alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                     EXHIBIT 23.1
                                           
                                           
                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                                           
As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report included in this Form 10-K into the Company's previously filed
Registration Statement, File No. 333-00909.

                                                 ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



Seattle, Washington
August 12, 1997







                                          37
<PAGE>






CORPORATE OFFICE
8561 154th Avenue NE
Redmond, Washington 98052
Phone:   (425) 882-2555
Fax:     (425) 861-0173



AUDITORS
Arthur Andersen LLP
801 Second Avenue, Suite 800
Seattle, WA   98104



COMMON STOCK LISTING
NASDAQ
(Symbol - ALCD)



TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR
American Securities Transfer and Trust, Incorporated
938 Quail Street, Suite 101
Lakewood, Colorado  80515


                                          38
§ 423.2128 Action of the Council. ( a ) After it has reviewed all the evidence in the administrative record and any additional evidence received, subject to the limitations on Council consideration of additional evidence in § 423.2122, the Council will make a decision or remand the case to an ALJ or attorney adjudicator.
( b ) The Council may adopt, modify, or reverse the ALJ or attorney adjudicator decision or recommended decision.
( c ) The Council mails a copy of its decision to the enrollee at his or her last known address, to CMS, to the IRE, and to the Part D plan sponsor.
[74 FR 65363, Dec. 9, 2009, as amended at 82 FR 5139, Jan. 17, 2017]
# C_2006062EN.01000501.xml

| 15.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4132 — Lehman Brothers/Heinz European Seafood)

(2006/C 62/07)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 8 March 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 32006M4132. 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 32006M4132. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
§ 405.1028 Review of evidence submitted by parties. ( a ) *New evidence* — ( 1 ) *Examination of any new evidence.* After a hearing is requested but before a hearing is held by an ALJ or a decision is issued if no hearing is held, the ALJ or attorney adjudicator will examine any new evidence submitted in accordance with § 405.1018, by a provider, supplier, or beneficiary represented by a provider or supplier to determine whether the provider, supplier, or beneficiary represented by a provider or supplier had good cause for submitting the evidence for the first time at the OMHA level.
( 2 ) *Determining if good cause exists.* An ALJ or attorney adjudicator finds good cause when— ( i ) The new evidence is, in the opinion of the ALJ or attorney adjudicator, material to an issue addressed in the QIC's reconsideration and that issue was not identified as a material issue prior to the QIC's reconsideration;
( ii ) The new evidence is, in the opinion of the ALJ, material to a new issue identified in accordance with § 405.1032(b)(1);
( iii ) The party was unable to obtain the evidence before the QIC issued its reconsideration and submits evidence that, in the opinion of the ALJ or attorney adjudicator, demonstrates the party made reasonable attempts to obtain the evidence before the QIC issued its reconsideration;
( iv ) The party asserts that the evidence was submitted to the QIC or another contractor and submits evidence that, in the opinion of the ALJ or attorney adjudicator, demonstrates the new evidence was submitted to the QIC or another contractor before the QIC issued the reconsideration; or
( v ) In circumstances not addressed in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section, the ALJ or attorney adjudicator determines that the party has demonstrated that it could not have obtained the evidence before the QIC issued its reconsideration.
( 3 ) *If good cause does not exist.* If the ALJ or attorney adjudicator determines that there was not good cause for submitting the evidence for the first time at the OMHA level, the ALJ or attorney adjudicator must exclude the evidence from the proceeding and may not consider it in reaching a decision.
( 4 ) *Notification to parties.* If a hearing is conducted, as soon as possible, but no later than the start of the hearing, the ALJ must notify all parties and participants who responded to the notice of hearing whether the evidence will be considered or is excluded from consideration.
( b ) *Duplicative evidence.* The ALJ or attorney adjudicator may exclude from consideration any evidence submitted by a party at the OMHA level that is duplicative of evidence already in the record forwarded to OMHA.
[82 FR 5115, Jan. 17, 2017]
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BULLETIN 190q
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PLATE 5

EXPLANATION _

oe
Location where soil sample was taken, Number
indicates lead content of sample as given below

Lead, in Lead, in
parts per million No. parts per milion
-39 6 1280-2550
40-79 7 2560-5110
80-189 8 5120-10,300
160-319 9 10,400-20,700
paaes 10 20,800-41,900

‘Areas where lead exceeds 80 parts per
‘milion; that is. four times background

oe
Sample traverse to which reference has
made in text

Underground workings
‘Not all shown

Portal with caved workings.

