alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in  sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Scientific and Technical Review Board on Biomedical and Behavioral Research Facilities.                    

*Date:*                         March 1-3, 2011.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Hilton Washington/Rockville, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Barbara J. Nelson, PhD, cientific Review Officer, National Center for Research Resources, OR, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Blvd., 1 Democracy Plaza, Room 1080, MSC 4874, Bethesda, MD 20892-4874. 301-435-0806.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research; 93.371, Biomedical Technology; 93.389, Research Infrastructure, 93.306, 93.333; 93.702, ARRA Related Construction Awards., National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: December 28, 2010.

Jennifer S. Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-33235 Filed 1-3-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 50 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                      January 26, 2005.
    Resolved, That the following named Member be, and is hereby, elected to the 
following standing committees of the House of Representatives:
            (1) Committee on financial services.--Mr. Sanders (to rank 
        immediately after Ms. Waters).
            (2) Committee on government reform.--Mr. Sanders (to rank 
        immediately after Mr. Kanjorski).
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVA NIA** 

IN RE: DESIGNATION OF CHAIR AND VICE - CHAIR OF THE PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS : : : : : : : NO. 691 SUPREME COURT RULES DOCKET

**ORDER PER CURIA** **M AN**  **D NOW**  , this 19 th day of February , 2016, C. Robert Keenan, III, Esquire, is hereby designated as Chair and Gerald Lawrence, Esquire, as Vice- Chair of the Pennsylvania Board of Law Examine rs commencing April 1, 2016. Justice Eakin did not participate in t he consideration or decision of this matter.
#### Shingara SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-71134.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 29, 2005.*

Decided Oct. 26, 2005.

*595Richard E. Oriakhi, Esq., Roman & Singh, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Eileen C. Mayer, Esq., Martin Dee Carpenter, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: SKOPIL, BOOCHEVER, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Shingara Singh petitions for review from the summary affirmance by the Board of Immigration Appeal (“BIA”) of the decision by an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his application for political asylum, withholding of deportation, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The IJ determined that Singh was not credible because he admitted that he falsified his application. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.

We look through the BIA’s summary affirmance to the IJ’s opinion. *See Khup v. Ashcroft,*376 F.3d 898, 902 (9th Cir.2004). We give great weight to the IJ’s credibility determination, reviewing it for substantial evidence and affirming if the IJ provides specific, cogent and legitimate reasons for disbelieving the applicant’s testimony. *See Akinmade v. INS,*196 F.3d 951, 954 (9th Cir.1999).

Singh knowingly allowed a preparer to falsify essential elements of his claim, including a story of police torture which never occurred. He signed the false declaration and also gave false testimony at the hearing. These are “false statements made to establish the critical elements of the asylum claim [which] involve the heart of the asylum claim-” *Id.*at 956 (quotations and alterations omitted). Substantial evidence supports the negative credibility determination. Singh failed to meet his burden to establish eligibility for asylum, withholding of deportation, or CAT relief.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### § 133.114 Cheddar cheese for manufacturing.

Cheddar cheese for manufacturing conforms to the definition and standard of identity prescribed for cheddar cheese by § 133.113, except that the milk is not pasteurized, curing is not required, and the provisions of paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of that section do not apply.

[48 FR 2743, Jan. 21, 1983]
Exhibit 4.9(a)







Addendum No. 1 to the Agreement with Independent Contractor, dated 


February 1, 2014


Dated and Signed April 4, 2017







	
BETWEEN:

	
Ituran Location and Control, Ltd.


Public Company No.  52-0043811

	 
	 	
Of: 3 Hashikma Street, Azor

	 
	 	
(hereinafter: "the Company")

	
Party of the First Part;


	
AND:

	
Mr. Izzy Sheratzky

	 
	 	
I.D. No. 007495443

	 
	 	
Of: 14 Dulchin Street, Tel Aviv

	 
	 	
(hereinafter: "Izzy")

	
Party of the Second Part;


	
AND:

	
A. Sheratzky Holdings Ltd.

	 
	 	
Private Company No. 51-3230268

	 
	 	
Of: 14 Dulchin Street, Tel Aviv

	 
	 	
(hereinafter: "the Employer")

	
Party of the Third Part;





 



	
WHEREAS:

	
the Company and the Employer and Izzy have entered into an agreement with independent contractor dated February 1, 2014 (hereinafter: "the Agreement").







 



	
AND WHEREAS:

	
the parties wish to extend the term of the Agreement for an additional term of three years;







 


THEREFORE, THE PARTIES DECLARED, AGREED AND STIPULATED AS FOLLOWS:


 


According to Section 6.1 to the Agreement, the term of the Agreement shall be extended for additional three years, starting from February 1, 2017.


