alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
www.gpo.gov

### §658. Distribution of $150 from fund to each enrolled Indian

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 656 of this title, the Secretary of the Interior, under such regulations as he may prescribe, is authorized and directed to distribute per capita the sum of $150 to each Indian of California living on May 24, 1950, who is now or may hereafter be enrolled under sections 651 and 657 of this title. The Secretary of the Interior may, in his discretion, make such distribution from time to time to persons on the roll of the Indians of California approved on May 16, 1933, as he identifies such enrollees, before the completion of the revised roll provided for in section 657 of this title. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to withdraw from the fund on deposit in the Treasury of the United States arising from the judgment in favor of the Indians of California entered by the Court of Claims on December 4, 1944, and appropriated for them by section 203 of the Act of April 25, 1945 (59 Stat. 77), such sums as may be necessary to make the per capita payments required by this section, including not to exceed $15,000 for the purpose of defraying the expenses incident to carrying out the provisions of sections 657 and 658 of this title. Such payments shall be made out of the accumulated interest on such judgment fund and so much of the principal thereof as is necessary to complete the payments. The money paid to enrollees pursuant to this section shall not be subject to any lien or claim of any nature against any such persons, except for debts owing to the United States.

(May 24, 1950, ch. 196, §2, 64 Stat. 190.)

#### References in Text

The Court of Claims, referred to in text, and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals were merged effective Oct. 1, 1982, into a new United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit by Pub. L. 97–164, Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 25, which also created a United States Claims Court [now United States Court of Federal Claims] that inherited the trial jurisdiction of the Court of Claims. See sections 48, 171 et seq., 791 et seq., and 1491 et seq. of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Section 203 of the Act of April 25, 1945, referred to in text, is section 203 of act Apr. 25, 1945, ch. 95, title II, 59 Stat. 94, which was not classified to the Code.

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as part of act May 18, 1928, ch. 624, 45 Stat. 602, which comprises this subchapter.
(770) 792-5800 Fax (770) 792 5801 www.wrdp.com

         1825 Barrett Lakes Blvd.     Suite 108     Kennesaw, Georgia 30144

WorldPort
Communications, Inc.

Bridging nations and networks.




         August 9, 1999

         To:               John T. Hanson

         From:             Carl Grivner

         Subject: Employment Amendment
         -----------------------------------------------------------------------


         This letter is intended to amend certain provisions of your original
         employment offer dated June 29, 1999. Should your employment with
         WorldPort Communications Inc. be terminated for any reason other than
         for cause you will be paid on day of termination the equivalent of two
         years salary ($470,000) and two years guaranteed bonus ($180,000). All
         provisions of the original agreement not amended with this agreement
         remain a part of the employment agreement between you and WorldPort
         Communications Inc.


         If you accept this change in compensation please accept by signing
         below.



         John T. Hanson                                 Carl Grivner



         /s/ John T. Hanson                             /s/ Carl Grivner
         ----------------------                         ---------------------
         Chief Financial Officer                        Chairman and CEO
         August 9, 1999                                 August 9, 1999
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**Certification of Chief Financial OfficerPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Merit Medical Systems, Inc.(the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the “Report”), I,Kent W. Stanger, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date:  August 6, 2010 | /s/  Kent W. Stanger                                    |
|----------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|                       | Kent  W. Stanger                                        |
|                       | Chief  Financial Officer  (principal financial officer) |

 

 

Thiscertification accompanies the foregoing Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 andshall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, bedeemed filed by the Registrant for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  A signed original of thiscertification has been provided to the Company and will be retained by theCompany and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6852
ISAAC GRAY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND; ARCHIE C. GEE, Warden, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA97-332-CCB) Submitted: April 29, 1998 Decided: May 13, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Isaac Gray, Appellant Pro Se. Annabelle Louise Lisic, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court'sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Gray v. Attorney General , No. CA-97-332-CCB (D. Md. May 22, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 154 (Wednesday, August 12, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 40631]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19352]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6669]


