alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2023084DE.01002801.xml

| 23.3.2023 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 84/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.3.2023

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 84/28

---

Berichtigung des Beschlusses (GASP) 2021/698 des Rates vom 30. April 2021 über die Sicherheitssysteme und -dienste, die im Rahmen des Weltraumprogramms der Union eingerichtet, betrieben und genutzt warden und die Sicherheit der Union berühren können, sowie zur Aufhebung des Beschlusses 2014/496/GASP

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 170 vom 12. Mai 2021
  )

Seite „Inhalt“ und Seite 178, Titel:

Anstatt:

„Beschluss (GASP) 2021/698 des Rates vom 30. April 2021 über die Sicherheitssysteme und -dienste, die im Rahmen des Weltraumprogramms der Union eingerichtet, betrieben und genutzt warden und die Sicherheit der Union berühren können, sowie zur Aufhebung des Beschlusses 2014/496/GASP“

muss es heißen:

„Beschluss (GASP) 2021/698 des Rates vom 30. April 2021 über die Sicherheitssysteme und -dienste, die im Rahmen des Weltraumprogramms der Union eingerichtet, betrieben und genutzt werden und die Sicherheit der Union berühren können, sowie zur Aufhebung des Beschlusses 2014/496/GASP“.

---
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2478 

To repeal a limitation on Federal procurement of certain fuels. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 25, 2013 

Mr. CONAWAY (for himself, Mr. CUELLAR, Mr. FLORES, Mr. HENSARLING, 

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Mrs. LUMMIS, Mr. 

MATHESON, and Mr. RAHALL) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To repeal a limitation on Federal procurement of certain 

fuels. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Section 526 Repeal 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL. 

7 Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security 

8 Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17142) is repealed. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### § 301.92-9 Costs and charges.

The services of the inspector during normal business hours (8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays) will be furnished without cost. The user will be responsible for all costs and charges arising from inspection and other services provided outside normal business hours.
# Da ta Eva lua tion Re co rd s (DERs) on Cosms The U .S. EP

A’ s r eview of the cosm st udies used in P AT I, also known as Data E va luation R ec or ds (DERs), ar e publically ava ilable at www.r egulations.gov

, docket number: EP A - HQ- OPP - 2003 - 0367 - 0211 U.S. Environmental Pr otection Agency **1**

EP A - HQ- OPP - 2003 - 0367 - 0211 thr ough EP

A - HQ- OPP - 2003 - 0367 - 0283
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C SECTION 350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Oakmont Acquisition Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006 (the Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof, I, Robert J. Skandalaris, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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, as amended; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                   |  | 
|---------------------------------- |  | 
|Date: May 15, 2006                
|                                  
|/s/    Robert J. Skandalaris      
|Robert J. Skandalaris             
|Chairman & Chief Executive Officer



16
Editorial Note on Subchapter C of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.

Editorial Note on Part 276
Editorial Note: OMB control numbers relating to this part 276 are contained in § 271.8.

§ 276.6 Good cause. ( a ) When a State agency has failed to comply with provisions of the Act, the regulations issued pursuant to the Act, or the FNS-approved State Plan of Operation, and, thus, is subject to the suspension/disallowance and injunctive relief provisions in §§ 276.4 and 276.5, FNS may determine that the State had good cause for the noncompliance. FNS shall evaluate good cause in these situations on a case-by-case basis, based on any one of the following criteria: ( 1 ) Natural disasters or civil disorders that adversely affect Program operations;
( 2 ) Strikes by State agency staff;
( 3 ) Change in SNAP or other Federal or State programs that result in a substantial adverse impact upon a State agency's management of the Program; and
( 4 ) Any other circumstances in which FNS determines good cause to exist.
( b ) If FNS determines that food cause existed for a State agency's failure to comply with required provisions and standards, FNS shall not suspend or disallow administrative funds nor seek injunctive relief to compel compliance with the provisions and standards.
[Amdt. 168, 45 FR 77263, Nov. 21, 1980]
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. 4:88cr4019-WS

THEODORE HUDSON, 4:05cv180-WS

Defendant.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 210)

docketed July 7, 2005. The magistrate judge recommends that the defendant's motion

for relief (doc. 209) be summarily denied. The defendant has filed no objections to the

report and recommendation.

Upon review of the record, the court has determined that the magistrate judge’s

report and recommendation must be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 210) is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this order of the court.

