alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2021211EN.01002901.xml

| 15.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 211/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 211/29

---

STATEMENT BY THE COMMISSION

The Commission agrees that affordable and accessible COVID-19 vaccines and tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection are crucial in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. Taking into account that not the entire population will have been vaccinated when Regulations (EU) 2021/953 and (EU) 2021/954 of the European Parliament and of the Council enter into force, access to affordable and widely available testing possibilities is important to facilitate free movement and mobility in Europe.

To support Member States’ testing capacities, the Commission has already mobilised funds under the Emergency Support Instrument to purchase rapid antigen tests and has launched a joint procurement for over half a billion rapid antigen tests. The International Federation of Red Cross is also supporting Member States to increase testing capacity, using funding from the Emergency Support Instrument.

To further support the availability of affordable tests, in particular for persons who cross borders daily or frequently to go to work or school, visit close relatives, seek medical care, or to take care of loved ones, the Commission commits to mobilise additional funds of EUR 100 million under the Emergency Support Instrument for the purchase of tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection that qualify for the issuance of a test certificate pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2021/953 If necessary, additional funding above EUR 100 million could be mobilised, subject to approval by the budgetary authority.

---
§ 25.401 Responsibility of lead managing entity. ( a ) *Financial.* The lead managing entity will be responsible for strategic plan program activities and monitoring the fiscal management of the funds of the Empowerment Zone or Enterprise Community.
( b ) *Reporting.* The lead managing entity will be responsible for developing the reports required under this subpart.
( c ) *Cooperation.* All entities with significant involvement in implementing the strategic plan shall cooperate with the lead managing entity in its compliance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
<SEQUENCE>5
<FILENAME>j10kex4.txt

                                                                    Exhibit 99.4




				Exhibit 99(ii)

			    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 Nutek, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the  fiscal  year  ended  December 31,  2002 as  filed  with  the
Securities   and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  therein  specified  (the
"Report"),  I,  Jason F. Griffith,  Chief  Financial  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:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the  requirements of  Section 13(a)
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 results  of  operations  of  the
Company.


                                    /s/ Jason F. Griffith, CPA
                                    -------------------------------------------
                                    JASON F. GRIFFITH, Chief Financial Officer

Dated: March 28, 2003
Editorial Note on Part 3400
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3400 appear at 76 FR 4806, Jan. 27, 2011.

§ 3400.20 Grantee review prior to award. ( a ) *Review requirement.* Prior to the award of a standard or continuation grant by NIFA, any proposed project shall have undergone a review arranged by the grantee as specified in this subpart. For research projects, such review must be a scientific peer review conducted in accordance with § 3400.21. For education and extension projects, such review must be a merit review conducted in accordance with § 3400.22.
( b ) *Credible and independent.* Review arranged by the grantee must provide for a credible and independent assessment of the proposed project. A credible review is one that provides an appraisal of technical quality and relevance sufficient for an organizational representative to make an informed judgment as to whether the proposal is appropriate for submission for Federal support. To provide for an independent review, such review may include USDA employees, but should not be conducted solely by USDA employees.
( c ) *Notice of completion and retention of records.* A notice of completion of review shall be conveyed in writing to NIFA either as part of the submitted proposal or prior to the issuance of an award, at the option of NIFA. The written notice constitutes certification by the applicant that a review in compliance with these regulations has occurred. Applicants are not required to submit results of the review to NIFA; however, proper documentation of the review process and results should be retained by the applicant.
( d ) *Renewal and supplemental grants.* Review by the grantee is not automatically required for renewal or supplemental grants as defined in § 3400.6. A subsequent grant award will require a new review if, according to NIFA, either the funded project has changed significantly, other scientific discoveries have affected the project, or the need for the project has changed. Note that a new review is necessary when applying for another standard or continuation grant after expiration of the grant term.
#### § 3.50 Purpose.

This subpart provides USDA procedures for use of administrative wage garnishment to garnish a debtor's disposable pay to satisfy delinquent nontax debt owed to USDA creditor agencies.
#### § 3.32 Discretionary referral for cross-servicing.

Agencies will consider referring legally enforceable nontax debts that are less than 180 days delinquent to Treasury or to Treasury-designated “debt collection centers” in accordance with 31 CFR 285.12 to accomplish efficient, cost effective debt collection if no USDA payments will be available to collect the debt through administrative offset under § 3.43.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

IN RE ALLEN BERGER, JR.

______________________ 

2013-1473

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, in Serial No. 

10/822,079.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

JESUS SANCHELIMA, Sanchelima & Associates, P.A., of 

Miami, Florida, argued for appellant. 

JOSEPH MATAL, Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia, 

argued for appellee. With him on the brief were NATHAN 

K. KELLEY, Solicitor, and COKE MORGAN STEWART, Associate Solicitor. 

ANDREW BLAIR-STANEK, University of Maryland, 

Francis King Carey School of Law, of Baltimore, Maryland, amicus curiae.