Shipping Coordinating Committee; Notice of Subcommittee Meeting

    The Shipping Coordinating Committee (SHC) will conduct an open 
meeting at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, August 27, 2009, in Room 10-0718 of 
Jemal's Riverside Building, 1900 Half Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20593-0001. The primary purpose of the meeting is to prepare for the 
Second Intersessional of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) 
Standards of Training and Watchkeeping (STW) to be held be held at the 
IMO Headquarters, United Kingdom, from September 7 to September 11, 
2009.
    The primary matters to be considered include:
    --Comprehensive review of the STCW Convention and the STCW Code;
    --Amendments to the various chapters of the Convention, and 
include;
    --Chapter I--General Provisions;
    --Chapter II--Master and deck department;
    --Chapter III--Engine department;
    --Chapter V--Special training requirements for personnel on certain 
types of ships;
    --Chapter VI--Emergency, occupational safety, security, medical 
care and survival functions;
    --Chapter VII--Alternative Certification;
    --Chapter VIII--Watchkeeping.
    Members of the public may attend this meeting up to the seating 
capacity of the room. To facilitate the building security process, 
those who plan to attend should contact the meeting coordinator; Ms. 
Zoe Goss by e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6e14010b400f4009011d1d2e1b1d0d0940030702"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="43392c266d226d242c303003363020246d2e2a2f">[email protected]</span></a>, by phone at (202) 372-1425, 
by fax at (202) 372-1926, or in writing at Commandant (CG-5212), U.S. 
Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 2nd Street, SW., Room 1308, Washington, 
DC 20593-0001 not later than 72 hours before the meeting. Please note 
that due to security considerations, two valid, government issued photo 
identifications must be presented to gain entrance to the Headquarters 
building. The Headquarters building is accessible by taxi and privately 
owned conveyance (public transportation is not generally available). 
However, parking in the vicinity of the building is extremely limited. 
A member of the public needing reasonable accommodation should make his 
or her request by August 20th. Requests made after that date might not 
be possible to fulfill.
    Additional information regarding this and other IMO SHC public 
meetings may be found at: http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/imo.

    Dated: August 6, 2009.
J. Trent Warner,
Executive Secretary, Shipping Coordinating Committee, Department of 
State.
[FR Doc. E9-19352 Filed 8-11-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-09-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
- Division Home
- Key Topics
- Contact Us

HomeAgricultural Policy...Agricultural Trade

# 									Agricultural Trade							

The office covers all bilateral, regional, and global trade negotiations and disputes relating to agricultural products, food safety issues, and food assistance policy. U.S. farmers and ranchers produce some of the most competitive, high-quality farm products in the world. AGP ensures fair access for U.S businesses to foreign markets by using diplomacy to open – and keep open – markets for U.S. agricultural products. We discuss barriers to agricultural trade directly with trading partners and support multilateral trade negotiations to reduce such barriers. Our efforts include:

### Compliance With International Trade Obligations and Development of Agricultural Policy Best Practices

Our office partners with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) at the Committee on Agriculture at the World Trade Organization (WTO) to address actions and policies that may contradict WTO rules and disadvantage U.S. producers in areas such as agricultural subsidies and market access. We also work with the USDA to develop guidelines and best practices at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Committee for Agriculture, which studies farm practices, agricultural policy, and food security issues.

Our office participates on the U.S. delegation to the WTO Committee on Agriculture (COA), which meets quarterly in Geneva, Switzerland. The U.S. delegation advocates for improved market access for U.S. agricultural products, calls on other countries to abide by their WTO obligations, and defends U.S. agricultural policies. In addition to the official WTO meetings, the delegation meets individually with trading partners to discuss trade irritants in a less formal setting. The U.S. Trade Representative takes the lead in WTO COA negotiations, and the Department of Agriculture also plays an integral role.

### Food Safety

Food safety standards include sanitary measures, which protect human and animal health, and phytosanitary measures, which protect plant health. Many countries create sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures that go beyond what is necessary and use them as protectionist trade barriers. Our office works with USTR, USDA, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency to combat protectionist SPS measures at the WTO’s SPS Committee. The interagency team engages directly with trading partners on protectionist measures and negotiates SPS chapters in free trade agreements to ensure commitments are science-based and least trade restrictive.

Tags

AgricultureFood SecurityScienceTrade and Investment

Back to Top
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4059

MARK THOMPSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Andre M. Davis, District Judge.

(CR-00-147-AMD)

Submitted: August 19, 2002

Decided: November 19, 2002

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Kenneth W. Ravenell, SCHULMAN, TREEM, KAMINKOW, GILDEN & RAVENELL, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant.

Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Martin J. Clarke,

Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Mark Thompson appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm

after having been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment

in excess of one year, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2000). Finding no reversible error, we affirm. 

Thompson first contends the district court erred by denying his

motion to dismiss the charges against him. Thompson contends he

was denied the right to a speedy trial in violation of the Sixth Amendment. We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error

and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Ward, 171 F.3d

188, 193 (4th Cir. 1999). We find no error in the district court’s decision to deny Thompson’s motion. See Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514,

530 (1972). 

