alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 161 (Friday, August 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 42314]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-20164]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    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: National Institute of Neurological Disorders 
and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel; Stroke Genetics.
    Date: August 28, 2009.
    Time: 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 
Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference 
Call)
    Contact Person: Shanta Rajaram, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Administrator, Scientific Review Branch, Division Of Extramural 
Research, NINDS/NIH/DHHS/Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., 
Suite 3208, MSC9529, Bethesda, MD 20852, (301) 435-6033, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cbb9aaa1aab9aaa6b88ba6aaa2a7e5a5a2a3e5aca4bd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="88fae9e2e9fae9e5fbc8e5e9e1e4a6e6e1e0a6efe7fe">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, 
Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, 
Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 17, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-20164 Filed 8-20-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

    Certification of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
            of Apogee Robotics, Inc. pursuant to Section 906 of the
                           Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Apogee Robotics, Inc.
(the "Company") for the quarter ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned Michael Anthony, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
of Apogee Robotics, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Dated: August 28, 2007


/s/ Michael Anthony
-------------------
Michael Anthony
Chief Executive Officer


/s/ Michael Anthony
-------------------
Michael Anthony
Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 25, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42857-42858]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-20501]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-533-821]


Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Products from India: Extension of Time 
Limit for Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gayle Longest, AD/CVD Operations,

[[Page 42858]]

Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4014, 14th Street and Constitution 
Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-3338.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 2, 2009, the U.S. Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') published a notice of initiation of the administrative 
review of the countervailing duty order on hot-rolled carbon steel 
products from India covering the period January 1, 2008, through 
December 31, 2008. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 74 FR 
5821 (February 2, 2009). The preliminary results are currently due no 
later than September 2, 2009.

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results

    Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the 
Act''), requires the Department to make a preliminary determination 
within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order 
for which a review is requested. Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act 
further states that if it is not practicable to complete the review 
within the time period specified, the administering authority may 
extend the 245-day period to issue its preliminary results to up to 365 
days.
    Due to the complexity of the issues in this administrative review, 
such as the number of programs under review during the POR, we have 
determined that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary 
results within the 245-day period. Therefore, in accordance with 
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, we are extending the time period for 
issuing the preliminary results of the review by 120 days. The 
preliminary results are now due no later than December 31, 2009. The 
final results continue to be due 120 days after publication of the 
preliminary results.
    This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

    Dated: August 19, 2009.
John M. Andersen,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing 
Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. E9-20501 Filed 8-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
#### § 553.409 Credit extended and cards issued by financial institutions to a person whose property and interests in property are blocked.

The prohibition in § 553.201 on dealing in property subject to that section prohibits U.S. financial institutions from performing under any existing credit agreements, including charge cards, debit cards, or other credit facilities issued by a financial institution to a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 553.201.
§ 570.206 Exempt transactions. ( a ) *United Nations Participation Act.* The exemptions cited in this section do not apply to transactions involving property or interests in property of persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the authority of the United Nations Participation Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 287c(b)) (UNPA). Note 1 to paragraph ( a
).
Persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to the authority of the UNPA include those listed on *both* OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) and the Consolidated United Nations Security Council Sanctions List (UN List) (*see https://www.un.org*), as well as persons listed on the SDN List for being owned or controlled by, or acting for or on behalf of, persons listed on *both* the SDN List and the UN List.
( b ) *International Emergency Economic Powers Act.* The prohibitions contained in this part do not apply to any transactions that are exempt pursuant to section 203(b) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7482

KEVIN A. REILLY,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

LARRY CARTLEDGE, Warden of Perry Correctional Institute,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (0:12-cv-03503-SB)

Submitted: January 15, 2015 Decided: January 21, 2015

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin A. Reilly, Appellant Pro Se. Alphonso Simon, Jr., 

Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kevin A. Reilly seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Reilly has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: January 19, 2017 519940 

________________________________

In the Matter of COUNTY OF

DELAWARE,

Respondent,

v DECISION AND ORDER

 ON MOTION

HOWARD A. ZUCKER, as

Commissioner of Health, 

et al.,

Appellants.

________________________________

Motion for reargument, renewal or permission to appeal to

the Court of Appeals.

In the decision on the appeal in this matter, this Court

modified Supreme Court's judgment, which, among other things,

allowed petitioner to claim reimbursement for pre-2006 Medicaid

overburden expenditures pursuant to Social Services Law § 368-a

(135 AD3d 1260, 1260-1261 [2016]). While we found that Supreme

Court erred in holding that the 2012 amendment to the Medicaid

Cap Statute, which barred counties from claiming reimbursement

for pre-2006 overburden expenses (see L 2012, ch 56, § 1, part D,

§ 61), was unconstitutional, we determined that petitioner's

reimbursement claim for pre-2006 overburden expenditures was

properly filed in February 2014, within the six-month grace

period established by this Court in Matter of County of St.