 


        AND IN WITNESS THEREOF THE PARTIES HAVE AFFIXED THEIR SIGNATURES:












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


IZZY                                  THE COMPANY












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


THE EMPLOYER
H. Res. 82 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

February 2, 2017. 

Resolved, 

SECTION 1. ELECTION OF MEMBERS TO JOINT COMMITTEE OF 

CONGRESS ON THE LIBRARY AND JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING. 

(a) JOINT COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS ON THE LIBRARY.—The following Members are hereby elected to the 

Joint Committee of Congress on the Library, to serve with 

the chair of the Committee on House Administration and the 

chair of the Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch of the 

Committee on Appropriations: 

(1) Mr. Loudermilk. 

(2) Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania. 

(3) Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California. 

(b) JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING.—The following 

Members are hereby elected to the Joint Committee on Printing, to serve with the chair of the Committee on House Administration: 

(1) Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois. 
2 

•HRES 82 EH 

(2) Mr. Walker. 

(3) Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania. 

(4) Mr. Raskin. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1561

PETER HRONEK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.

(1:06-cv-00492-RDB)

Submitted: September 26, 2006 Decided: September 28, 2006

Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Peter Hronek, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Peter Hronek appeals the district court’s order granting

his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and sua sponte

dismissing his civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court. See Hronek v. Maryland, No.

1:06-cv-00492-RDB (D. Md., Apr. 6, 2006). 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.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of
Velocity Asset Management, Inc. for the three months ended June 30, 2004, I, W.
Peter Ragan Jr., Chief Financial Officer of Velocity Asset Management, Inc., do
hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, that:

                  (1) such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the three months
                  ended June 30, 2004, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form
                  10-QSB for the three months ended June 30, 2004, fairly
                  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
                  and results of operations of Velocity Asset Management, Inc.

                                    /s/ W. PETER RAGAN JR.
                                    ---------------------------------
                                    W. Peter Ragan Jr.
                                    Chief Financial Officer


August 19, 2004

                                       26
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 801 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit the consideration of legislation in the House unless the text of the legislation which 

will be considered has been made publicly available in electronic form 

for a mandatory minimum review period. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 22, 2018 

Mr. GARRETT submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to 

prohibit the consideration of legislation in the House 

unless the text of the legislation which will be considered 

has been made publicly available in electronic form for 

a mandatory minimum review period. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

3 This resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Review Every 

4 Act Diligently In Total Resolution’’ or the ‘‘READ IT 

5 Resolution’’. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 801 IH 

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITING CONSIDERATION OF TEXT OF LEGIS2 LATION UNTIL COMPLETION OF MANDATORY 

3 MINIMUM REVIEW PERIOD. 

4 Rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representa5 tives is amended by adding at the end the following new 

6 clause: 

7 ‘‘13.(a) It shall not be in order to consider a bill, joint 

8 resolution, resolution, or conference report unless the text 

9 of the bill, joint resolution, resolution, or conference report 

10 which will be considered has been publicly available in elec11 tronic form for the mandatory minimum review period. 

12 ‘‘(b) In this clause, the ‘mandatory minimum review 

13 period’ with respect to a bill, joint resolution, resolution, 

14 or conference report is the period— 

15 ‘‘(1) which begins with the first hour beginning 

16 after the text of the bill, joint resolution, resolution, 

17 or conference report which will be considered is first 

18 made publicly available in electronic form; and 

19 ‘‘(2) which consists of a number of minutes 

20 equal to two times the number of pages of the text 

21 of the bill, joint resolution, resolution, or conference 

22 report which will be considered.’’. 

Æ 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6225

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BARRY JOHNSON, a/k/a Willie Brown,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR89-434-S)

Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 8, 1998

Before WILKINS and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Barry Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Harvey Ellis Eisenberg, Assistant

United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s orders denying his motions for tape recordings of his trial and for reconsideration. We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Appellant’s motion to

proceed on appeal in forma pauperis and affirm on the reasoning of

the district court. United States v. Johnson, No. CA-89-434-S (D.

Md. Dec. 29, 1997; Jan. 20, 1998). 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.

AFFIRMED
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:**Molecularapproaches to drug abuse research
 
111 |126 |161 |
 
SuDoc Number:HE 20.8216:111;HE 20.8216:126;HE 20.3965:161
Item Number:0831-C-08 (online); 0831-C-12 (online)
CGP systemNumber:0001096770
April 22, 2019
[No. 38524-1-I.

Division One.

