alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 498.40 Request for hearing. ( a ) *Manner and timing of request.* ( 1 ) An affected party entitled to a hearing under § 498.5 may file a request for a hearing with the ALJ office identified in the determination letter.
( 2 ) The affected party or its legal representative or other authorized official must file the request in writing within 60 days from receipt of the notice of initial, reconsidered, or revised determination unless that period is extended in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section. (Presumed date of receipt is determined in accordance with § 498.22(b)(3)).
( b ) *Content of request for hearing.* The request for hearing must— ( 1 ) Identify the specific issues, and the findings of fact and conclusions of law with which the affected party disagrees; and
( 2 ) Specify the basis for contending that the findings and conclusions are incorrect.
( c ) *Extension of time for filing a request for hearing.* If the request was not filed within 60 days— ( 1 ) The affected party or its legal representative or other authorized official may file with the ALJ a written request for extension of time stating the reasons why the request was not filed timely.
( 2 ) For good cause shown, the ALJ may extend the time for filing the request for hearing.
[52 FR 22446, June 12, 1987, as amended at 73 FR 36462, June 27, 2008]
§ 54a.14 Determination of nonprofit status. The nonprofit status of any SAMHSA applicant can be determined by any of the following: ( a ) Reference to the organization's listing in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) most recent list of tax-exempt organizations described in section 501(c)(3) of the IRS code.
( b ) A copy of a currently valid IRS Tax exemption certificate.
( c ) A statement from a State taxing body, State Attorney General, or other appropriate State official certifying that the applicant organization has a nonprofit status and that none of its net earnings accrue to any private shareholder or individuals.
( d ) A certified copy of the organization's certificate of incorporation or similar document if it clearly establishes the nonprofit status of the organization.
( e ) Any of the above proof for a State or national parent organization and a statement signed by the parent organization that the applicant organization is a local nonprofit affiliate.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-1013
RONALD L. COMPTON, Petitioner, versus BELCHER & NEWSOME COAL COMPANY; OFFICE OF WORKERS COMPENSATION PROGRAM, Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (94-0832-BLA) Submitted: September 5, 1996 Decided: September 13, 1996 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald L. Compton, Petitioner Pro Se. Mark Elliott Solomons, Thomas Henry Odom, II, ARTER & HADDEN, Washington, D.C.; Patricia May Nece, Elizabeth Ann Goodman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Ronald Compton seeks review of the Benefits Review Board's (Board) decision and order denying black lung benefits under 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-45 (West 1986 & Supp. 1996). The Respondent, Belcher & Newsome Coal Co., has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the appeal is untimely. The record discloses that the Board issued its decision on October 30, 1995. Compton filed a petition for review 65 days later, on January 3, 1996. The applicable filing period for appeals to this court from decisions of the Board is sixty days. 33 U.S.C. § 921(c) (1988). Although Compton alleges that he timely mailed his petition, we have held that the statute requires that the petition be timely filed within 60 days, and that the failure to timely file deprives the court of jurisdiction to consider the appeal. See Adkins v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs , 889 F.2d 1360, 1363 (4th Cir. 1989). Because Compton fa iled to file his appeal within the applicable filing period, we grant Respondent's motion to dismiss this appeal. We note that our disposition of that motion renders moot Respondent's motion to hold the briefing schedule in abeyance. We also dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
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

KENYA GAYLES,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

D. K. SISTO,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 10-15696

D.C. No. 2:08-cv-02774-GEBEFB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Garland E. Burrell, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 20, 2011** 

Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

California state parolee Kenya Gayles appeals pro se from the district court’s

order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 2253, and dismiss the appeal as moot.

FILED

MAY 05 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-15696

Contending that an allegedly improper 2006 disciplinary action made it

more likely that he would be denied parole, Gayles sought expungement of the

disciplinary action against him. While his appeal was pending, Gales was released

from state custody. Since Gales has been released on parole, his petition is moot. 