Lawrence v Shah (124 AD3d 88, 93 [2014], revd ___ NY3d ___, 2016

NY Slip Op 07043 [2016]; see Matter of County of Chemung v Shah,

124 AD3d 963, 964 [2015], revd ___ NY3d ___, 2016 NY Slip Op

07043 [2016]). However, before service of this Court's order

with notice of entry, the Court of Appeals determined that

section 61 of the 2012 amendment to the Medicaid Cap Statute "is

constitutional, and that the State is under no further obligation

to address outstanding county reimbursement claims filed after

April 1, 2012" (Matter of County of Chemung v Shah, ___ NY3d ___,

___, 2016 NY Slip Op 07043, *1 [2016]). Respondents now move in

this Court for reargument, renewal or permission to appeal to the

Court of Appeals. In light of the guidance provided by the Court

of Appeals (id.), it is evident that section 61 of the 2012

amendment barred petitioner's claim made in February 2014. 

Accordingly, the petition should be dismissed and a declaration
-2- 519940 

should be made in favor of respondents that section 61 of the

2012 amendment to the Medicaid Cap Statute has not been shown to

be unconstitutional (see id. at *10).

ORDERED that the motion is granted, without costs, to the

extent that reargument is granted, the memorandum and order

decided and entered January 28, 2016 is vacated, the judgment of

Supreme Court entered October 3, 2014 in Delaware County is

reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition is dismissed

and it is declared that the Laws of 2012, ch 56, § 1, part D, §

61 has not been shown to be unconstitutional.

Peters, P.J., Garry, Rose and Clark, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
#### § 550.801 Procedures.

For license application procedures and procedures relating to amendments, modifications, or revocations of licenses; administrative decisions; rulemaking; and requests for documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts (5 U.S.C. 552 and 552a), see part 501, subpart E, of this chapter.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Bureau of Energy Resources Senior Bureau Official Kamian’s Travel to Egypt and Thailand

# 									Bureau of Energy Resources Senior Bureau Official Kamian’s Travel to Egypt and Thailand							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

February 11, 2022

Bureau of Energy Resources Senior Bureau Official Harry Kamian will travel to Cairo, Egypt, and Bangkok, Thailand February 11-18. In both capitals, he will meet with government officials, energy sector leaders, and professional associations to advance bilateral and commercial energy relationships and to support clean energy transitions. Mr. Kamian will also participate in the Egyptian Petroleum Show and the U.S.-Thailand Energy Policy Dialogue.

While in Bangkok, he also will participate in a virtual dialogue with the Riyadh-based International Energy Forum and underscore U.S. support for accelerating investment in renewables and clean energy technologies.

For further information, please contact Kevin Ketchum, KetchumKP@state.gov or (202) 647-2521.

Tags

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsBureau of Energy ResourcesBureau of Near Eastern AffairsEgyptOffice of the SpokespersonOfficial International TravelThailand

Back to Top
CEHR-E

Engineer Pamphlet

690-1-11(02-C)

Department of the Army

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Washington, DC 20314-1000

EP 690-1-11(02-C)

