alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006062EN.01000401.xml

| 15.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3985 — EADS/BAES/FNM/NLFK)

(2006/C 62/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 7 February 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M3985. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M3985. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
<PAGE>


                                  Exhibit 32.2

          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 Annual Report of Systems & Computer Technology
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Eric Haskell, Executive Vice President, Finance and
Administration, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.

/s/ Eric Haskell

Eric Haskell
Executive Vice President, Finance and Administration,
Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
December 23, 2003
Bureau of Labor Statistics

**Series Id: Series title:**  **Labor force status: Type of data:**  **Age: Years:**  **Year Qtr1**  **Qtr2 Qtr3**  **Qtr4 Annual**  **2011** 124640 Civilian noninstitutional population Number in thousands 25 to 54 years 2011 to 2011 

### Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey **Original Data Value** LNU00000060Q **Not Seasonally Adjusted** (Unadj) Population Level - 25-54 yrs.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Generated on: May 16, 2011 (02:08:31 PM)
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3387

To designate the Southern Piedmont Conservation Research Center located

at 1420 Experimental Station Road in Watkinsville, Georgia, as the

‘‘J. Phil Campbell, Senior Natural Resource Conservation Center’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 1, 1996

Mr. NORWOOD (for himself and Mr. LINDER) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Resources

A BILL

To designate the Southern Piedmont Conservation Research

Center located at 1420 Experimental Station Road in

Watkinsville, Georgia, as the ‘‘J. Phil Campbell, Senior

Natural Resource Conservation Center’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF J. PHIL CAMPBELL, SENIOR

4 NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION CEN5 TER.

6 The Southern Piedmont Conservation Research Cen7 ter located at 1420 Experimental Station Road in

8 Watkinsville, Georgia, shall be known and designated as
2

•HR 3387 IH

1 the ‘‘J. Phil Campbell, Senior Natural Resource Conserva2 tion Center’’.

3 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

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

5 paper, or other record of the United States to the building

6 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

7 to the ‘‘J. Phil Campbell, Senior Natural Resource Con8 servation Center’’.

Æ
# C_2006096EN.01003702.xml

| 22.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/37

---

Action brought on 15 February 2006 — Abba and Others v European Parliament

(Case F-15/06)

(2006/C 96/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Abba and Others (represented by: G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | declare the action admissible and well founded, including the objection of illegality contained in it; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the action admissible and well founded, including the objection of illegality contained in it;

| — | consequently, annul the applicants' pension statements for March 2005, so as to result in the application of a weighting for the capital of their country of residence or, at least, of a weighting such as to reflect adequately the differences in the cost of living in the places where the applicants are deemed to incur their expenditure and therefore to give effect to the principle of equivalence; |
| --- | --- |

—

consequently, annul the applicants' pension statements for March 2005, so as to result in the application of a weighting for the capital of their country of residence or, at least, of a weighting such as to reflect adequately the differences in the cost of living in the places where the applicants are deemed to incur their expenditure and therefore to give effect to the principle of equivalence;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas and main arguments relied on by the applicants are identical to those relied on in Case F-128/05 Adolf and Others v Commission (1).

1

---

(1)  OJ C 60 of 11.3.2006, p. 56.

1

---
# C_2006121EN.01001901.xml

| 20.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/19

---

Action brought on 17 March 2006 — Sequeira Wandschneider v Commission

(Case F-28/06)

(2006/C 121/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Paulo Sequeira Wandschneider (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G. Vandersanden and C. Ronzi, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the applicant's career development report (CDR) covering the reference period from 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the applicant's career development report (CDR) covering the reference period from 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2004;

| — | As far as necessary, annul the decision rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant on 5 September 2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

As far as necessary, annul the decision rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant on 5 September 2005;

| — | Order the defendant to pay damages and interest to compensate for the material and non-material loss suffered, assessed on an equitable basis, reserving the right to increase their amount to EUR 5 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay damages and interest to compensate for the material and non-material loss suffered, assessed on an equitable basis, reserving the right to increase their amount to EUR 5 000;

| — | Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a Commission official with responsibility, inter alia, for conducting investigations into dumping practices, challenges the validity of his CDR in respect of the 2004 appraisal exercise.

In his application, he submits that his immediate superior awarded him lower marks than he deserved, on account of his refusal to favour the interest of Community industry during his investigations.

He also argues that the procedure followed in order to compile his CDR infringes Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, the general provisions implementing that Article, the Appraisal Guide and the Internal Rules of Procedure of the Joint Evaluation Committee. The defendant also infringed the applicant's right to a defence and his right to an effective appeal procedure.

The applicant is of the view, firstly, that his CDR is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment and a failure to state the grounds and, secondly, that the defendant has infringed the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and the duty of sound administration.

Lastly, the applicant alleges a misuse of powers, inasmuch as the appraisal of his performance as unsatisfactory is simply a means of attempting to remove him from his position as an investigator.

