alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. R. 2504

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

An Act

To designate the Federal building located at the corner of Patton Avenue and

Otis Street, and the United States courthouse located on Otis Street, in Asheville,

North Carolina, as the ‘‘Veach-Baley Federal Complex’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The Federal building located at the corner of Patton Avenue

and Otis Street, and the United States courthouse located on Otis

Street, in Asheville, North Carolina, shall be known and

designated as the ‘‘Veach-Baley Federal Complex’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the buildings referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘VeachBaley Federal Complex’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 64**  **88**

DEANTHONY DOANE , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. GENE JOHNSON, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United Sta tes District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. Gerald Bruce Lee , District Judge. ( 1 :09

- cv - 0 1154

- G B L

- JFA )

Submitted : June 18, 2010 Decided: June 29, 2010

Before WILKINSON and N IEMEYER , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismiss ed by un published per curiam opinion
. DeAnthony Doane , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: DeAnthony Doane a ppeals the district court ’s order dismissing t his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) action without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Doane v. Johnson , No. 1:09

- cv - 01154

- GBL

- JFA (E.D. Va. filed Feb
. 26 , 2010 ; entered Mar. 1, 2010). We deny the motions for appointment of counsel and for an evidentiary hearing. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contention s are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 2932

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to revise the requirements of that Act relating to the dissemination of scientific information

on drugs.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 1, 1996

Mr. BURR (for himself, Mr. COBURN, Mr. STENHOLM, Mr. UPTON, Mr.

BREWSTER, Mr. BILBRAY, Mrs. LINCOLN, and Mr. HEINEMAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to

revise the requirements of that Act relating to the dissemination of scientific information on drugs.

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

3 SECTION 1. DISSEMINATION OF SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION.

4 Section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic

5 Act (21 U.S.C. 355) is amended by adding at the end the

6 following:

7 ‘‘(n)(1) The holder of an approved new drug applica8 tion may distribute in any manner to a health professional
2

•HR 2932 IH

1 (including a health provider or insurer) a reprint of an

2 article in an independent peer-reviewed medical textbook,

3 journal, or medical compendium which includes informa4 tion about the drug that is not in the package insert, if

5 the reprint is accompanied by a copy of the package insert

6 and a statement that the reprint includes information that

7 has not been approved by the Food and Drug Administra8 tion. Reprints distributed under this subsection shall not

9 be regulated as advertising or labeling and shall not be

10 required to be submitted to the Secretary.

11 ‘‘(2) With respect to an approved indication for a new

12 drug, and for any pharmacoeconomic information relating

13 to a drug, the Secretary shall not take action to prevent

14 the use of advertising or labeling (except the package in15 sert) unless the Secretary determines in writing, after an

16 informal hearing, that the advertising or labeling is likely

17 to cause misuse of the drug in a way that is unsafe or

18 ineffective.

19 ‘‘(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘peer20 reviewed journal’ includes journals of medical societies as21 sociated with a certifying board of the American Board

22 of Medical Specialties or an equivalent organization in

23 health economics and such other journals as the Commis24 sioner shall designate by regulation. This function may not

25 be further delegated.’’.
3

•HR 2932 IH

1 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

2 The amendment made by section 1 shall take effect

3 upon the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
697 A.2d 587

#### Sybil SCHLACHTER and William Schlachter, husband and wife, Petitioners, v. COLONIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, a/k/a, Colonial School Authority, a/k/a, Plymouth Whitemarsh Joint School Authority, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Aug. 12, 1997.

*415
      *ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 12th day of August, 1997, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is granted. The Order of the Commonwealth Court is vacated and the case is remanded for reconsideration under *Grieff v. Reisinger,*548 Pa. 13, 693 A.2d 195 (1997).
# C_2005193EN.01000701.xml

| 6.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/7

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 9 June 2005

in Case C-135/04: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (1)

1

(Conservation of wild fauna - Wild birds - Hunting periods - Hunting of woodpigeon during return journey in the province of Guipúzcoa)

(2005/C 193/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

In Case C-135/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valero Jordana and M. van Beek) v Kingdom of Spain (Agents: N. Díaz Abad and M. Muñoz Perez) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 12 March 2004 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C. W. A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and G. Arestis, Judges; L. A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 June 2005, in which it:

Commission of the European Communities

Kingdom of Spain

| 1. | Declares that, by allowing the practice of 'a contrapasa' hunting of woodpigeons in the province of Guipúzcoa, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(4) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by allowing the practice of 'a contrapasa' hunting of woodpigeons in the province of Guipúzcoa, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(4) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 106 of 30.4.2004.