Case 4:88-cr-04019-WS-WCS Document 213 Filed 08/10/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 4:88cr4019-WS

2. The defendant’s motion for relief (doc. 209) is hereby summarily DENIED.

3. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and shall close Case No.

4:05cv180-WS.

DONE AND ORDERED this August 10, 2005.

 /s William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:88-cr-04019-WS-WCS Document 213 Filed 08/10/05 Page 2 of 2
MEMORANDUM

Subject: Summary of Stakeholder Meeting

From: Martha Keating

To: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0699

Date: June 16, 2015

On June 15, 2015, representatives of EPA attended a meeting with representatives of the Carroll 

Area Development Corporation (Carroll County, Iowa). The meeting was held by 

videoconference. Attendees discussed the designations process for the ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards, state implementation plan development, and current air quality data for 

Carroll County. There were no meeting materials.

The following is a list of attendees and their affiliation. 

Name Affiliation

Doug Burns Daily Times Herald

Adam Schweers City of Carroll

Gerald Clausen City of Carroll

Mark Sheeder Struve Labs

Rick Hunsaker Region XII COG

Ed Smith St. Anthony Regional Hospital

Shannon Landauer Carroll Area Development Corporation

Gene Meiners Carroll County Supervisor

Dr. Rexanne Struve Struve Labs

Sara Terry EPA/Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

(OAQPS)

Martha Keating EPA/OAQPS

Scott Mathias EPA/OAQPS

James Hemby EPA/OAQPS

Kevin Bailey EPA/Office of Congressional Affairs

Lachala Kemp EPA/Region 7
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. Case No: 3:95cr3003/RV

3:05cv330/RV/MD

WILTON DALEY

_____________________________________________________________________

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's report and

recommendation dated September 2, 2005. The defendant previously has been

furnished a copy of the report and recommendation and has been afforded an

opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section

636(b)(1), and I have made a de novo determination of those portions to which an

objection has been made.

Having considered the report and recommendation and all objections thereto

timely filed by the parties, I have determined that the report and recommendation

should be adopted. I note further that as to any Apprendi/Blakely issue with respect

to the firearm, the jury’s verdict of “guilty” on the Section 924(c) [as it then read]

charge is a finding of “possession” of the firearm, even though it was not sufficient

to meet the “use” of the firearm definition later set out in Bailey. 

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence (doc. 151) is

summarily DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of September, 2005.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:95-cr-03003-RV-MD Document 154 Filed 09/26/05 Page 1 of 1
§ 3430.35 Review of noncompetitive applications. ( a ) *General.* Some projects are directed by either authorizing legislation and/or appropriations to specifically support a designated institution or set of institutions for particular research, education, or extension topics of importance to the nation, a State, or a region. Although these projects may be awarded noncompetitively, these projects or activities are subject to the same application process, award terms and conditions, Federal assistance laws and regulations, reporting and monitoring requirements, and post-award administration and closeout policies and procedures as competitive Federal assistance programs. The only difference is these applications are not subject to a competitive peer or merit review process at the Agency level.
( b ) *Requirements.* All noncompetitive applications recommended for funding are required to be reviewed by the program officer and, as required, other Departmental and NIFA officials; and the review documented by the NIFA program officer. For awards recommended for funding at or greater than $10,000, an independent review and a unit review by program officials are required.
exv10w18



 



EXHIBIT 10.18

SALARY INFORMATION FOR
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

The table below provides information regarding the salary of each
executive officer of Genitope Corporation as
of March 1, 2005. All other compensation arrangements between Genitope Corporation
and each of its executive officers are referenced in the Exhibit
Index to this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