See Munoz v. Rowland, 104 F.3d 1096, 1097-98 (9th Cir. 1997). All pending

motions are denied as moot.

DISMISSED.
§ 63a.8 How long does grant support last? ( a ) The notice of the grant award specifies how long the Secretary intends to support the project without requiring the grantee to recompete for funds. This period, called the “project period,” will usually be for one to five years.
( b ) Generally, the grant will be initially for one year and subsequent continuation awards will be for one year at a time. A grantee must submit a separate application at the time and in the form and manner that the Secretary may require to have the support continued for each subsequent year. Decisions regarding continuation awards and the funding level of these awards will be made after consideration of such factors as the grantee's progress and management practices, and the availability of funds. In all cases, continuation awards require determination by the Secretary that continued funding is in the best interest of the Federal Government.
( c ) Neither the approval of any application nor the award of any grant commits or obligates the Federal Government in any way to make any additional, supplemental, continuation, or other award with respect to any approved application or portion of an approved application.
( d ) Any balance of federally obligated grant funds remaining unobligated by the grantee at the end of a budget period may be carried forward to the next budget period, for use as prescribed by the Secretary, provided that a continuation award is made. If at any time during a budget period it becomes apparent to the Secretary that the amount of Federal funds awarded and available to the grantee for that period, including any unobligated balance carried forward from prior periods, exceeds the grantee's needs for that period, the Secretary may adjust the amounts awarded by withdrawing the excess.
#### Wheat *v.*The State.

*Presenting Gun at Another.*

(Decided Dec. 19, 1911.

57 South. 68.)

1. *Weapons; Presenting at Another; Evidence.*— Where a prosecution was for presenting gun at another, evidence, of the friendly relations of the prosecutrix with the defendant after the alleged commission of the offense, the time of her first .complaining, whom she told about the occurrence, and why she did not sooner swear out the warrant, is irrelevant.

2. *Witnesses; Examination; Showing Bias.*— As tending to show bias on the part of the prosecuting witness, it was competent to show on cross examination that she was mad with defendant because of a mortgage he had upon her property.

Appeal from Macon County Court.

Heard before Hon. Milo Abercrombie-.

Richard Wheat was convicted of presenting a firearm at another and he appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

O. S. Lewis, for appellant.

Proof of bias, hostility or ill will of the prosecuting witness to the defendant, is competent and may be shown by questions on cross *examination.*— Blalcey *v.*Blalcey, 33 Ala.. 611*McHugh v. The State,*31 Ala. *317; Bullard v. Lambert,*40 Ala. 204; *Fincher v. The State,*58 Ala.. 219. The court erred in refusing to permit it to be shown why the warrant was not earlier sworn out, and that the prosecutrix *243had been friendly with the defendant since the alleged commission of the *offense.*— Linnehan *v. The State,*120 Ala. 293; *Hurst v. The State,*133 Ala. 96; *Patterson v. The State,*156 Ala. 66.

B. C. Biiickbivl, Attorney General, and T. H. Seay, Assistant Attorney General,' for the State.

Counsel discuss the assignments of error relative to evidence, but without citation of authority.

PELHAM, J.

The prosecutrix’s friendly relations with the defendant after the commission of the alleged offense (the defendant being charged with a violation of section 6893 of the Code of 1907), when she first complained, whom she told about the occurrence, and why she did not sooner swear out the warrant, are all matters having no tendency to prove or disprove the issues before the court, are therefore irrelevant, and Avere not admissible for any purpose. On cross-examination the prosecutrix was asked: “Are you not mad with defendant because of a mortgage he has on your property?” This Avas a legitimate and proper question on cross-examination to shoAv bias or feeling on the part of the prosecuting Avitness, and the court erred in sustaining the state’s objection to the question. *Sanford v. State’s*143 Ala. 78, 83, 39 South. 370; *Fincher v. State,*58 Ala. 215; *Shepard v. State,*135 Ala. 9, 33 South, 266.