Pagan}

Pit or caved area
‘mt

“ANN

Dump

ANY
o
oo)

Topography by Ben Bowyer and VC Kennedy,
surveyed 1950. Underground information
from the Denver Development Co

‘Sampling by VC. Kennedy. AP. Pierce
and J.P Schuch, April 1951

MAP SHOWING CONCENTRATION OF LEAD IN SOIL NEAR THE
LITTLE PITTSBURG MINE, SHOSHONE COUNTY, IDAHO

19 0 190 290 390 499 __s00 Freer

CONTOUR INTERVAL 50 FEET
DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL
# C_2006086EN.01001601.xml

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/16

---

Action brought on 8 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

(Case C-75/06)

(2006/C 86/29)

Language of the case: Portuguese

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 February 2006, by the Portuguese Republic, represented by Carmel O'Reilly and Piedade Costa de Oliveira, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by having failed to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/9/EC (1) of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers or, in any event, by having failed to communicate them to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2003/9/EC; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by having failed to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/9/EC (1) of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers or, in any event, by having failed to communicate them to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2003/9/EC;

1

| 2. | order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period allowed for transposition into domestic law of Directive 2003/9 expired on 6 February 2005.

---

(1)  OJ L 31, p. 18.

1

---
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 98-3904

________________

Stephanie Doran; Melanie Erin

Doran; Justin Michael Doran; Elsa

Louise Doran, by and through their

mother, Stephanie Doran,

Appellants,

v.

Patrick F. Condon, Deputy

Lancaster County Attorney; Robert

Thorson, Sergeant, Nebraska State

Patrol; Todd Kinghorn, Investigator,

Nebraska State Patrol; Kevin Knorr,

Investigator, Nebraska State Patrol;

Dan Doggett, Investigator,

Nebraska State Patrol; Jud

McKinstry, Investigator, Nebraska

State Patrol; John Does, Five

Unknown Officers of the Nebraska

State Patrol, in their individual

capacities; County of Lancaster;

State of Nebraska,

Appellees.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the Western

District of Nebraska.

[UNPUBLISHED]
1The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska. 

2

________________

Submitted: May 14, 1999

 Filed: May 24, 1999

________________

Before LOKEN, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. 

________________

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs, Stephanie Doran and her children, appeal the district court's1 order

granting partial summary judgment to the defendants in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit.

The defendants are the Lancaster County Attorney and officers of the Nebraska State

Patrol. In their complaint, the Dorans alleged that the defendants violated their

constitutional rights by obtaining a search warrant through material false statements and

omissions. The Dorans also alleged that the defendants used excessive force when

executing the warrant at their home in Lincoln, Nebraska. In its summary judgment

order, the district court granted qualified immunity to the defendants on the search

warrant application issue but denied qualified immunity on the excessive force claim.

On appeal, the Dorans assert that material issues of fact about whether the

defendants made material false statements or omissions in the warrant application

preclude summary judgment. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties'

briefs, we conclude that the district court properly granted partial summary judgment

on this issue. The undisputed facts demonstrate that the defendants were at most

negligent and otherwise acted in an objectively reasonable manner in light of the facts

known to them. See Waddell v. Forney, 108 F.3d 889, 890 (8th Cir. 1997) (noting we
3

consider "whether, in view of the facts that the district court deemed sufficiently

supported for summary judgment purposes, the individual defendants' conduct was

objectively reasonable given their knowledge and the clearly established law"). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's partial grant of summary judgment.

See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT
§ 440.185 Respiratory care for ventilator-dependent individuals. ( a ) “Respiratory care for ventilator-dependent individuals” means services that are not otherwise available under the State's Medicaid plan, provided on a part-time basis in the beneficiary's home by a respiratory therapist or other health care professional trained in respiratory therapy (as determined by the State) to an individual who— ( 1 ) Is medically dependent on a ventilator for life support at least 6 hours per day;
( 2 ) Has been so dependent for at least 30 consecutive days (or the maximum number of days authorized under the State plan, whichever is less) as an inpatient in one or more hospitals, NFs, or ICFs/IID;
( 3 ) Except for the availability of respiratory care services, would require respiratory care as an inpatient in a hospital, NF, or ICF/IID and would be eligible to have payment made for inpatient care under the State plan;
( 4 ) Has adequate social support services to be cared for at home;
( 5 ) Wishes to be cared for at home; and
( 6 ) Receives services under the direction of a physician who is familiar with the technical and medical components of home ventilator support, and who has medically determined that in-home care is safe and feasible for the individual.
( b ) For purposes of paragraphs (a)(4) and (5) of this section, a beneficiary's home does not include a hospital, NF, ICF/IID or other institution as defined in § 435.1010 of this chapter.
[59 FR 37717, July 25, 1994, as amended at 71 FR 39229, July 12, 2006]
Attachment 1

The relief provided by Exemption No. 4416 is limited to the air carriers listed below 1 :

Airlines for America Alaska Airlines, Inc. American Airlines, Inc. and/or US Airways, Inc. Atlas Air, Inc. Federal Express Corporation Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. JetBlue Airways Corporation

Southwest Airlines Co. United Airlines, Inc.