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is
 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, and WALLACH,

Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

March 18, 2014 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court
#### The People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Oscar Nelson, Auditor of Public Accounts, v. First Italian State Bank. Matteo Pennisi and Angela Pennisi, appellants, v. First Italian State Bank and Chester A. Willoughby, appellees.

Gen. No. 36,884.

Wilson, J., dissenting.

Opinion filed October 24, 1934.

Rehearing denied November 15, 1934.

MeClanahan & MeClanahan and Estelle M. Wells, for appellants. George A. 'Curran, for certain appellee; Walter Wm. Pearson, of counsel.

Mr. Presiding Justice Hebei

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### SHAVER, Respondent, v. CUNNINGHAM at al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

June 27, 1906.)

Action by Wellington Shaver against Lester Cunningham and another.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 4:02-cr-45-SPM-GRJ

THYRON CORNELL RICHARDSON,

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This case is before the Court on the United States’ Second Motion For Extension

Of Time. (Doc. 402.) The United States requests an extension of time until June 25,

2011 to respond to Petitioner’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. 385.) 

 Accordingly, upon due consideration, it is ORDERED that:

1. The United States’ Second Motion For Extension Of Time (Doc. 402) is

GRANTED.

2. The United States shall respond to Petitioner’s motion to vacate, set

aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. 385) on or

before June 25, 2011.

3. Petitioner shall have until July 25, 2011, to file a reply, if desired.

DONE AND ORDERED this 7 day of June 2011. 

th

s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2177 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2177

To eliminate the application of sequestration to unemployment benefits, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 23, 2013

  Ms. Kaptur (for herself, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Ms. 
   McCollum, and Mr. Pocan) introduced the following bill; which was 
                referred to the Committee on the Budget

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To eliminate the application of sequestration to unemployment benefits, 
                        and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Unemployment Restoration Act''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATING APPLICATION OF 251A SEQUESTRATION TO CERTAIN 
              UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS.

