alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### 352.224-71 Confidential Information.

As prescribed in HHSAR 324.105(b), insert the following clause:

# Confidential Information (DEC 2015)

(a) Confidential Information, as used in this clause, means information or data of a personal nature about an individual, or proprietary information or data submitted by or pertaining to an institution or organization.

(b) Specific information or categories of information that the Government will furnish to the Contractor, or that the Contractor is expected to generate, which are confidential may be identified elsewhere in this contract. The Contracting Officer may modify this contract to identify Confidential Information from time to time during performance.

(c) Confidential Information or records shall not be disclosed by the Contractor until:

(1) Written advance notice of at least 45 days shall be provided to the Contracting Officer of the Contractor's intent to release findings of studies or research, to which an agency response may be appropriate to protect the public interest or that of the agency.

(2) For information provided by or on behalf of the government,

(i) The publication or dissemination of the following types of information are restricted under this contract: [INSERT RESTRICTED TYPES OF INFORMATION. IF NONE, SO STATE.]

(ii) The reason(s) for restricting the types of information identified in subparagraph (i) is/are: [STATE WHY THE PUBLIC OR GOVERNMENT INTEREST REQUIRES THE RESTRICTION OF EACH TYPE OF INFORMATION. ANY BASIS FOR NONDISCLOSURE WHICH WOULD BE VALID UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT IS SUFFICIENT UNDER THIS CLAUSE.]

(iii) Written advance notice of at least 45 days shall be provided to the Contracting Officer of the Contractor's intent to disseminate or publish information identified in subparagraph (2)(i). The contractor shall not disseminate or publish such information without the written consent of the Contracting Officer.

(d) Whenever the Contractor is uncertain with regard to the confidentiality of or a property interest in information under this contract, the Contractor should consult with the Contracting Officer prior to any release, disclosure, dissemination, or publication.
#### 3409.507-1 Solicitation provision.

The contracting officer must insert the provision in 3452.209-70 (Conflict of interest certification) in all solicitations for services above the simplified acquisition threshold.
EXHIBIT 99
                                                                      ----------




April 15, 2002


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549-0408


Re:  Letter to Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Temporary Note 3T
     to Article 3 of Regulation S-X

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Pursuant to Temporary Note 3T to Article 3 of Regulation S-X, Chattem, Inc. has
obtained a letter of representation from Arthur Andersen LLP ("Andersen"), its
independent public accountants, stating that the February 28, 2002 quarterly
review was subject to Andersen's quality control system for the U.S. accounting
and auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was
conducted in compliance with professional standards, that there was appropriate
continuity of Andersen personnel working on the review, availability of national
office consultation and availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of
Andersen.


Very truly yours,

Chattem, Inc.

/s/ Scott J. Sloat
-------------------
Scott J. Sloat
Controller
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 26, 2016

s0718 

# Order

Clerk July 26, 2016

151783

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 151783

COA: 326254

Muskegon CC: 13

- 064234

- FH

BRIAN WAYNE BEALS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 23, 2015 or der

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### 2801.604 Contracting Officer's Representative (COR).

Contracting officers may appoint individuals to act as authorized representatives in the monitoring and administration of a contract. Such officials shall be designated as a Contracting Officer's Representative (COR). When a COR is to be designated, contracting officers shall include the clause at JAR 2852.201-70 in all contracts. A COR's authority is limited to the authority set forth in the subject clause.
<PAGE>

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Louis E. Prezeau, the Chief Executive Officer and President of City National
Bancshares Corporation (the "Corporation"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)  the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Corporation for the year ended
     December 31, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
     Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
     78m or 78o(d)); and

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

Dated: March 29, 2007


                                        /s/ Louis E. Prezeau
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Louis E. Prezeau
                                        Chief Executive Officer and President

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Edward R. Wright, the Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President of
City National Bancshares Corporation (the "Corporation"), certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)  the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Corporation for the year ended
     December 31, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
     Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
     78m or 78o(d)); and

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

Dated: March 29, 2007


                                        /s/ Edward R. Wright
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Edward R. Wright
                                        Chief Financial Officer and
                                        Senior Vice President


                                       39
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JERMAINE WILLIAMS, et al., §

§ No. 103, 2015

Defendants Below-Appellants, §

§ Court Below: Superior Court

v. § of the State of Delaware,

§ in and for Sussex County

STATE OF DELAWARE, §

§

Plaintiff Below-Appellee. §

Submitted: December 2, 2015

Decided: December 2, 2015

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and VAUGHN, Justices. 

O R D E R

This 2nd day of December 2015, upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the 

record below, it appears to the Court that:

(1) These Rule 61 petitioners sought relief in the Superior Court because of the 

evidence-handling problems that were discovered at the Office of the Chief Medical 

Examiner. As in many prior cases, these petitioners all pled guilty and admitted to 

crimes involving the possession of illegal substances. These petitioners did not raise any 

new arguments, but instead rehashed arguments made and rejected in other cases. The 

Superior Court properly dismissed their petitions as untimely under Rule 61.1 On appeal, 

the petitioners also reiterate arguments that this Court has considered and found lack 

merit in other recent cases.