United Parcel Service Co.

Additional Certificate Holders 2

Allegiant Air, LLC Ameristar Air Cargo, Inc. Atlas Air, Inc. Delta Air Lines, Inc. Dynamic International Airways Kalitta Air, LLC Miami Air International, Inc. Orange Air, LLC Polar Air Cargo, Worldwide, Inc. Southern Air, Inc. Spirit Airlines, Inc. Tantonduk Outfitters, LTD TEM Enterprises (DBA Xtra Airways)

USA Jet Airlines

Western Global Airlines

21 Air LLC.

1 Attachment amended December 22, 2016.

2 Additional certificate holders petitioned for exemption through the following FAA Docket Numbers: Allegiant Air, LLC (FAA-2016-7037); Ameristar Air Cargo, Inc. (FAA-2016-9142); Atlas Air, Inc. (FAA-2016-9082); Delta Air Lines, Inc. (FAA-2016-9165) Dynamic International Airways (FAA-2016-9130); Kalitta Air, LLC (FAA-2016- 7034); Miami Air International, Inc. (FAA-2016-7036); Orange Air, LLC (FAA-2016-9359); Polar Air Cargo, Worldwide, Inc. (FAA-2016-9083); Southern Air, Inc. (FAA-2016-9076); Spirit Airlines, Inc. (FAA-2016-7406); Tantonduk Outfitters, LTD (FAA-2016-9094); TEM Enterpri ses (DBA Xtra Airways) (FAA-2016-9061); USA Jet Airlines (FAA-2016-9194); Western Global Airlines (FAA-2016-9093); 21 Air LLC (FAA-2016-9164).
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 2- 10 33

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Im ran M.I. Sh ku ka ne e ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

v. Eric H. Hold er, J r. ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt

__ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a n Ord er o f th e Bo ard of I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Octo be r 2, 2 01 2 Fi le d: Octo be r 5, 2 01 2 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re MUR PHY, ARNOLD, an d S MITH, Ci rcu it Ju dg es
.

__

__ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Im ran Sh ku ka ne e, a n a t iv e of Is rael an d ci ti zen of Pal es ti ne , pe ti ti on s fo r rev ie w of an or de r of th e Bo ard of I mm i g r at io n App eal s (BIA), whi ch up he ld an im m ig rat io n jud ge ’s de ni al of as y lu m an d wit hh ol di n g of rem ov al

. Afte r care fu l
rev ie w, we fin d no ba si s fo r rev ers al

. In pa rti cu la r, we co nc lu d e th at th e BIA’s ad ve rs e cred ib il it y fin di ng is su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce on th e ad m in is tra ti vereco rd as a who le

. See Ali v. Hol de r, 68 6 F. 3d 53 4, 53 8- 39 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (wh ere

BIA es se nt ia ll y ad op ts IJ ’s de ci si on bu t ad ds it s own reas on in g, th is c o ur t rev ie ws bo th de ci si o n s to ge th er an d wil l affi rm if su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce on reco rd as who le
su pp or ts ag en cy de ci si on ; whe n as y lu m an d w ith hol din g- of -rem ov al cl ai m s are ba se d
on sa m e fact ua l al le ga ti on s an d ev id en ce, de ni al of as y lu m di ct at es sa m e ou tc om e on wit hh ol di ng -o f-re m ov al cl ai m ; in pa rti cu la r, ad ve rs e cred ib il it y fin di ng can be fat al to bo th ). Acco rd in gl y , we den y th e p et it io n fo r rev ie w. See 8 th Cir . R. 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
Home2024 Certificates of Competency for Nominees to be Chiefs of Mission...Holtsnider, James – Independent State of Samoa – May 2024

# 									Holtsnider, James – Independent State of Samoa – May 2024							

Certificate of Competency

May 13, 2024

UNITED STATES SENATE

SUBJECT:                  Ambassadorial Nomination:  Certificate of

Demonstrated Competence — Foreign Service

Act, Section 304(a)(4)

 

POST:                         Independent State of Samoa

 

CANDIDATE:             James Holtsnider

James Holtsnider is a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, class of Counselor.  He currently serves as Deputy Chief of Mission of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait City, Kuwait.  Previously he was the Deputy Director of the Office of Iranian Affairs in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs of the Department of State.  Earlier, Mr. Holtsnider was the Management Officer of the U.S. Mission Somalia.  He also served in Afghanistan as a Political Advisor to the U.S. military’s Regional Command East in Bagram and in Iraq as a Provincial Action Officer on U.S. Provincial Reconstruction Team Ninewa, Mosul, Iraq.  Mr. Holtsnider’s demonstrated success as a leader able to work in the most challenging of environments, coupled with his strong credentials as a manager, make him well-qualified to serve as Ambassador to the Independent State of Samoa.