	 	 	 
	Executive Officer	 	Salary
	Dan W. Denney, Jr.	 	$300,000
	John M. Vuko	 	$252,000
	Diano Ingolia	 	$240,000
	Bonnie Charpentier	 	$240,000
	Claude Miller	 	$240,000
§ 3202.6 Appeal processes. An applicant for certification may appeal a notice of denial of certification to the Program Manager. Entities that have received a notice of violation, and manufacturers and vendors of certified biobased products who have received a notice of suspension or revocation, may appeal to the Program Manager. ( a ) ( 1 ) Appeals to the Program Manager must be filed within 30 days of receipt by the appellant of a notice of denial of certification, a notice of violation, a notice of suspension, or a notice of revocation. Appeals must be filed in writing and addressed to: Program Manager, USDA Voluntary Labeling Program for Biobased Products, Room 361, Reporters Building, 300 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20024.
( 2 ) All appeals must include a copy of the adverse decision and a statement of the appellant's reasons for believing that the decision was not made in accordance with applicable program regulations, policies, or procedures, or otherwise was not proper.
( b ) ( 1 ) If the Program Manager sustains an applicant's appeal of a notice of denial of certification, USDA will issue a notice of certification to the applicant for its biobased product.
( 2 ) If the Program Manager sustains a manufacturer's or vendor's appeal of a notice of violation, USDA will rescind the notice and no further action will be taken by USDA.
( 3 ) If the Program Manager sustains a manufacturer's or vendor's appeal of a notice of suspension, the manufacturer, vendor, and their designated representative(s) may immediately resume affixing the certification mark to the certified biobased product and USDA will reinstate the product's information to the USDA BioPreferred Program Web site.
( 4 ) If the Program Manager sustains a manufacturer's or vendor's appeal of a notice of revocation, the manufacturer or vendor, and its designated representatives may immediately resume affixing the certification mark to the certified biobased product and sell and distribute the certified biobased product with the certification mark. In addition, USDA will reinstate the product's information to the USDA BioPreferred Program Web site.
( c ) If the Program Manager sustains a manufacturer's or vendor's appeal of its product's exclusion from the program, the manufacturers or vendors may then apply for certification to use the certification mark on that product, as specified in § 3202.5(a) of this part.
( d ) Appeals of any of the Program Manager's decisions may be made to the USDA Assistant Secretary for Administration. Appeals must be made, in writing, within 30 days of receipt of the Program Manager's decision and addressed to: Assistant Secretary for Administration, Room 209A, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0103. If the Assistant Secretary for Administration sustains an appeal, the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section will apply.
[76 FR 3806, Jan. 20, 2011. Redesignated and amended at 76 FR 53632, Aug. 29, 2011]
#### McKee-Berger-Mansueto, Inc., et al., Respondents, v. Barry Federman et al., Appellants.

Order entered November 4, 1966, unanimously

modified, on the law and the facts and as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, to vacate plaintiffs’ notice of examination with leave to serve a new notice on defendants on completion of the latters’ examination. Plaintiffs’ notice to examine before trial was served prematurely *(Fund of Funds*v. *Waddell & Reed,*26 A D 2d 809; *Van Valkenburgh, Nooger & Neville*v. *John F. Rider Publisher, Inc.,*24 A D 2d 437). No special circumstances are shown which would overcome defendants’ right to priority of examination. Settle order on notice. Concur — Steuer, J. P., Tilzer, Rabin, McNally and Staley, Jr., JJ.
AFS-12-124-E 

January 27, 2012 

 Exemption No. 10439 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-1370 

Mr. Benjamin Watsky 

41 James Street 

Montclair, New Jersey 07042 

Dear Mr. Watsky: 

This letter is to inform you that we have denied your petition for exemption. It transmits our 

decision and explains its basis. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By undated letter received at the Federal docket on December 12, 2011, you petitioned the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from § 61.153(a) of Title 14, Code 

of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to apply for an airline transport pilot 

(ATP) certificate in order to complete training and eventually act as a required aircrew 

member with a part 121 carrier. 

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

in the Federal Register because this is not a precedent-setting petition, and any delay in acting 

on this petition would be detrimental to you. 

The FAA issued a denial of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Denial of Exemption No. 6826 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that the petitioner failed to show how his situation was unique in comparison to the 

needs of other pilots and that a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest. The 

FAA noted that his personal interest to be able to apply for an ATP certificate before reaching 

his 23rd birthday is not the same as the interest of the public as a whole. Additionally, the 

FAA determined that compliance with this rule would ensure a high maturity level for those 

pilots who are permitted to operate as pilot in command in operations requiring an ATP 
2 

certificate and that the minimum age requirement of 23 years would further the cause of 

safety. 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed Denial 

of Exemption No. 6826; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for denying the enclosed Denial of Exemption No. 6826 

also apply to the situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby deny your petition for an exemption from 14 CFR § 61.153(a). 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

