alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 28 (Friday, February 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 9376]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02918]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--National Spectrum Consortium

    Notice is hereby given that, on January 15, 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''), National Spectrum 
Consortium (``NSC'') 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, PAE Applied Technologies, Fort Worth, TX; Mantech 
Advanced Systems International Incorporated, Herndon, VA; Intelsat 
General Communications LLC, McLean, VA; Micron Technology Inc., 
Seattle, WA; CellAntenna Corporation, Coral Springs, FL; NxGen Partners 
Manager, LLC, Dallas, TX; Granite Telecommunications, McLean, VA; 1901 
Group, LLC, Reston, VA; Anritsu Company, Morgan Hills, CA; Capraro 
Technologies, Inc., Utica, NY; Cirrus360 LLC, Richardson, TX; Rafael 
System Global Sustainment, LLC, Bethesda, MD; Gigamon Inc., Santa 
Clara, CA; MedCognition, Inc., San Antonio, TX; Kutta Technologies, 
Inc., Phoenix, AZ have been added as parties to this venture.
    Also, Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp, Fairborn, OH; Beatty and 
Company Computing Inc., Southlake, TX; Sprint Solutions, Inc., Overland 
Park, KS; Indiana Tool & Mfg. Co., Inc. DBA ITAMCO, Plymouth, IN; Bear 
Systems, Boulder, CO; Vectrona, LLC, Virginia Beach, VA; Pareto 
Frontier, LLC, Westford, MA; IJK Controls LLC, Dallas, TX; IMSAR LLC, 
Springville, UT; Phase Sensitive Innovations, Inc., Newark, DE; 
Technology Unlimited Group, San Diego, CA; University of Arizona--
Electrical and Computer Engineering, Tucson, AZ have withdrawn as 
parties from 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 NSC intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On September 24, 2014, NSC 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 
November 4, 2014 (79 FR 65424).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on November 10, 
2020. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on November 23, 2020 (85 FR 74762).

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2021-02918 Filed 2-11-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
Hummingbird

Springs Wilderness

Big Horn

Mountains

Wilderness

Harquahala

Mountains

Wilderness

Hells Canyon

Wilderness

Hassayampa

River Canyon

Wilderness

Castle Creek

Wilderness

Mohave County

Yavapai County

Yavapai

Marico

County

pa County

La Paz County

Maricopa County

!"a$

!"c$

!"c$

!"a$ White Tank

Mountains

Regional Park

Lake

Pleasant

Regional

Park

Prescott

Prescott

Valley

Cordes

Junction

Yarnell

BLACK

CANYON

CITY

NEW

RIVER

WICKENBURG

PEORIA

SURPRISE

BUCKEYE

GOODYEAR

PHOENIX

GLENDALE

Bureau of Land Management

Phoenix District Office

Phoenix, AZ

October 2006

Note: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

conducts land use planning only in the areas administered

by BLM. BLM has no planning authority under the

municipal or county planning legislation of the State

of Arizona.

No warranty is made by BLM for the use of this map

for purposes not intended by BLM, or to the accuracy,

reliability or completeness of the information shown.

Spatial information may not meet National Map Accuracy

standards. This information may be updated without

notification.

± Note: Land Status legend located on Map 1-1

?¿

?Â

Aã

?3⁄4

Iz

I}

Iv

Iv

Iz

Map 2-6

Bradshaw-Harquahala

Planning Areas

Land Suitable for Disposal

Alternative A

(Current Management)

0 5 10 15

Miles

BLM Wilderness

USFS Wilderness

Interstate

Major Road

Major River, Streams or Wash

Highway

Agua Fria National

Monument Planning Area

Bradshaw Harquahala

Planning Area

Disposal - All

Disposal - Exchange Only

Lands upon which mineral resources are

federally administered appear on the Minerals,

Alternative A , map. 2-7

Current tortoise management categories

appear on the Tortoise Habitat map.
#### § 1209.300 General.

A referendum to determine whether eligible producers and importers favor the amendment, continuation, suspension, or termination of the Mushroom Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Order shall be conducted in accordance with these procedures.

[74 FR 18464, Apr. 23, 2009]
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch on Law Enforcement Responses to Opioid Overdoses (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -  Announcements 
            -           Resource: Naloxone Education for School Nurses Toolkit      

# Resource: Naloxone Education for School Nurses Toolkit

This toolkit offers resources to assist school nurses and other school leaders in evaluating and responding to the drug overdose crisis through the implementation of a naloxone program in schools. The toolkit is organized in the following sections: 
                  -  Creating a Naloxone Program in Your School  
                  -  Campus Protocols for Emergency Naloxone Administration  
                  -  Communication Resources  

**Learn more.**
#### LARKIN, Appellant, v. McNAMEE et al., espondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Di-don, Second Department.

March 2, 1906.)

Action by Patrick Larkin against John MeNamee, individually and as executor, etc., and others.

No opinion. Motion granted to resettle orders. See 96 N. Y. Supp. 827.
March 5, 2015 

Maria J. Doa, Ph.D. 

