alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Cycle of Warning: Alert Origination

A NATIONAL NEED

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science 

and Technology Directorate (S&T) released a Report on 

Alerting Tactics and outlined recommendations of 

effective combinations of alerting tactics for various 

incident types. These recommendations were based 

upon lessons learned from public safety, alert originator, 

and academic practitioners that resulted in identifying the 

need for national level Alerts, Warnings, and Notifications 

(AWN) guidance. To address this stakeholder-driven 

requirement, a DHS S&T AWN Working Group was 

convened that comprised of a nationwide group of 

alerting subject matter experts (SMEs) who were tasked 

with advising the development of the AWN Guidance 

Materials. The alerting SMEs met monthly for seven

months to develop the Cycle of Warning: Alert Origination 

graphic and supporting text. 

THE CYCLE OF WARNING: ALERT 

ORIGINATION

The purpose of the Cycles of Warning: Alert Origination is 

to outline the full ecosystem of an AWN from the 

perspectives of an alert originator and help reduce the 

amount of time that people delay taking a protective 

action. The cycle graphic and supporting text provide 

simple, easy to understand, step-by-step details of what 

happens when an incident occurs and an AWN is sent to 

the public. The cycle begins with the On Ramp and 

Getting Capable (in blue). As an incident begins, alert 

originators enter the Main Loop (in green) and begin the 

process of distributing a warning message. The outside 

circles (in plum) represent factors that should be kept in 

mind throughout the process. After the incident ends, it is 

important to Close Out and perform updates and reviews. 

It is recommended that these educational materials are 

used to help alert originators better understand, enhance, 

and streamline AWN operations now and in the future.

Please note, steps in the cycle can happen concurrently or multiple times throughout the alert origination process.

Contact Us: SandT.Innovation@hq.dhs.gov scitech.dhs.gov dhsscitech

01-2020
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
ART. 5 FDS for first quarter 1997 10-q
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                               1,034
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      134,372
<ALLOWANCES>                                         3,771
<INVENTORY>                                        150,135
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   284,581
<PP&E>                                             923,901
<DEPRECIATION>                                     307,271
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,206,166
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               94,684
<BONDS>                                            326,596
<COMMON>                                                34
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<OTHER-SE>                                         626,703
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,206,166
<SALES>                                            255,148
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   255,148
<CGS>                                              215,209
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      215,209
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    21,353
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   3,275
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     15,311
<INCOME-TAX>                                         6,584
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  8,727
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         8,727
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.28
        
















</TABLE>
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 585 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to direct the Chief 

Administrative Officer to carry out an annual information security training program for Members, officers, and employees of the House. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 24, 2017 

Miss RICE of New York (for herself and Mr. KATKO) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to 

direct the Chief Administrative Officer to carry out an 

annual information security training program for Members, officers, and employees of the House. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

3 This resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Congressional 

4 Cybersecurity Training Resolution of 2017’’. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 585 IH 

1 SEC. 2. ANNUAL INFORMATION SECURITY TRAINING PRO2 GRAM FOR HOUSE MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AND 

3 EMPLOYEES. 

4 Clause 4 of rule II of the Rules of the House of Rep5 resentatives is amended by adding at the end the following 

6 new paragraph: 

7 ‘‘(e)(1) The Chief Administrative Officer shall carry 

8 out an annual information security training program for 

9 Members (including the Delegates and Resident Commis10 sioner), officers, and employees of the House. 

11 ‘‘(2) A new Member, Delegate, Resident Commis12 sioner, officer, or employee of the House shall receive 

13 training under this paragraph not later than 30 days after 

14 beginning service to the House. 

15 ‘‘(3) Not later than January 31 of each year, each 

16 officer and employee of the House shall file a certification 

17 with the Chief Administrative Officer that the officer or 

18 employee completed an information security training pro19 gram as established by this paragraph.’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
Editorial Note on Part 172
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 172 appear at 61 FR 14482, Apr. 2, 1996; 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001; 68 FR 15355, Mar. 31, 2003; 70 FR 40880, July 15, 2005; 70 FR 67651, Nov. 8, 2005; 70 FR 72074, Dec. 1, 2005; and 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 172.280 Terpene resin. The food additive terpene resin may be safely used in accordance with the following prescribed conditions: ( a ) The food additive is the betapinene polymer obtained by polymerizing terpene hydrocarbons derived from wood. It has a softening point of 112 °C-118 °C, as determined by ASTM method E28-67 (Reapproved 1982), “Standard Test Method for Softening Point By Ring-and-Ball Apparatus,” which is incorporated by reference. Copies may be obtained from the American Society for Testing Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, Philadelphia, PA 19428-2959, or may be examined at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .*
( b ) It is used or intended for use as follows: ( 1 ) As a moisture barrier on soft gelatin capsules in an amount not to exceed 0.07 percent of the weight of the capsule.
( 2 ) As a moisture barrier on powders of ascorbic acid or its salts in an amount not to exceed 7 percent of the weight of the powder.
[42 FR 14491, Mar. 15, 1977, as amended at 49 FR 10104, Mar. 19, 1984]
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Balance
Sheet, Statement of Operations, Statements of Cash Flows and Notes thereto
incorporated in Part 1, Item I of this Form 10-Q and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1991
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1992
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1557
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,557
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              170
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,400
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,557
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (211,861)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (211,861)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
# Missouri Court of Appeals

Southern District

DECEMBER 28, 2015

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b).