John S. Duncan 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service 

Enclosure
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO.: 4:03cr33-SPM

ANTHONY BYTHWOOD,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER

Before the Court is the government’s Rule 35 Motion advising that a

reduction in the defendant’s sentence may be warranted by his cooperation and

substantial assistance since his sentencing. The Court finds that a reduction is

proper to reward his substantial assistance in the prosecution of others. The

defendant’s sentence of confinement is, therefore, reduced from 262 months to

160 months. In all other respects, the original sentence imposed by the

Judgment and Commitment Order of November 17, 2003 (doc. 39) shall remain

unchanged. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of August, 2006.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cr-00033-RH-CAS Document 68 Filed 08/10/06 Page 1 of 1
# SAFETY EFFICIENCY PERFORMANCE **FOR NEAR EARTH FLIGHT**

The g6 compact mapping payload provides indoor/outdoor mapping and inspection capabilities without GPS. The lightweight unit ships with the localization/mapping and sensor registrationmodules of the Near Earth R3 software suite preinstalled. Additional capabilities such as flight safety and automated coverage are available as softwareoptions. These modules allow operation in difficultto-reach areas both indoors and out. Features • Indoor/outdoor mapping and inspection without GPS • High-precision registered LiDAR and Image Data • Lightweight design enables use on a variety of aircraft • Enhanced capabilities such as auto-coverage and obstacle

avoidance with R3 software suite. 

# g6 indoor/outdoor mapping & inspection

Media inquiries: media@nearearth.aero All Rights Reserved © 2016 Near Earth Autonomy, Inc.

# www.nearearth.aero All Rights Reserved © 2016 Near Earth Autonomy, Inc. 

# How to Purchase Please contact us for any questions about specifications, cost, and delivery. email: sales@nearearth.aero or call: (412) 621-4300 

# g6 i ndoor/outdoor mapping & inspection
g6 is an integrated mapping and inspection payload small enough to fit on aircraft that operate in confined areas, both indoors and outdoors. g6 runs the Near Earth R3 software suite, enabling safe flight, efficient coverage, and highly-accurate registered data. For more information about R3, please see the brochure here: http://www.nearearth.aero/r3- software-suite.html or scan this QR code:

172 6.8 IN1485.8 IN1485.8 IN

127 5.0 IN 127 5.0 IN1485.8 IN1275.0 IN 172 6.8 IN

optNav AUVSI 2016 payload

SHEET 1 OF 1 SCALE: 1:2 DRAW. REV.

CONFIGURATION 

# B SIZE TITLE:

7 4 3 2 1 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF NEAR EARTH AUTONOMY. ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF NEAR EARTH AUTUONOMY IS PROHIBITED. PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL DIMENSIONS ARE IN INCHES TOLERANCES: ANGULAR: MACH 0.5 BEND 1 TWO PLACE DECIMAL 0.01 THREE PLACE DECIMAL 0.005 MATERIAL
MODEL CREATED 4/12/2016 UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED: 

### NEAR EARTH AUTONOMY

PACE NALBONE RESPONSIBLE ENGINEER
(609) 802-9931 PACE@NEAREARTHAUTONOMY.COM 5/2/2016 Default
6 8 5 MODEL LAST UPDATED PDM MODEL REVISION

CURRENT OWNER pace.nalbone 5/2/2016 A-01

A B C D E 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

E

D

C

B

A 

# Sensor Options: VLP-16 LiDAR, 5x2MP camera ring, optional external inspection camera sync Software: Near Earth R3 SLAM and Sensor Registration packages standard. Other capabilities optional. Laser range measurement rate/ Max range/Accuracy/FOV: 300,000 points/s / >100m / 3cm / 360° x 30° Optional Camera Ring: 5 cameras, 2MP each, 360° x 30° FOV Onboard Computing: Quad-core i7, 2.5GHz Estimated Map Accuracy: 5cm nominal Weight with/without camera ring: 1kg/1.2kg
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 Ithaka Acquisition Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006 (the
"Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, I Eric Hecht, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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, as amended; and

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

By: /s/ Eric Hecht                                           Dated: May 15, 2006
  --------------------------------------------------
        Eric Hecht
        President and Chief Financial Officer
        (Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)
EXHIBIT 32.1



November 10, 2005

Securities and Exchange
Commission

100 F Street, NE

Washington, DC 20549



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Lazard Group
LLC (the Registrant) hereby certifies that the Registrants Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



|                                                                                    
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                    
|/s/  Bruce Wasserstein                                                              
|Bruce Wasserstein Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer (Principal Executive Officer)



The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
#### § 29.1134 Rule 28.

Tobacco in strip form which otherwise meets the specifications of a grade shall be treated as a special factor grade by placing the special factor “S” preceding the grademark.

[49 FR 16756, Apr. 20, 1984]