1

---
# Laos

77 items

        -    Report  		Laos	  June 21, 2019 
        -    Report  		Laos	  June 20, 2019 
        -    		Laos	  April 19, 2019 
        -    Report  		Laos	  March 13, 2019 
        -    		Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs: Laos Summary	   
        -    Report  		2018 END Wildlife Trafficking Report	  October 10, 2018 
        -    Report  		Laos	  July 19, 2018 
        -    Report  		Laos	  June 28, 2018 
        -    Report  		Laos	  May 29, 2018 
        -    Report  		Laos	  April 20, 2018 

previous page1…5678next page

Back to Top
EXHIBIT 10.13


                       AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


This Agreement is made as of December 23, 1997, by and between Moto Photo, Inc.
a Delaware Corporation (`Employer''), and David A. Mason (``Employee''):

The parties have entered into an Employment Agreement as of June 1, 1996 and
wish to amend that Agreement as set forth herein.

Section 3 is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with a new Section 3
which shall read:

`3.  Term.  The term of the Employee's employment with Employer shall continue
until December 31, 2000.  Commencing January 1, 2000, the term of this Agreement
shall be extended so that the term of this Agreement shall always be for a
period of one year until and unless either party gives the other party a one
year notice to terminate the Employees employment under this Agreement, unless
sooner terminated in accordance with Section 11 of this Agreement.  The term of
Employees Employment under this Agreement shall be extended in accordance with
Section 10 of this Agreement.''

The first paragraph of Section 2 of the Employment Agreement is hereby deleted
in its entirety and replaced with a new Section 2 which shall read:

`2.  Compensation.  As base compensation for Employee's services to Employer
during the term of this Agreement, Employer shall pay Employee a regular salary
at the rate of $125,000 per year payable in such manner as the Employer pays its
other executives.  In addition, the Employee shall be entitled to a bonus for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 1998 in an amount equal to $25,000 if the
Employers pre-tax income is $2,600,000 or greater, plus 4% of the Employers pre-
tax income in excess of $2,600,000, including the gains or loses from the sale
of company stores, as determined by the Employers independent accountants.  Such
income determination will be final and binding and any bonus will be paid to the
extent due according to the calculation in this Section, by March 30 of the
following year.  Such pre-tax income will be determined after adding back any
bonuses of executives (including Employee) of the Employer who have a bonus
based on pre-tax corporate income to the pre-tax of income of Employer as
verified by Employee's independent CPA firm.''



IN THE WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this amendment the day and
year first above written:


Witnesses                          EMPLOYER:
                                   MOTO PHOTO, INC.

                              By:
                                 ---------------------------
                                        Michael F. Adler
-------------------------
                                        Chairman & CEO



                                   EMPLOYEE:

                              By:
                                 ---------------------------
                                        David A. Mason
-------------------------
#### § 594.705 Administrative collection; referral to United States Department of Justice.

In the event that the respondent does not pay the penalty imposed pursuant to this part or make payment arrangements acceptable to the Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control within 30 days of the date of mailing of the penalty notice, the matter may be referred for administrative collection measures by the Department of the Treasury or to the United States Department of Justice for appropriate action to recover the penalty in a civil suit in a federal district court.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-41012

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CRAIG DWAYNE TOBIAS, also known as Jim,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CR-205-1

Before JONES, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Craig Dwayne Tobias has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Tobias has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant 

portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Tobias’s response. We concur 

with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 21, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-41012 Document: 00513555616 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2016
No. 14-41012

2

appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 14-41012 Document: 00513555616 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2016
§ 137.132 How does the Indian Tribe submit a final offer? ( a ) A written final offer should be submitted: ( 1 ) During negotiations to the agency lead negotiator *or*
( 2 ) Thereafter to the Director.
( b ) The document should be separate from the compact, funding agreement, or amendment and clearly identified as a “Final Offer.”
# Djibouti

62 items

        -    Report  		2020 Trafficking in Persons Report: Djibouti	  June 25, 2020 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2019: Djibouti	  June 24, 2020 
        -    Report  		2019 Report on International Religious Freedom: Djibouti	  June 10, 2020 
        -    Report  		2019 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Djibouti	  March 11, 2020 
        -    Report  		Djibouti	  June 21, 2019 
        -    Report  		Djibouti	  June 20, 2019 
        -    		Djibouti	  April 19, 2019 
        -    		Relief and Development Coherence	   
        -    Report  		Djibouti	  March 13, 2019 
        -    Report  		Djibouti	  July 19, 2018 

previous page1…34567next page

Back to Top
§ 599.403 Termination and acquisition of an interest in blocked property. ( a ) Whenever a transaction licensed or authorized by or pursuant to this part results in the transfer of property (including any property interest) away from a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 599.201, such property shall no longer be deemed to be property blocked pursuant to § 599.201, unless there exists in the property another interest that is blocked pursuant to § 599.201, the transfer of which has not been effected pursuant to license or other authorization.
( b ) Unless otherwise specifically provided in a license or authorization issued pursuant to this part, if property (including any property interest) is transferred or attempted to be transferred to a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to § 599.201, such property shall be deemed to be property in which such person has an interest and therefore blocked.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1940

LENA HARDAWAY; ANGELENE HARDAWAY,

Plaintiffs – Appellants,

v.

