.  

Today is an important milestone in the struggle to recognize the rights of LGBTQ+ students, one that we mark with pride. As we look ahead to the many challenges that remain, we are heartened by the Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to equality. As President Biden has said, “no one should ever face discrimination or live in fear because of who they are or whom they love.”  

Thank you, and Happy Pride.  

Suzanne B.  Goldberg          Acting  Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights          Deputy  Assistant Secretary for Strategic Operations and Outreach          Office for  Civil Rights          U.S. Department  of Education
239.7408-1 General. ( a ) Special construction normally involves a common carrier giving a special service or facility related to the performance of the basic telecommunications service requirements. This may include— ( 1 ) Moving or relocating equipment;
( 2 ) Providing temporary facilities;
( 3 ) Expediting provision of facilities; or
( 4 ) Providing specially constructed channel facilities to meet Government requirements.
( b ) Use this subpart instead of FAR part 36 for acquisition of “special construction.”
( c ) Special construction costs may be— ( 1 ) A contingent liability for using telecommunications services for a shorter time than the minimum to reimburse the contractor for unamortized nonrecoverable costs. These costs are usually expressed in terms of a termination liability, as provided in the contract or by tariff;
( 2 ) A onetime special construction charge;
( 3 ) Recurring charges for constructed facilities;
( 4 ) A minimum service charge;
( 5 ) An expediting charge; or
( 6 ) A move or relocation charge.
( d ) When a common carrier submits a proposal or quotation which has special construction requirements, the contracting officer shall require a detailed special construction proposal. Analyze all special construction proposals to— ( 1 ) Determine the adequacy of the proposed construction;
( 2 ) Disclose excessive or duplicative construction; and
( 3 ) When different forms of charge are possible, provide for the form of charge most advantageous to the Government.
( e ) When possible, analyze and approve special construction charges before receiving the service. Impose a ceiling on the special construction costs before authorizing the contractor to proceed, if prior approval is not possible. The contracting officer must approve special construction charges before final payment.
[56 FR 36429, July 31, 1991, as amended at 71 FR 39011, July 11, 2006]
**Exhibit 32**

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**

**and Chief Financial Officer**

**pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

 

In connection with the quarterly report ofCascade Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended April30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), the undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

(i)                                     TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| /s/  ROBERT C. WARREN, JR.              |   |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|
| Robert C.  Warren, Jr.                  |   |
| *Chief Executive Officer*

June 9, 2005 |   |
|                                    |   |
|                                    |   |
| /s/ RICHARD S. ANDERSON                 |   |
| Richard S.  Anderson                    |   |
| *Chief Financial Officer*June 9, 2005   |   |

 

1

----
Case: 1:12-cv-03107 Document #: 26 Filed: 05/11/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:847

Case: 1:12-cv-03107 Document #: 26 Filed: 05/11/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:848

Case: 1:12-cv-03107 Document #: 26 Filed: 05/11/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:849
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 1 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.Con.Res.1
                                       Agreed to January 3, 2017        

                     One Hundred Fifteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
          the third day of January, two thousand and seventeen

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF JOINT COMMITTEE.

    Effective from January 3, 2017, the joint committee created by 
Senate Concurrent Resolution 28 (114th Congress), to make the necessary 
arrangements for the inauguration of the President-elect and the Vice 
President-elect of the United States, is continued with the same power 
and authority provided for in that resolution.

SEC. 2. USE OF CAPITOL.

    Effective from January 3, 2017, the provisions of Senate Concurrent 
Resolution 29 (114th Congress), to authorize the use of the rotunda and 
Emancipation Hall of the Capitol by the Joint Congressional Committee 
on Inaugural Ceremonies in connection with the proceedings and 
ceremonies conducted for the inauguration of the President-elect and 
the Vice President-elect of the United States are continued with the 
same power and authority provided for in that resolution.
Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.
```
Case: 1:12-cv-02637 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 04/10/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:18
#### 204.7400 Scope of subpart.

This subpart prescribes policies and procedures for the release and safeguarding of information to litigation support contractors. It implements the requirements at 10 U.S.C. 129d.