1. Case No. SD33784

Re: JAMES A. PERREN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. TIMOTHY A. PERREN and
DANIEL A. PERREN, Defendants-Respondents.
**MONTEREY BAY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT REGULATION II**  **PERMITS**

10/30/84 Rule 208 1 RULE 208. STANDARDS FOR GRANTING PERMITS TO OPERATE (Adopted 9-1-74)

1. General The Air Pollution Control Officer shall deny a Permit to Operate for any new or modified stationary source or any portion thereof to which Rule 207 applies unless: 1.1. the owner or operator of the source has obtained an Authority to Construct permit granted pursuant to Rule 207; and, 1.2. the Air Pollution Control Officer has determined that the sources and any sources which provide offsets have been constructed and/or modified to operate, and emit quantities of air contaminants, consistent with the conditions imposed on their respective Authority to Construct permits under Part 5.0. of Rule 207; and, 1.3. the Air Pollution Control Officer has determined that any offsets required as a condition of the Authority to Construct will commence at the time of or prior to initial operations of the new source or modification, and that the offsets will be maintained throughout the operation of the new or modified source. In the case of a new or modified source which will be, in whole or in part, a replacement for an existing source on the same property, the Air Pollution Control Officer may allow a maximum of 90 days as a startup period for simultaneous operation of the existing stationary source and the new stationary source or replacement; and, 1.4. the Air Pollution Control Officer has determined that all conditions specified in the Authority to Construct permit have been or will be likely complied with by dates specified.

2. Requirements The Air Pollution Control Officer shall require as a condition for the issuance of any Permit to Operate for a new or modified source, that the source and any offset source be operated consistent with any conditions imposed on their respective permits to construct under Part 5.0. of Rule 207.**MONTEREY BAY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT REGULATION II**  **PERMITS**

10/30/84 Rule 208 2 3. Procedures The Air Pollution Control Officer shall perform the evaluations required to determine compliance with this rule and shall take final action to approve, approve with conditions or deny any Permit to Operate a new or modified stationary source or any portion thereof to which Rule 207 applies. * * * * *
Order entered November 3, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00985-CR

OCZAVEONE JACKSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 6

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-60601-X

ORDER

The reporter’s record is overdue in this appeal. Additionally, the Court has not received 

the trial court’s certification of appellant’s right to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a), (d); 

Cortez v. State, 420 S.W.3d 803 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).

The Court ORDERS the trial court to make findings of fact regarding whether appellant 

has been deprived of the reporter’s record because of ineffective counsel, indigence, or for any 

other reason.

 The trial court shall first determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal. If 

the trial court determines that appellant does not desire to prosecute the appeal, it shall 

make a finding to that effect.

 If the trial court determines that appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, it shall next 

determine whether appellant is indigent and entitled to proceed without payment of costs 

for the reporter’s record. If appellant is entitled to proceed without payment of costs, the 
trial court shall make a finding to that effect. Moreover, if appellant is indigent, the trial 

court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective 

representation, which may include appointment of new counsel. If the trial court finds 

appellant is not indigent, it shall determine whether retained counsel has abandoned the 

appeal.

 The trial court shall next determine: (1) the name and address of each court reporter who 

recorded the proceedings in this cause; (2) the court reporter’s explanation for the delay 

in filing the reporter’s record; and (3) the earliest date by which the reporter’s record can 

be filed. 

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record, containing the written findings of fact, 

any supporting documentation, and any orders, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date 

of this order. We further ORDER that the supplemental record contain a completed certification 

of appellant’s right to appeal that accurately reflects the trial court proceedings.

The appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. The appeal 

shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, 

whichever is earlier.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
[No. 21368-1-II.

Division Two.

December 12, 1997.]

#### Robert E. Harris, et al., *Appellants,*v. Byron Nelson Rubins, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clark County, No. 95-2-01684-1, Thomas L. Lodge, J., entered November 1, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Hunt, J., concurred in by Bridgewater, A.C.J., and Armstrong, J.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2255
CLARENCE BROWN, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (96-684-BLA) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: December 30, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clarence Brown, Petitioner Pro Se. Christian P. Barber, Jill M. Otte, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Petitioner seeks review of the Benefits Review Board's decision and order affirming the administrative law judge's denial of a waiver of recovery of an overpayment of black lung benefits. Our review of the record discloses that the Board's decision is basedupon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. Brown v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs , No. 96-684-BLA (B.R.B. Aug. 27, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts an legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[No. 39530-1-I.