December 22, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Gary L. McQuary, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 93-1-03577-9, Liem E. Tuai, J., entered March 29, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Becker, J., concurred in by Webster and Cox, JJ.
§ 111.155 What requirements apply to components of dietary supplements? ( a ) You must visually examine each immediate container or grouping of immediate containers in a shipment that you receive for appropriate content label, container damage, or broken seals to determine whether the container condition may have resulted in contamination or deterioration of the components;
( b ) You must visually examine the supplier's invoice, guarantee, or certification in a shipment you receive to ensure the components are consistent with your purchase order;
( c ) You must quarantine components before you use them in the manufacture of a dietary supplement until: ( 1 ) You collect representative samples of each unique lot of components (and, for components that you receive, of each unique shipment, and of each unique lot within each unique shipment);
( 2 ) Quality control personnel review and approve the results of any tests or examinations conducted on components; and
( 3 ) Quality control personnel approve the components for use in the manufacture of a dietary supplement, including approval of any treatment (including in-process adjustments) of components to make them suitable for use in the manufacture of a dietary supplement, and releases them from quarantine.
( d ) ( 1 ) You must identify each unique lot within each unique shipment of components that you receive and any lot of components that you produce in a manner that allows you to trace the lot to the supplier, the date received, the name of the component, the status of the component (e.g., quarantined, approved, or rejected); and to the dietary supplement that you manufactured and distributed.
( 2 ) You must use this unique identifier whenever you record the disposition of each unique lot within each unique shipment of components that you receive and any lot of components that you produce.
( e ) You must hold components under conditions that will protect against contamination and deterioration, and avoid mixups.
• Family Forest Alliance

◦ Resources

◦ Alliance Materials

◦ Headlines

• SmartLogging

• Certification Services

• FSC Group Certifications

◦ Forest Management Group

◾ Management Group Member Resources

◾ FSC Label Use Procedures

◦ Chain of Custody Group

◾ Custody Group Member Resources

◾ FSC Label Use Procedures

◦ Useful Links

• About Us

About Us

The Trust to Conserve Northeast Forestlands (TCNF)is a 501(c)3

organization formed by the Professional Logging Contractors of

Maine in 2003to administer the Northeast Master Logger Certification

program with the broader goal of "enhancing the health of the

working forest through exceptional accountability" throughout the

Northern Forest region.

In addition to overseeing the Master Logger Program, TCNF serves as an administrator for a group Forest

Stewardship CouncilTM (FSC®) Chain of Custody certification (RA-COC-001677) and an FSC-certified group of

family forest landowners (RA-FM/COC-001881). Under this group arrangement, natural resource professionals

can inexpensively gain access to FSC certification for their landowner clients. In support of these certification

programs, TCNF is working to develop market-based incentives to practice sustainable and ecologically

responsible forest management.

The Trust also provides services for companies seeking individual chain of custody or controlled wood

certification. We prepare chain of custody systems and documentation, develop controlled wood risk

assessments, provide staff training, and prepare the company for audits and assessments.

The Trust’s public statement on responsible wood sourcing.

TrusttoConserveNortheastForestlands-AboutUs Page1of2

http://tcnef.brownrice.com/index.php?page=about-us 6/23/2016
TrusttoConserveNortheastForestlands-AboutUs Page2of2

http://tcnef.brownrice.com/index.php?page=about-us 6/23/2016
### NUMBER 13 - 15 - 00334 - CR 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ ISAAC GONZALEZ , APPELLANT,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE.

____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 24 th District Court of Victoria County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Longoria Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, Isaac Gonzalez, proceeding pro se, attempts to appeal the May 20,
2015 decision of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus under article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure in cause number WR

- 64,680

- 03

. Specifically, t he Court of Criminal Appeals “ denied without2

written o rder the application for writ of habeas corpus on the findings of the trial court without a hearing.” On August 3, 2015 , the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared that the order from which the appeal was taken was not an appealable orde r, and requested correction of this defect within ten days or the appeal would be dismissed. Appellant has failed to respond to the Court ’ s directive. As a general rule, an appeal in a criminal case may be taken only from a judgment of conviction. See Workman v. State , 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (Tex. Crim. App. 1961). However, there are certain narrow exceptions. Wright v. State , 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1998, no pet.) (listing exceptions). The order a ppellant complains of is not a judgment of conviction nor does it fall within any exception to the general rule. See id. Moreover, this court has no jurisdiction in criminal law matters pertaining to habeas corpus proceedings seeking relief from final felony convictions. See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 11.07 § 3 ( West, Westlaw through Ch. 46 2015 R.S.). The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file and appellant’s failure to respond to this Court’s notice , is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. Pending motions, if any, are likewise DISMISSED. PER CURIAM Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.2(b).
D elivered and filed the 3rd day of September, 2015

.