Mr. Holtsnider has also had assignments at the U.S. Embassy in Rome, Italy as a General Services Officer and at the U.S. Embassy in Tunis, Tunisia as a Consular Officer.  Additionally, he served at the State Department in Washington, D.C. as an Operations Officer in the Department’s Operations Center and as a Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources.  Prior to joining the State Department, Mr. Holtsnider served for six years in the United States Marine Corps.

Mr. Holtsnider received his bachelor’s degree from the University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado and his master’s degree from Princeton University.  He speaks Italian and French.  He is the recipient of multiple State Department performance awards including the Leamon R. Hunt Award for Management Excellence and the Department of Army’s Meritorious Public Service Medal.

Back to Top
EXHIBIT 12

                  SUMMARY OF OFFICER AND DIRECTOR COMPENSATION


Except for the  Employment  Agreement in Exhibit 7 of this  report,  the Company
does not have any written contractual compensation  arrangements with any of its
employees or directors, including Executive Officers.

During 2005, the Company's  Chief  Executive  Officer (the Company's only "Named
Executive Officer") is scheduled to receive the following  compensation from the
Company:


    CEO Compensation Arrangement                  2005 Scheduled Amount
    ----------------------------                  ---------------------
    Base salary                                   $  255,385
    401(k) matching contributions (2)                  7,200 (maximum)
    Section 125 plan matching contributions (2)          450 (maximum)
    Management bonus                              will be determined at year-end
    Pet health benefits (2)                              500 (maximum)
    Family medical benefits (2)                   will depend on future events
    Travel expense reimbursement (1)                  10,000



During 2005,  the  Company's  Directors  are  scheduled to receive the following
compensation from the Company:

  Compensation Arrangement          Ernst Hoyer  Stephen Bennett  Barbara Payne
  ------------------------          -----------  ---------------  -------------
  Base                                  $20,000          $20,000        $20,000
  Executive Committee                     4,000            4,000              -
  Audit Committee Chairman                2,000                -              -
  Travel Expense Reimbursement (1)        1,000            1,000          1,000

(1)      Estimated 2005 travel expenses on behalf of UTMD business.  The Company
reimburses its employees and directors for authorized business expenses.
(2)      CEO participates on the same basis as other eligible employees.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Launch of Global Coalition to Address Synthetic Drug Threats

# 									Launch of Global Coalition to Address Synthetic Drug Threats							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

June 23, 2023

Synthetic drugs represent a grave and growing risk to the health and safety of Americans and people around the world. Illicit fentanyl and other synthetic opioids are involved in more deaths of American adults under 50 than any other cause. Other countries face challenges from dangerous synthetic drugs including tramadol, methamphetamine, captagon, MDMA, and ketamine. Recognizing the urgent need for collective action, the United States is rallying the international community to address this pressing challenge head-on.

On July 7, 2023, I will convene and host a virtual Ministerial meeting, bringing together dozens of countries and international organizations, to launch a Global Coalition to Address Synthetic Drug Threats. This coalition seeks to unite countries worldwide in a concerted effort to prevent the illicit manufacture and trafficking of synthetic drugs, identify emerging drug trends, and respond effectively to their public health impacts.

Following the establishment of the Global Coalition, the United States will engage in consultations with participating countries to prioritize specific, concrete actions to address synthetic drug threats. Through specialized working groups, we will develop innovative solutions, drive national initiatives, and elevate the need to address synthetic drugs as a shared global priority. The Global Coalition plans to reconvene on the margins of the 78th UN General Assembly and the March 2024 UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs. These gatherings will provide critical platforms to share progress and achievements with a wider audience and facilitate the advancement of international drug policy.

The United States wishes to engage with all countries concerned about the public health and security risks associated with synthetic drugs. We encourage partners to join this coalition and contribute to building a safer world.

Tags

Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement AffairsCombating Drugs and CrimeDrug TraffickingDrugsOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

## Related Articles

-  											 									
Read more
 

Back to Top