 

1 Williams v. State, Cr. ID.1004003733 (Del. Super. Feb. 12, 2015).
2

(2) The petitioners’ arguments that the new form of Rule 61 is unconstitutional or 

unfairly retroactive to them are without merit.

2 Even if the petitioners’ claims were not 

procedurally barred, they lack substantive merit as each of them freely pled guilty and 

were not coerced in any way into doing so. This Court has fully considered identical 

arguments before in Ira Brown v. State,

3 Anzara Brown v. State,4

and Aricidiacono v. 

State,

5

and adheres to those prior decisions.6

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Superior Court’s judgment of 

February 12, 2015 is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice 

 

2

See Turnage v. State, 2015 WL 6746644, at *1 (Del. Nov. 4, 2015) (rejecting this identical 

argument); see also Dist. Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52, 89 

(2009) (“States are under no obligation to provide mechanisms for postconviction relief . . . .”);

Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 557 (1987) (“States have no obligation to provide [postconviction] relief . . . .”).

3

108 A.3d 1201, 1205–06 (Del. 2015).

4

117 A.3d 568, 581 (Del. 2015).

5

__ A.3d __, 2015 WL 5933984, at *3–4 (Del. Oct. 12, 2015).

6

See also State v. Jones, 2015 WL 6746873, at *1 (Del. Nov. 4, 2015); Turnage, 2015 WL 

6746644, at *2; Brewer v. State, 2015 WL 4606541, at *2–3 (Del. July 30, 2015); McMillan v. 

State, 2015 WL 3444673, at *2 (Del. May 27, 2015); Patrick L. Brown v. State, 2015 WL 

3372271, at *2 (Del. May 22, 2015); Carrero v. State, 2015 WL 3367940, at *2 (Del. May 21, 

2015).
# HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES and UNIVERSITIES (HBCU) PROGRAM

# FY 2014 REGULAR AWARDS

March 13, 2015
Order entered March 15, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 11

- 01297

- CR

LARRY O'NEAL HALEY , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Cou rt Cause No. F05

- 72800

- Q



### O RDER

Before the Court is Larry O’Neal Haley’s January 31, 2013 Motion for Extension of

Time to File Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing. We GRANT the motion. Any motion for

rehearing shall be filed by Haley on or before 5:00 p.m. on March 24, 2013.

/s/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE JUSTICE
# C_2019306EN.01000101.xml

| 10.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 306/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 306/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

9 September 2019

(2019/C 306/01)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1033 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 118,01 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4598 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,89275 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,6598 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0923 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 139,10 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,8663 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,855 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 329,93 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3335 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,7297 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 6,3176 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6066 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4515 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6503 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7129 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5223 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 315,99 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,1931 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,8610 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3975 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 498,10 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6015 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 57,195 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 72,1849 |
| THB | Thai baht | 33,800 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,4764 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,5254 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 79,0815 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1033

JPY

Japanese yen

118,01

DKK

Danish krone

7,4598

GBP

Pound sterling

0,89275

SEK

Swedish krona

10,6598

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0923

ISK

Iceland króna

139,10

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,8663

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,855

HUF

Hungarian forint

329,93

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3335

RON

Romanian leu

4,7297

TRY

Turkish lira

6,3176

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6066

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4515

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6503

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7129

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5223

KRW

South Korean won

1 315,99

ZAR

South African rand

16,1931

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,8610

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3975

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 498,10

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6015

PHP

Philippine peso

57,195

RUB

Russian rouble

72,1849

THB

Thai baht

33,800

BRL

Brazilian real

4,4764

MXN

Mexican peso

21,5254

INR

Indian rupee

79,0815

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7705

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ANTHONY GRANDISON, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CR02-368-JFM; CA-05-870-JFM)

Submitted: March 27, 2006 Decided: April 21, 2006

Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Grandison, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Michael DiBiagio,

United States Attorney, John Francis Purcell, Jr., OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Grandison, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion

and denying his motion for reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 59(e), 60(b). The orders are not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Grandison has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
FMF.	. 