Director 

Chemical Control Division 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20460 

Dear Ms. Doa, 

Assured 

PACKAGING 

PLZ Aeroscience Corporation is the parent company for several business units in the aerosol and consumer 

products industry. Our family of businesses has grown significantly over the last 10 years. We are in a 

continuous process of integrating our holdings, optimizing our product portfolio and in the process; updating 

for safety and compliance. Sprayway, Inc. is the business unit that formulated and has marketed the spray 

fixative product that contains TCE. This is a very old and established product that performs well. For that 

reason the formula has not been changed significantly over the years. 

However, when we became aware that EPA's final risk assessment on TCE evaluated this use and found that 

our application posed a significant risk, we began reformulation efforts to remove TCE from this product. This 

has not been an easy task since TCE has attributes of solubility and compatibility that are difficult to match. 

Our R&D staff tried several different solvent and active systems and sampled them to our sales department for 

testing and approval. The formula approved has a higher cost but comparable performance. Once 

performance was approved, samples were prepared for accelerated and ambient stability testing. Cans are 

sprayed to test performance and opened to test for corrosion and stability over a three month period for the 

accelerated stability cans and over 12 months for the ambient stability cans. The accelerated stability cans all 

looked good through the 3 month period. The ambient cans are beyond 6 months now and still look good. 

At this point we feel confident that stability will look good through 12 months and are making plans to cease 

production of the TCE formula product by September 1, 2015 allowing existing product to flow through 

normal channels of trade. All product manufactured after September 1 51 

will be made using our new TCE free 

formula. Our plans will include updating labels, running out old stock, updating literature and possibly 

updating pricing. 
Assured 

PACKAGING 

We appreciate the efforts that EPA is making to include industry in the process of new chemical regulations. 

We feel that this allows EPA to work from better information and for industry to participate in the process. 

Hopefully we can initiate positive change that can be achieved while minimizing disruption to industry. 

Sincerely, 

Jim McLarty 

Senior Regulatory Specialist 

PLZ Aeroscience Corporation. 

Jlm960
##### 



Exhibit
13.1
 Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 As Adopted
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
  1.
    
    The accompanying Annual Report of the Company on Form 20-F for the period 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; and2.
    
    Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Adolfo Castro RivasDate: June 29, 2007
    Adolfo Castro RivasChief Financial Officer/s/ Fernando Chico PardoDate: June 29, 2007
    Fernando Chico PardoChief Executive Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

TRAVIS LAFEL ZAH, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-10210

D.C. No. 3:11-cr-08095-JAT-1 

 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 2, 2020**

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Travis Lafel Zah appeals from the district court’s order revoking supervised 

release and imposing a 24-month sentence, to be followed by 12 months of 

supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm in 

part and remand in part.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUN 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-10210

Zah first contends that the district court impermissibly imposed the 24-

month sentence, which the court ordered to run consecutively to his state sentence, 

in order to punish him for the state crime he committed while on supervised 

release. We review for plain error, see United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 

1176 (9th Cir. 2006), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the 

district court properly based the sentence on Zah’s poor history on supervision and 

the close relationship between the original offense and the violation conduct, both 

of which involved the same victim. See United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058, 

1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Zah also challenges a special condition of supervised release (“Special 

Condition 5”), alleging that it impermissibly infringes on his right to associate with 

his children. Before a district court imposes a supervised release condition that 

implicates a “particularly significant liberty interest,” it must justify the condition 

by making “special findings on the record supported by evidence in the record.” 

United States v. Wolf Child, 699 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th Cir. 2012). The government 

concedes, and we agree, that the court did not do so here. However, we disagree

with the government that the district court must strike the condition. Given the 

circumstances of this case, there may be valid reasons to require the probation 

officer’s approval before Zah can contact the children he shared with the victim, or 

any other member of the victim’s family. Thus, we remand for the district court to 
3 19-10210

determine whether to strike the condition, modify it to exclude Zah’s children, or 

reimpose it. If the court reimposes the condition, it must explain on the record why 

the condition is necessary for deterrence, protection of the public, or rehabilitation, 

and involves no greater deprivation of liberty than reasonably necessary. See id.

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Zah’s remaining challenges to 

Special Condition 5.

AFFIRMED in part; REMANDED in part.
9904.402-61 Interpretation. ( a ) 9904.402, Cost Accounting Standard—Consistency in Allocating Costs Incurred for the Same Purpose, provides, in 9904.402-40, that “ * * * no final cost objective shall have allocated to it as a direct cost any cost, if other costs incurred for the same purpose, in like circumstances, have been included in any indirect cost pool to be allocated to that or any other final cost objective.”
( b ) This interpretation deals with the way 9904.402 applies to the treatment of costs incurred in preparing, submitting, and supporting proposals. In essence, it is addressed to whether or not, under the Standard, all such costs are incurred for the same purpose, in like circumstances.
( c ) Under 9904.402, costs incurred in preparing, submitting, and supporting proposals pursuant to a specific requirement of an existing contract are considered to have been incurred in different circumstances from the circumstances under which costs are incurred in preparing proposals which do not result from such specific requirement. The circumstances are different because the costs of preparing proposals specifically required by the provisions of an existing contract relate only to that contract while other proposal costs relate to all work of the contractor.
( d ) This interpretation does not preclude the allocation, as indirect costs, of costs incurred in preparing all proposals. The cost accounting practices used by the contractor, however, must be followed consistently and the method used to reallocate such costs, of course, must provide an equitable distribution to all final cost objectives.
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Forms S-8 Nos. 333-96625 and 333-73152)
pertaining to the VIASYS Healthcare Inc. Equity Incentive Plan, the 2001 Employees' Stock Purchase Plan and the Deferred Compensation Plan for Directors of our reports dated March 15,
2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of VIASYS Healthcare Inc., VIASYS Healthcare Inc. management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of VIASYS Healthcare Inc. included in VIASYS Healthcare Inc.'s Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended January 1, 2005.