    (a) Fiscal Year 2013.--Notwithstanding the presidential order 
issued on March 1, 2013, under section 251A of the Balanced Budget and 
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, the budgetary resources 
sequestered under that order for any Federal payments to a State under 
section 204 of the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act 
of 1970 and for any Federal payments to a State under section 4003(a) 
of title IV of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008, pursuant to a 
Federal-State agreement under section 4001 of such title, shall be 
available for obligation in the same amount and manner as if such order 
had not been issued.
    (b) Fiscal Years 2014 Through 2021.--Section 255(i)(2) of the 
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act is amended to read as 
follows:
            ``(2) The reduction ordered under section 254 shall not 
        apply to--
                    ``(A) any Federal payments to a State under section 
                204 of the Federal-State Extended Unemployment 
                Compensation Act of 1970; or
                    ``(B) any Federal payments to a State under section 
                4003(a) of title IV of the Supplemental Appropriations 
                Act, 2008, pursuant to a Federal-State agreement under 
                section 4001 of such title.''.
                                 <all>
```
exv10w46



 






EXHIBIT 10.46




August 25, 2003




Jan Hughes

2027 Mezes Avenue

Belmont, CA 94002



Dear Jan:



Molecular Devices Corporation is pleased to confirm our verbal offer for the salaried, exempt
position of Director, IonWorks Product Development. In this position you will report to John
Senaldi. This offer is contingent upon the successful completion of professional references and
background check.



Your base salary will be $10,833.33 per month ($130,000.00 per annum) payable semi-monthly on the
15th and last day of each month. You will also receive all the employment benefits available to
regular full-time employees of Molecular Devices Corporation.



You will be eligible to receive 5,000 Incentive Stock Options subject to the approval of the
Molecular Devices Board of Directors. These options will vest in accordance with the Company’s
vesting schedule over a period of four (4) years, and will be subject to the provisions of the
Company’s 1995 Stock Option Plan as amended.



Upon your start date, as a condition of employment, you will be required to sign an Employee
Confidentiality and Inventions Agreement (copy of agreement attached). Please review this
agreement carefully; if you have any questions regarding this agreement, please feel free to call
me.



This offer is made contingent upon your ability to provide proof of identification and
authorization to work in the United States. Upon employment at Molecular Devices, you will be
required to furnish such documentation as described in the enclosed materials.



Additionally, this written offer constitutes all conditions and agreements of Molecular Devices
Corporation. Upon acceptance of this offer, please sign, date, indicate your start date, and
return this letter and the enclosed Application Form to the Human Resources Department. However, if
you have not responded to this offer within five (5) days of receipt the offer will be withdrawn.



Jan, Molecular Devices Corporation is facing many exciting challenges as we continue to grow. Your
experience and talents will be strong additions to our company. We are looking forward to having
you join our team.




Sincerely,




MOLECULAR DEVICES CORPORATION




/s/ Patricia Sharp




Patricia Sharp

VP Human Resources



PS/ks




Attachments




	 	 	 
	Accepted:

	 	/s/ Jan Hughes
	

	 	







Date: 8/27/03

Start Date: 9/15/03
September 4, 2015

Mr. Jeremy Abshire

Unmanned Tropo Reconnaissance 

12011 Indian Wells Drive

Houston, TX 77066

Dear Mr. Abshire:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

§§ 61.113 (a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.121, 91.151(b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) 

and (a)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It 

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We received your June 1, 2015, exemption request on behalf of Unmanned Tropo 

Reconnaissance filed in Docket No. FAA−2015−2480, but we are unable to process your 

request any further. Your petition does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy 

enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
3
#### § 29.1111 Rule 5.

The grade assigned to any lot of tobacco shall be a true representation of the tobacco at the time of inspection and certification. If, at any time, it is found that a lot of tobacco does not comply with the specifications of the grade previously assigned, it shall not thereafter be represented as such grade.
#### § 1787.7 Components.

Where a component is manufactured only determines whether the component is classified as domestic or nondomestic even if all the materials and subcomponents comprising the component are manufactured in ineligible countries. A component manufactured in the United States or in an eligible country shall be considered domestic when determining whether a product is classified as domestic or nondomestic. A component manufactured in an ineligible country shall be considered nondomestic.
_________________________________________ 

 

_________________________________________ 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 129339 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, IN RE PETITION BY TREASURER OF Justices 

WAYNE COUNTY FOR FORECLOSURE 

WAYNE COUNTY TREASURER,

Petitioner,

and 

MICHAEL KELLY and MATTHEW TATARIAN, 

Intervening Parties-Appellants, 

v SC: 129339 

 COA: 261073 

Wayne CC: 02-220192-PZ

PRECISION MATERIALS & SERVICES, INC.,

Respondent-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

By order of February 24, 2006, the application for leave to appeal the July 11, 

2005 order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in Wayne 

County Treasurer v Perfecting Church (In re Petition by Treasurer of Wayne County for 

Foreclosure) (Docket No. 129341). On order of the Court, the case having been decided 

on May 23, 2007, 478 Mich 1 (2007), the application is again considered, and it is 

DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed 

by this Court. 

d0723 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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 30, 2007 

 Clerk
Exhibit 31.2**Certification of Principal Financial Officer**I, Keith R. Schroeder, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Orchids Paper Products Company (the“Registrant”);2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The Registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) [reserved](c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The Registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee 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 internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date:  November 9, 2005 /s/ Keith R. Schroeder   Keith R. Schroeder   Chief Financial Officer
PUBLIC LAW 108–417—NOV. 30, 2004 118 STAT. 2339

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 1113:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 108–201 (Comm. on Resources).

SENATE REPORTS: No. 108–374 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

Vol. 149 (2003): Sept. 23, considered and passed House.

Vol. 150 (2004): Oct. 10, considered and passed Senate, amended.

Nov. 17, House concurred in Senate amendment.

Æ

Public Law 108–417

108th Congress

An Act

To authorize an exchange of land at Fort Frederica National Monument, and for

other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXCHANGE OF LANDS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 5(b) of Public Law

90–401 (16 U.S.C. 460l–22(b)), the Secretary of the Interior is

authorized to convey to Christ Church of St. Simons Island, Georgia,

the approximately 6.0 acres of land within the boundary of Fort

Frederica National Monument adjacent to Christ Church and

depicted as ‘‘NPS Lands for Exchange’’ on the map entitled ‘‘Fort

Frederica National Monument 2003 Boundary Revision’’ numbered

369/80016, and dated April 2003, in exchange for approximately

8.7 acres of land to be acquired by Christ Church, which is depicted

as ‘‘Private Lands for Addition’’ on the same map.

(b) MAP AVAILABILITY.—The map referred to in subsection (a)

shall be on file and available for public inspection in the appropriate

offices of the National Park Service.

SEC. 2. BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.

Upon completion of the land exchange under subsection (a)

of section 1, the Secretary of the Interior shall revise the boundary

of Fort Frederica National Monument to reflect the exchange and

shall administer the land acquired through the exchange as part

of that monument.

Approved November 30, 2004.

16 USC 433g

note.

16 USC 433g

note.

Nov. 30, 2004

[H.R. 1113]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DIVISION 

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS 

EARPLUG PRODUCTS 

 Case No. 3:19md2885 

LIABILITY LITIGATION 

This Document Relates to All Cases Judge M. Casey Rodgers 

Magistrate Judge Hope T. Cannon 

REFERRAL AND ORDER 

Referred to Judge M. Casey Rodgers on February 16, 2023 

Motion/Pleadings: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER 

SEAL 

Filed by Plaintiff on February 16, 2023 Doc. #’s 3669 

JESSICA J. LYUBLANOVITS

CLERK OF COURT

/s/ Donna Bajzik

Deputy Clerk: Donna Bajzik 

On consideration, Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to 

update the docket accordingly. 

DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of February, 2023. 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC Document 3674 Filed 02/16/23 Page 1 of 1