1013 SEP 24 pl, 12:

41 

, ^,^	i,` ^i" 1 hF September 17, 2013	

ErIVE s`@Ar 

The Hon. Gina McCarthy 

Administrator 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Re:	Petition for Waiver of 2014 Renewable Fuel Standard 

Dear Administrator McCarthy: 

Delek Refining; Ltd.-(°`ISelek" or the "Company") respectfully submits this petition to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") for a partial waiver of the 2014 applicable volumes 

of the Renewable Fuel Standard ("RFS") pursuant to section 211(o)(7)(A) of the Clean Air 

Act.1 1 1 

Delek is an obligated party pursuant to regulations promulgated by EPA to implement the RFS 

(40 C.F.R Part 80, Subpart M). The Company is thus a person subject to the requirements of 

subsection 211(o) of the Clean Air Act. Delek also is a member of the American Fuel & 

Petrochemical Manufacturers ("AFPM"). Existing EPA administrative and judicial precedent 

makes clear that AFPM has standing to file an RFS waiver petition on behalf of inember 

companies. Notwithstanding this understanding, Delek's submittal incorporates by reference the 

RFS waiver petition filed by AFPM and the American Petroleum Institute on August 13, 2013. 

Respectfully submitted, 

,^/,A,44^ e.,44004111111^ 

Delek Refining, Ltd. 

Michael E. Norman 

Vice President — Environmental & Regulatory Affairs 

mike.norman@delekus.com/6l5.435.1402

"I See 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(7)(A). 

7102 COMMERCE WAY • BRENTWOOD • TENNESSEE • 37027


425 MCMURREY DRIVE • TYLER . TEXAS • 75702


903.579.3400 • 903.579.3499 (FAX)
^" z

^ ^ 

^ 

^	J 

.^	p 

^ 

^	\y/ N 6^i 

Q ^ r N J 

U O

M .- 

d J N .- 

(r^ ^ o

rLL• 

IN 

irrrn 

M 

O
 y N ^ 

o a0 ^ d ^ G ^ 

C

^ 

^ 

edo

d 

^ 

424 

aC/I

- = N 

-l0 

= et 

^M 

^ m 

=J - U 

I ^ 

^10^ ^ c- - -
# Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Program FY 2016 Summary Data

## FY 2016 DDRA Applicants

## FY 2016 DDRA Selected Fellows

### FY 2016 Data by Type of Institution

### FY 2016 Data by World Area and Gender

## FY 1964-2016 Number of DDRA Fellowships Awarded by World Area

*Note:  Multi-country designation is obsolete.  Now, principal country of research is designated.

## FY 2016 DDRA Funding by State

## FY 2016 DDRA Funding by World Area

### AFRICA TOTAL:  21 Fellows, $652,950

### CENTRAL/EASTERN EUROPE AND EURASIA TOTAL:  6 Fellows, $270,998

### EAST ASIA TOTAL:  19 Fellows, $735,449

### NEAR EAST TOTAL:   11 Fellows, $434,141

### SOUTH EAST ASIA TOTAL:  4 Fellows, $109,046

### SOUTH ASIA TOTAL:  7 Fellows, $247,657

### WESTERN HEMISPHERE TOTAL:  $28,975,581

**Number of Fellowship Awards: 97**

**Total funds Awarded: $3,477,212**

## FY 2016 FULBRIGHT-HAYS DOCTORAL DISSERTATION RESEARCH ABROAD (DDRA) PROGRAM FELLOWS

### Fellows Researching in Africa

### Fellows Researching in Central/Eastern Europe and Eurasia

### Fellows Researching in the Near East

### Fellows Researching in East Asia

### Fellows Researching in South East Asia

### Fellows Researching in South Asia

### Fellows Researching in the Western Hemisphere

[Jan 4, 2017]
#### 3407.103 Agency-head responsibilities.

The SPE is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 7.103.
#### Harry Gottfried et al., Respondents, v Kenneth Alsultany et al., Defendants, and American Motors Sales Corporation, Appellant.

— Appeal by defendant American Motors Sales Corporation from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 21, 1977, which, upon reargument, granted plaintiffs leave to replead six causes of action. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion for leave *679to "reargue” and replead denied. Plaintiffs’ motion to reargue, which was based upon additional information, was in reality a motion to renew (see Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 2221:7, p 157). However, plaintiffs may not replead since they have not shown good ground to support their causes of action (see CPLR 3211, subd [e]). Hopkins, J. P., Titone, O’Connor and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
     
<CIK>                         0000714980
<NAME>                        City National Bancshares Corp.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     US. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         3344
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         321
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               6950
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    30609
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         24494
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           24434
<LOANS>                                        45294
<ALLOWANCE>                                    650
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 114410
<DEPOSITS>                                     100889
<SHORT-TERM>                                   3661
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            1215
<LONG-TERM>                                    1749
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    200
<COMMON>                                       1120
<OTHER-SE>                                     5576
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 114410
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                3607
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              481
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               3382
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               7470
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             2653
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             176
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          4641
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  486
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             10
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                4245
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1273
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     1273
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   802
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  7.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  6.53
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 7.23
<LOANS-NON>                                    839
<LOANS-PAST>                                   31
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               625
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  559
<RECOVERIES>                                   98
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              650
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           630
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        20
        


</TABLE>