/s/
Ernst & Young LLP

Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
March 15, 2005

---



QuickLinks
#### Cary S. Frankel et al., Appellants, v Ford Leasing Development Company, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[776 NYS2d 905]

In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of a contract to sell real property, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered November 15, 2002, as granted the motion of the defendant Ford Leasing Development Company for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, it is clear from a November 20, 2000, letter (hereinafter the Letter) executed by the plaintiff Cary S. Frankel and by a real estate agent for the defendant Ford Leasing Development Company (hereinafter Ford Leasing), that the parties never had a meeting of the minds. The Letter expressly contemplated a more complete and formal contract and omitted many essential terms of a contract. The fact that the parties engaged in extensive negotiations and exchanged proposed purchase agreements further demonstrated the absence of a complete agreement. Thus, the Letter merely constituted an agreement to agree which is unenforceable under the statute of frauds (see General Obligations Law § 5-703 [2]; *Behar v Mawardi,*268 AD2d 400 [2000]; *La Barca v Altenkirch,*193 AD2d 586 [1993]; *Ramos v Lido Home Sales Corp.,*148 AD2d 598 [1989]).

Moreover, contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, the actions taken by Frankel were not unequivocally referable to a contract of sale so as to constitute part performance sufficient to defeat the statute of frauds, and were merely steps taken in contemplation of a future agreement (see General Obligations Law § 5-*758703 [4]; *Messner Vetere Berger McNamee Schmetterer Euro RSCG v Aegis Group,*93 NY2d 229, 235, 237 [1999]; *Urgo v Patel,*297 AD2d 376, 378 [2002]; *Francesconi v Nutter,*125 AD2d 363 [1986]). Consequently, the Supreme Court properly granted Ford Leasing’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Krausman, J.P., Luciano, Cozier and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 99.1




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



In  connection  with  the  Annual  Report  of  American  Ammunition,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10KSB for the year ending  December 31, 2002,  as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Andres Fernandez,  Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-  Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(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/ Andres Fernandez
------------------------
Andres Fernandez,
Chief Executive Officer
May 13, 2003
179 So. 316

#### STATE v. DESOTO SECURITIES CO., Inc.

No. 33889.

Feb. 7, 1938.

S. M. Atkinson, of Mannsfield, for appellant. ’

Lee & Lee, of Shreveport, for appellee.

FOURNET, Justice.

The State of Louisiana proceeded by rule against the DeSoto Securities Company to recover a license or occupation tax for the years 1933 and 1934, plus statutory penalties and attorney’s fees for conducting the business of purchasing, selling, trading in, or lending on notes secured by chattel mortgage, vendor’s, contractor’s, mechanic’s, or other statutory liens, or otherwise, under the provisions of section 30 of Act No. 190 of 1932.

The defendant resisted the rule on the ground that it had been in the process of liquidating its affairs since a time prior to the year 1933, and that during the years 1933 and 1934 and up to the time of filing its answer it had not been engaged in the alleged business and its actions during that time had been restricted solely to collecting obligations due it arising prior to the year 1933.

*287. The case was submitted upon an admitted statement of facts substantially embracing the facts asserted in the defendant’s answer. The trial judge rejected the State’s demand, and it has appealed.

It is argued, without submission of authorities in support thereof, by counsel for the State that, while it was agreed that said defendant was in a state of liquidation, it appears from the record that the defendant was not being liquidated by “Court appointed liquidators, but through itself in its ' private capacity, and there is no reason why it should not pay the license tax sued on,- penalties, costs and attorney’s fees.”

The authority under which the license tax is levied against the business allegedly conducted by the defendant is under section 30 of Act No. 190 of 1932, which provides: “That there is hereby levied an annual license tax upon each person, firm, corporation or association of persons *engaged in the business*of purchasing, selling, trading in or lending on notes secured by chattel mortgage, vendor’s, contractor’s, mechanic’s or other, statutory liens.” (Italics ours.)

A mere reading of the section conclusively shows that it was the intention of the Legislature to tax only those *engaged in the business*named but not those engaged in the liquidation of such a business. The "fact that the defendant is liquidating its own affairs instead of through the aid of the court, in our opinion, is immaterial.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the lower'court is affirmed.

HIGGINS, J., absent.