Thompson next contends the district court erred in denying his suppression motion. This court reviews the factual findings underlying a

motion to suppress for clear error, while reviewing the legal determinations de novo. United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir.

1992). Reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, see United States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir.

1998), we find that at the time of Thompson’s seizure, police at the

very least had reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot.

See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Consequently, the court properly denied Thompson’s suppression motion. 

Accordingly, Thompson’s conviction is affirmed. 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

2 UNITED STATES v. THOMPSON
#### § 19.640 May a settlement include a voluntary exclusion?

Yes, if we enter into a settlement with you in which you agree to be excluded, it is called a voluntary exclusion and has governmentwide effect.
From: Buckingham, Wendy [mailto:wendy.buckingham@HQ.DHS.GOV] 

Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 9:06 AM

To: Buckingham, Wendy

Subject: National Consultation Proposed DHS Supplemental Ethics Regulation

From: Livoti, Carmen 

Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 8:47 AM

To: 'ncrinbox@afge.org'

Cc: David Cann; Candace Archer

Subject: National Consultation Proposed DHS Supplemental Ethics Regulation

Dear Mr. Cox

The Department of Homeland Security’s proposed Supplemental Ethics Regulation is hereby provided in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 7113(b)(1). Please provide your comments and/or recommendations to me by 

April 13, 2015. If you have any questions or require further information, please contact me. You can 

reach me at 202-357-8175 and via e-mail at carmen.livoti@hq.dhs.gov.

Respectfully, 

Carmen Livoti

Senior Labor & Employee Relations Advisor

MGMT/OCHCO/ HCPP

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

202-357-8175/202-573-3445(bb)
1 

### Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 1:56 PM

To: 'Hill, Jonathan'; 'John McGraw Aerospace Consulting, LLC'

Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov'; Hi ghtower, Gerald CTR (FAA) Subject: Request for Additional Informatio n: Chapman Aerospace LLC (FAA-2015-0297)



### October 7, 2015

Dear Messrs. Hill and McGraw:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2015-0297). This information is necessary for the Fe deral Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition. Please provide the following information:

 The UAS model petitioner proposes to use for tethered operations.

 Is the UAS model designed for tethered operations? If not, provide how the tether will be attached to

the UAS.

 How the UAS tether will be attached to the fixed point.

 Provide what type of operations wi ll be used for tethered UASs.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Hea dquarters or electronically via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov . If you want us to process your request a ny further, we must receive the information described above by October 21, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

Nia Daniels, ARM

‐ 108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075 nia.daniels@faa.gov
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 Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [Order No. 1639]

Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

*Whereas*, the Fargo Municipal Airport Authority, grantee of FTZ 267, has requested manufacturing authority within FTZ 267 -- Site 2, in Fargo, North Dakota (FTZ Docket 60-2008, filed October 23, 2008 and amended April 17, 2009);                

*Whereas*, notice inviting public comment has been given in the                     **Federal Register**                     (73 FR 68406, 11-18-2008; amended 74 FR 19041-19042, 04-27-2009); and,                 

*Whereas*, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the application, as amended, is in the public interest;                

*Now, therefore*, the Board hereby grants authority for the manufacture of construction and agricultural equipment within FTZ 267 on behalf of CNH America, LLC, as described in the amended application and                     **Federal Register**                     notices, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28.                

Signed at Washington, DC, this 5th day of August 2009.

Ronald K. Lorentzen,

Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce  for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

Attest:

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-19674 Filed 8-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
V

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1382

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise

trade for the vessel AURA.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 3, 1995

Mr. STUDDS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel

AURA.

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

3 That notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine

4 Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), the Act of June 19, 1886

5 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106 of title 46,

6 United States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may

7 issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate en-
2

•HR 1382 IH

1 dorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the

2 vessel AURA (United States official number 1027807).

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             205,426
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,648,701
<ALLOWANCES>                                        42,793
<INVENTORY>                                      7,554,576
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,509,858
<PP&E>                                           2,783,967
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,023,355
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  26,150,112
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,160,139
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                            560
<COMMON>                                           263,883
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,334,352
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    26,150,112
<SALES>                                         20,009,036
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,009,589
<CGS>                                           17,145,156
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,013,803
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     7,006
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 964,342
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,975,561
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,975,561
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.45
        


</TABLE>