Division One.

December 22, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Christopher Allen Buck, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Snohomish County, No. 96-1-00866-9, Larry E. McKeeman, J., entered September 20, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 96 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                     February 16, 2005.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order 
without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the bill (S. 
5) to amend the procedures that apply to consideration of interstate class 
actions to assure fairer outcomes for class members and defendants, and for 
other purposes. The bill shall be considered as read. The previous question 
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final 
passage without intervening motion except: (1) 90 minutes of debate on the bill 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on the Judiciary; (2) the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if 
offered by Representative Conyers of Michigan or his designee, which shall be in 
order without intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as read, 
and shall be separately debatable for 40 minutes equally divided and controlled 
by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to commit with or without 
instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
[No. 39539-4-I.

Division One.

January 12, 1998.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Catherine M. Muck, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 96-1-03838-1, Donald D. Haley, J., entered September 20,1996. *Dismissed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Exhibit 32.2

# CERTIFICATION UNDER
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, the Chief
Financial Officer of Systemax Inc., hereby certifies that to the best of his
knowledge Systemax Inc.s Form 10-K for the Year Ended December 31, 2005
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78 (o)(d)) and that the
information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Systemax Inc.

Dated:  March 30, 2007

/s/ LAWRENCE P. REINHOLD
Lawrence P. Reinhold, Chief Financial Officer
November 18, 2013 

Director, Chemical Control Division 

US Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 

EPA East 

Room4146 

1201 Constitution A venue, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

Re: EPA- HQ - OPPT- 2003 - 0012 

DuPont Chemicals and Fluoroproducts 

Chambers Works 

Deepwater, NJ 08023 

CBIC Control Number 

357065 

,...., 

c::,:) 

-(,.,!.) 

% 

Sl 

N 

0 

DuPont Chambers Works NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005100 

PFOA Data Submittal- Outfall DSN662 Weekly Grab Samples 

October 2013 Sample Data 

~ 

0 .... 

Dear Chemical Control Division: 

Attached please find summaries of PFOA analytical results for the DuPont Chambers Works 

weekly grab samples taken at internal outfall DSN662A in October 2013. In accordance with the 

current site NJPDES permit (NJ00051 00, effective September 2011 ), these results are provided 

to NJDEP on a monthly basis via electronic discharge monitoring reports. The enclosures 

include two paper and two electronic copies of the analytical results from this monitoring period. 

Please note that these results reflect a new reporting limit protocol adopted by DuPont for 

PFOA. Beginning with samples collected during October 2013, laboratories have been requested 

to report PFOA results to a limit of quantitation (LOQ) that is established at the low level 

concentration standard. The LOQ reported for subject sample results is the same LOQ reported 

during the last several months. 

Sin~~r~:~~ cYv~ Albert Patrick O'Neill 

Unit Manager-Site Manufacturing Systems/Fluoroproducts 

DuPont Chambers Works 

APO/clc 

Enclosures 
Copy to: 

Document Control Office 

US Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 

EPA East 

Room6428 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Ms. Susan Rosenwinkel (cover letter only) 

Principal Environmental Engineer 

NJDEP Division of Water Quality 

Bureau of Point Source Permitting - Region 2 

401 E. State Street 

P.O. Box029 

Trenton, NJ 08625-0029 

-~--- i 
Analyte 

PFOA 

Sample ID 

Date 

Top (ft) 

Total (T)/ Bottom (ft) 

units Diss. (D) Duplicate# 

ug/L T 

662-GRAB 662-GRAB 

10/7/13 10/14/13 

0 0 

0 0 

1 1 

2.68 4.48 

Summary of Analytical Results 

662 - October 2013 

662-GRAB 662-GRAB 

10/21/13 10/28/13 

0 0 

0 0 

1 1 

2.72 2.38 

PFOA = Perfluorooctanoic Acid 

ug/L = micrograms per Liter 

ug/L =micrograms per liter or parts per billion (ppb) 

LOQ = limit of quantification = 0.1 00 ug/L 

Samples were analyzed by Critical Path Services LLC. Reported results 

represent a single analysis, except for the sample collected on 1 0/28/13. 

Acceptable precision was obtained and the reported result for the sample 

collected on 1 0/28/13 represents the average of lab duplicate results. 

The NJDEP lab certification number for Critical Path Services LLC is PA072. 

<and NO= Non detect at stated reporting limit Page 1 of 1 

Copy of cwk 6
#### In re KALISKY.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 19, 1914.)

In the matter of Abraham Kalisky.

No opinion. Application denied. Settle order on notice. See, also, 148 N. Y. Supp. 1124.