25 May 1993

Command-wide Recruitment and 

Outreach Materials

SELECTIVE PLACEMENT FOR 

 INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES

Distribution Restriction Statement

Approved for public release; distribution is 

unlimited.
HomeBiographies...Eric F. Stein

# 				Eric F. Stein			

															Deputy Assistant Secretary						Bureau of Administration												

				November 7, 2021 -									Present							

Tags

Bureau of AdministrationState Department Official

Back to Top
§ 548.502 Effect of license or other authorization. ( a ) No license or other authorization contained in this part, or otherwise issued by OFAC, authorizes or validates any transaction effected prior to the issuance of such license or other authorization, unless specifically provided in such license or authorization.
( b ) No regulation, ruling, instruction, order, directive, or license authorizes any transaction prohibited under this part unless the regulation, ruling, instruction, order, directive, or license is issued by OFAC and specifically refers to this part. No regulation, ruling, instruction, order, directive, or license referring to this part shall be deemed to authorize any transaction prohibited by any other part of this chapter unless the regulation, ruling, instruction, order, directive, or license specifically refers to such part.
( c ) Any regulation, ruling, instruction, order, directive, or license authorizing any transaction prohibited under this part has the effect of removing a prohibition contained in this part from the transaction, but only to the extent specifically stated by its terms. Unless the regulation, ruling, instruction, order, directive, or license otherwise specifies, such an authorization does not create any right, duty, obligation, claim, or interest in, or with respect to, any property that would not otherwise exist under ordinary principles of law.
( d ) Nothing contained in this part shall be construed to supersede the requirements established under any other provision of law or to relieve a person from any requirement to obtain a license or other authorization from another department or agency of the U.S. government in compliance with applicable laws and regulations subject to the jurisdiction of that department or agency. For example, exports of goods, services, or technical data that are not prohibited by this part or that do not require a license by OFAC nevertheless may require authorization by the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. Department of State, or other agencies of the U.S. government.
( e ) No license or other authorization contained in or issued pursuant to this part authorizes transfers of or payments from blocked property or debits to blocked accounts unless the license or other authorization explicitly authorizes the transfer of or payment from blocked property or the debit to a blocked account.
( f ) Any payment relating to a transaction authorized in or pursuant to this part that is routed through the U.S. financial system should reference the relevant OFAC general or specific license authorizing the payment to avoid the blocking or rejection of the transfer.
PUBLIC LAW 106–426—NOV. 3, 2000 114 STAT. 1897

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.J. Res. 123:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):

Nov. 2, considered and passed House and Senate.

Æ

Public Law 106–426

106th Congress

Joint Resolution

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2001, and for other

purposes.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That Public Law

106–275, is further amended by striking the date specified in section

106(c) and inserting ‘‘November 3, 2000’’, and by adding, at the

end, the following new section:

‘‘SEC. 120. Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint

resolution, except section 107, $7,100,000 shall be available for

obligation by the Administrator of General Services for expenses

necessary to carry out the Presidential Transition Act of 1963

(3 U.S.C. 102 note).’’.

Approved November 3, 2000.

Ante, pp. 810,

866, 1073, 1318,

1397, 1398, 1450,

1550, 1551, 1676,

1741, 1811.

Nov. 3, 2000

[H.J. Res. 123]
www.gpo.gov

### §13d–1. Standards of need as basis for general assistance payments by Bureau of Indian Affairs; ratable reductions

General assistance payments made by the Bureau of Indian Affairs shall be made—

(1) after April 29, 1985, and before October 1, 1995, on the basis of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) standards of need; and

(2) on and after October 1, 1995, on the basis of standards of need established under the State program funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.],

except that where a State ratably reduces its AFDC or State program payments, the Bureau shall reduce general assistance payments in such State by the same percentage as the State has reduced the AFDC or State program payment.

(Pub. L. 99–88, title I, §100, Aug. 15, 1985, 99 Stat. 338; (As amended Pub. L. 104–193, title I, §110(k), Aug. 22, 1996, 110 Stat. 2172.)

#### References in Text

The Social Security Act, referred to in par. (2), is act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, 49 Stat. 620, as amended. Part A of title IV of the Act is classified generally to part A (§601 et seq.) of subchapter IV of chapter 7 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 1305 of Title 42 and Tables.

#### Amendments

1996—Pub. L. 104–193, §110(k), which directed the general amendment of the “4th proviso of chapter VII of title I of Public Law 99–88 (25 U.S.C. 13d–1)”, was executed by amending this section, which is the 4th proviso under heading “Bureau of Indian Affairs” of chapter VII of title I of Pub. L. 99–88, to reflect the probable intent of Congress. Prior to amendment, this section read as follows: “General assistance payments made by the Bureau of Indian Affairs after April 29, 1985, shall be made on the basis of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) standards of need except where a State ratably reduces AFDC payments in which event the Bureau shall reduce general assistance payments in such State by the same percentage as the State has reduced the AFDC payment.”

#### Effective Date of 1996 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 104–193 effective July 1, 1997, with transition rules relating to State options to accelerate such date, rules relating to claims, actions, and proceedings commenced before such date, rules relating to closing out of accounts for terminated or substantially modified programs and continuance in office of Assistant Secretary for Family Support, and provisions relating to termination of entitlement under AFDC program, see section 116 of Pub. L. 104–193, as amended, set out as an Effective Date note under section 601 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.

#### Maximum Allowable Payments

Pub. L. 99–349, title I, July 2, 1986, 100 Stat. 732, provided in part: “That the levels established for general assistance by Public Law 99–88 (99 Stat. 388) [probably means Pub. L. 99–88, 99 Stat. 338, which enacted this section], are the maximum allowable payments.”