---
HomeDipNote...Secretary Blinken and First Lady Biden to Honor 21 Women at International Women of Courage Ceremony

# 									Secretary Blinken and First Lady Biden to Honor 21 Women at International Women of Courage Ceremony							

DipNote: Global Women's Issues

Katherine A. Zitzer

Office of Global Women’s Issues

March 7, 2021

On March 8, 2021 at 10:00 AM EST, Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken and the Office of Global Women’s Issues will host the 15th annual International Women of Courage (IWOC) Ceremony, which will feature remarks from First Lady Dr. Jill Biden. Each year, the U.S. Department of State honors women from around the world who have demonstrated exceptional courage, strength, and leadership in acting to improve the lives of others. This award brings international attention and shines a light on women who have put their personal safety, and often their lives, at risk to improve their communities and inspire fellow citizens.

Since 2007, the Department has recognized more than 155 awardees from over 75 countries. The women are nominated by U.S. diplomatic missions overseas and finalists are selected by the Secretary of State. This year, the Department is honoring a group of inspiring women, including an honorary posthumous group award to honor seven women from Afghanistan who were assassinated while serving their communities. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the year’s ceremony will be held virtually, and attendees are encouraged to watch the ceremony live at state.gov.
> 
Muskan Khatun of Nepal is being honored as a #WomenofCourage for her dedication to bring about new legislation criminalizing acid attacks and imposing strong penalties against perpetrators in Nepal. pic.twitter.com/P2cqwZXT4s

— Department of State (@StateDept) March 6, 2021

Following the ceremony, the awardees will participate in an International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP) Virtual exchange, during which they will connect with Americans from across the country and meet with community leaders in their respective fields. The IVLP will provide professional development opportunities and connect the women with American universities, businesses, non-profit organizations, and others, as they discuss women’s challenges around the world.

Gender equality and women’s empowerment are central tenets of our foreign policy and national security. The United States is dedicated to protecting and advancing the health, economic, political, and human rights of all women and girls, because we know that when women are empowered, the world benefits.

*Read the media note announcing the 2021 International Women of Courage Recipients here.*

*Visit our website here to learn more about the awardees for the 15th annual International Women of Courage.*

*About the Author: Katherine A. Zitzer is a Regional Advisor in the Secretary’s Office of Global Women’s Issues at the U.S. Department of State.*

Tags

DipNoteHuman RightsInternational Women of CourageWomen's IssuesWomen's Rights

Back to Top
# C_2006154EN.01001404.xml

| 1.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/14

---

Order of the President of the Court of 7 February 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court — Chancery Division) — Oakley Inc v Animal Ltd and Others

(Case C-267/05) (1)

1

(2006/C 154/37)

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 229, 17.09.2005.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3325 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3325

    To provide certain technical assistance to the Chickasaw Basin 
                               Authority.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 25, 1996

   Mr. Bryant of Tennessee introduced the following bill; which was 
                referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To provide certain technical assistance to the Chickasaw Basin 
                               Authority.

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

SECTION 1. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR CHICKASAW BASIN AUTHORITY.