EQUITY RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT LLC,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District 

Judge. (8:13-cv-00149-DKC)

Submitted: January 26, 2017 Decided: February 7, 2017

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

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lena Hardaway; Angelene Hardaway, Appellants Pro Se. Jason M. 

St. John, Nicholas Charles Stewart, SAUL EWING, LLP, Baltimore, 

Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellants appeal the district court’s orders dismissing 

their complaints. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Hardaway v. Equity Residential Mgmt., 

LLC, No. 8:13-cv-00149-DKC (D. Md. Feb. 26, 2015 & July 22, 

2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
§ 110.30 Benefits available to different categories of requesters under this Program. ( a ) *Benefits available to injured countermeasure recipients.* A requester who is an injured countermeasure recipient may be eligible to receive either medical benefits or benefits for lost employment income, or both.
( b ) *Benefits available to survivors.* A requester who is an eligible survivor of a deceased injured countermeasure recipient may be eligible to receive a death benefit if the death was caused by the covered injury or its health complications.
( c ) *Benefits available to estates of deceased injured countermeasure recipients.* The estate of an otherwise eligible deceased injured countermeasure recipient may be eligible to receive medical benefits or benefits for lost employment income, or both, if such benefits were accrued during the deceased countermeasure recipient's lifetime, or at the time of death, as a result of a covered injury or its health complications, but have not yet been paid in full by the Program. Such medical benefits and benefits for lost employment income may be available regardless of the cause of death. The estate of the deceased injured countermeasure recipient may not receive a death benefit. Death benefits are only available to certain survivors.
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of InMedica Development Corporation.  on
Form 10-QSB for the period  ending June 30, 2003,  as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard Bruggeman,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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 result of  operations of the
Company.

By: /s/ Richard Bruggeman
Richard Bruggeman, CFO
Date: August 12, 2003

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55244-55245]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21998]

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

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board; Membership

AGENCY: Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the membership of the Defense Nuclear 
Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) Senior Executive Service (SES) 
Performance Review Board (PRB).

DATES: Effective September 10, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Send comments concerning this notice to: Defense Nuclear 
Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700, Washington, 
DC 20004-2001.

[[Page 55245]]

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Biscieglia by telephone at 
(202) 694-7041 or by email at debbieb@dnfsb.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(1) through (5) requires 
each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by 
the Office of Personnel Management, one or more performance review 
boards. The PRB shall review and evaluate the initial summary rating of 
a senior executive's performance, the executive's response, and the 
higher level official's comments on the initial summary rating. In 
addition, the PRB will review and recommend executive performance 
bonuses and pay increases.
    The DNFSB is a small, independent Federal agency; therefore, the 
members of the DNFSB SES Performance Review Board listed in this notice 
are drawn from the SES ranks of other agencies. The following persons 
comprise a standing roster to serve as members of the Defense Nuclear 
Facilities Safety Board SES Performance Review Board:

Christopher E. Aiello, Special Advisor to the Deputy to the Chairman 
and CFO, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
David M. Capozzi, Executive Director, United States Access Board.
Barry S. Socks, Chief Operating Officer, National Capital Planning 
Commission.
Christopher W. Warner, DAEO and Senior Counselor to the Chair, U.S. 
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.

    Dated: September 4, 2013.
Jessie H. Roberson,
Chair, Executive Resources Board.
[FR Doc. 2013-21998 Filed 9-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3670-01-P
```
§ 1001.1201 Failure to provide payment information. ( a ) *Circumstance for exclusion.* The OIG may exclude any individual or entity that furnishes, orders, refers for furnishing, or certifies the need for items or services for which payment may be made under Medicare or any of the State health care programs and that— ( 1 ) Fails to provide such information as is necessary to determine whether such payments are or were due and the amounts thereof, or
( 2 ) Has refused to permit such examination and duplication of its records as may be necessary to verify such information.
( b ) *Length of exclusion.* The following factors will be considered in determining the length of an exclusion under this section— ( 1 ) The number of instances where information was not provided;
( 2 ) The circumstances under which such information was not provided;
( 3 ) The amount of the payments at issue; and
( 4 ) Whether the individual or entity has a documented history of criminal, civil, or administrative wrongdoing. (The lack of any prior record is to be considered neutral).
[57 FR 3330, Jan. 29, 1992, as amended at 63 FR 46689, Sept. 2, 1998; 82 FR 4115, Jan. 12, 2017]
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Repro-Med Systems, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K (the "Report)for the period ended February 28, 2011 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Andrew I. Sealfon, 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 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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the
            Report.


/s/ Andrew I. Sealfon
---------------------
Andrew I. Sealfon
Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer

Date: May 27, 2011