    Of the funds transferred by Public Law 101-101 (103 Stat. 641, 647) 
to the Department of Agriculture for use with respect to the Johns 
Creek project, the remaining balance shall be available for use by the 
Natural Resources Conservation Service of the Department to provide 
technical assistance to the Chickasaw Basin Authority on the survey of 
erosion sites within the Chickasaw Basin and surrounding areas and the 
design of grade stabilization structures at such sites.
                                 <all>
```
MARK WHITE 

Attorney General 

The Attorney General of Texas 

June 25, 1980 

Honorable Robert B. Hall 

Texas Board of Examiners in the 

Fitting & Dispensing of Hearing 

Aids 

Penthouse Apartments, Suite 105 

Guadalupe Street 

Austin, Texas 78701 

Opinion No. ML+198 

Re: Whether a licensee may fill a 

prescription for a hearing aid from 

a physician without further testing 

of the individual’s hearing acuity. 

Dear Mr. Halh 

You have requested our opinion as to whether a person licensed to 

dispense hearing aids may fill a prescription for a hearing aid from a 

physician without further testing the individual’s hearing acuity. 

Section (a)(?‘) of article 4566-1.15, V.T.C.S. provides: 

(7) before any sale of a hearing aid shall be 

consummated, the person purchasing the 

hearing aid must have his hearing tested at an 

examination conducted in person by the 

licensee. 

Article 4566-1.19, V.T.C.S., states that nothing in the act applies to: 

(3) [plhysicians and surgeons duly licensed by the 

Texas State Board of Medical Examiners and 

qualified to practice in the State of Texas. 

You ask whether an individual licensed by the Board may validly disregard 

the testing requirement imposed by article 4566 1.15(a)(7), V.T.C.S., when he 

is presented with a prescription for a hearing aid from a physician exempted 

from the statute by article 4566-1.19(3), V.T.C.S. 

It is clear that the exception is applicable only to physicians and 

surgeons, and not to persons who act at their instruction. A statute that is 

plain and unambiguous should be construed according to its literal meaning. 

Brazce River Authority v. Graham, 354 S.W.2d 99, 109 (Tex. 1961); Board of 

s 180 S.W.2d 906? 909 

‘(Tex. 1944). Thus, if an individual licensed to fit and dispense hearing aids is 
Honorable Robert B. Hall - Page Two (Mw-198) 

not included within one of the exceptions of article 4566-1.19, V.T.C.S., he must comply 

with the testing requirement. In the situation you pose, the licensee may not fill a 

prescription for a hearing aid from a physician without first testing the hearing of the 

purchaser of the hearing aid. 

SUMMARY 

A person licensed to dispense hearing aids may not fill a 

prescription for a hearing aid from a physician without first testing 

the indiviciral’s hearing. 

MARK WHITE 

Attorney General of Texas 

JOHN W. FAINTER, JR. 

First Assistant Attorney General 

TED L. HARTLEY 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

Prepared by Rick Gilpin 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMPTTEE 

C. Robert Heath, Chairman 

Bob Gam mage 

Susan Garrison 

Bob Gauss 

Rick Gilpin 

Bruce Youngblood 

P. 642
###### Editorial Note on Part 422

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

#### § 422.1066 Vacating a dismissal of request for hearing.

An ALJ may vacate any dismissal of a request for hearing if a party files a request to that effect within 60 calendar days from receipt of the notice of dismissal and shows good cause for vacating the dismissal.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LANCE REBERGER,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

GREG COX, NDOC Deputy of

Operations; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-15358

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02022-GMNGWF

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 17, 2012** 

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Lance Reberger, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging prison officials

violated his civil rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

FILED

APR 26 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-15358

de novo a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state

a claim, Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir. 2005), and we

affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Reberger’s claims that prison officials

deprived him of property without due process because Reberger had an adequate

postdeprivation remedy under Nevada law. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517,

533 (1984) (“[A]n unauthorized intentional deprivation of property by a state

employee does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if a meaningful postdeprivation

remedy for the loss is available.”); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir.

1994) (per curiam) (“[A] negligent or intentional deprivation of a prisoner’s

property fails to state a claim under section 1983 if the state has an adequate post

deprivation remedy.”); see also Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 41.031, 41.0322.

Reberger’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
HomeDSS Press Releases...Honduran national convicted after cross-country trip against minor’s will

# 									Honduran national convicted after cross-country trip against minor’s will							

Child Protection

August 24, 2023

For Immediate Release – August 24, 2023

Click here to read more about this

 

Tags

Child AbductionChild ProtectionDSS ReleasesHondurasHuman TraffickingTexas

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top
§ 423.2520 Non-renewal or termination of appointment. ( a ) *Notice of non-renewal.* If the LI NET sponsor decides for any reason to non-renew its existing contract, it must notify CMS by January 1 of the year before the next contract year. Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, if CMS decides for any reason to non-renew the existing contract with the incumbent LI NET sponsor, CMS notifies the LI NET sponsor by January 1 of the year before the next contract year.
( b ) *Selection of successor and transition period.* After a notice of non-renewal or termination, CMS selects a successor for the LI NET contract from among potentially eligible entities (as detailed in § 423.2516). The outgoing LI NET sponsor must coordinate with the successor for a period of no less than 3 months to ensure seamless transition of the LI NET program, including timely transfer of any data or files.
( c ) *Immediate termination for cause.* ( 1 ) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, CMS may immediately terminate the existing LI NET contract for any of the reasons specified at § 423.509(a)(4)(i) and (xii) or § (b)(2)(i)(A) and (B).
( 2 ) CMS sends notice of an immediate termination as specified at § 423.509(b)(2)(ii).
( d ) *Appeal rights.* Subpart N of this part applies to a termination under paragraph (c) of this section.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Burl Dean SWAGERTY v. Frank BLACKBURN, Louisiana State Penn.

No. 65249.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 21, 1979.

In re Burl Dean Swagerty, applying for writ of mandamus. Parish of Sabine.

Writ granted. Trial judge is ordered to act on petitioner’s application.
§ 426.470 Board's role in docketing and evaluating the acceptability of appeals of ALJ decisions. ( a ) *Docketing the appeal.* The Board does the following upon receiving an appeal of part or all of an ALJ's decision: ( 1 ) Dockets the appeal either separately or with similar appeals.
( 2 ) Assigns a docket number.
( b ) *Evaluating the acceptability of the appeal.* The Board determines if the appeal is acceptable by confirming that the appeal meets all of the criteria in § 426.465.
( c ) *Unacceptable appeal.* If the Board determines that an appeal is unacceptable, the Board must dismiss the appeal.
( d ) *Acceptable appeal.* If the Board determines that an appeal is acceptable, the Board does the following: ( 1 ) Sends a letter to the appellant to acknowledge that the appeal is acceptable, and informs them of the docket number.
( 2 ) Forwards a copy of the appeal and the letter described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section to all parties involved in the appeal.
( 3 ) Requires the ALJ to send a copy of the ALJ's LCD review record (maintaining any sealed documents) to the Board and a copy of the public record to all parties involved in the appeal.
( e ) *No participation as amicus curiae.* The Board may not allow participation by amicus participants in the review of an LCD.