The judgment must be reversed for the error shown.

Beversed and remanded.
#### § 6.2 Definitions.

*Act* means the Public Health Service Act, as amended.

*Attorney General* means the Attorney General of the United States and any other officer or employee of the Department of Justice to whom the authority involved has been delegated.

*Covered entity* means an entity described in § 6.3 which has been deemed by the Secretary, in accordance with § 6.5, to be covered by this part.

*Covered individual* means an individual described in § 6.4.

*Effective date* as used in § 6.5 and § 6.6 refers to the date of the Secretary's determination that an entity is a covered entity.

*Secretary* means the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) and any other officer or employee of the Department of HHS to whom the authority involved has been delegated.

*Subrecipient* means an entity which receives a grant or a contract from a covered entity to provide a full range of health services on behalf of the covered entity.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPublic Schedule...Public Schedule – March 1, 2023

# 									Public Schedule – March 1, 2023							

Public Schedule

Office of the Spokesperson

February 28, 2023

*****THE DAILY PUBLIC SCHEDULE IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE*****

**SECRETARY ANTONY J. BLINKEN**

Secretary Blinken is on travel to Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and India from February 26-March 3, 2023.**9:00 a.m. LOCAL**Secretary Blinken meets with Uzbekistani Acting Foreign Minister Bakhtiyor Saidov in Tashkent, Uzbekistan**(POOLED CAMERA SPRAY AT TOP)**

**10:15 a.m. LOCAL**Secretary Blinken participates in a cultural site engagement at Khast Imam Square in Tashkent, Uzbekistan**(POOLED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**11:00 a.m. LOCAL**Secretary Blinken participates in an English language learning event at Uzbekistan State World Languages University in Tashkent, Uzbekistan.**(POOLED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**12:30 p.m. LOCAL**Secretary Blinken meets with Uzbekistani President Shavkat Mirziyoyev in Tashkent, Uzbekistan.**(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**2:00 p.m. LOCAL**Secretary Blinken holds a meet and greet for employees and families of U.S. Embassy Tashkent in Tashkent, Uzbekistan.**(****CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**3:30 p.m. LOCAL**Secretary Blinken holds a press availability in Tashkent, Uzbekistan.**(OPEN PRESS COVERAGE)**

**DEPUTY SECRETARY WENDY R. SHERMAN**

Deputy Secretary Sherman has no public appointments.

**ACTING DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES JOHN R. BASS**

Acting Deputy Secretary Bass attends meetings and briefings at the Department of State.

**UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS VICTORIA J. NULAND**

Under Secretary Nuland attends meetings and briefings at the Department of State.

**UNDER SECRETARY FOR CIVILIAN SECURITY, DEMOCRACY, AND HUMAN RIGHTS UZRA ZEYA**

Under Secretary Zeya is on travel to Jordan and Oman from February 25-March 2, 2023.

**ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ARMS CONTROL, VERIFICATION, AND COMPLIANCE MALLORY STEWART**

Assistant Secretary Stewart is on travel to Belgium, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland from February 28-March 3, 2023.

**BRIEFING SCHEDULE**

**2:00 p.m.** Department Press Briefing with Spokesperson Ned Price.**(OPEN PRESS COVERAGE)**

*The Department Press Briefing will be livestreamed on**www.state.gov**and**www.youtube.com/statedept**.*

Tags

Office of the SpokespersonSecretary TripThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                  SECTION 906,
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
Subsidiaries (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Arthur Higgins, Chairman, President and Chief Executive 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 to the best of my knowledge:

      (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/ Arthur J. Higgins
                                             --------------------------------
                                             Arthur J. Higgins
                                             Chief Executive Officer
                                             (Principal Executive Officer)

      May 10, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been
provided to Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                       28
HomePublic-Private Partnerships...Go Further: Partnership to End AIDS and Cervical Cancer

# Go Further: Partnership to End AIDS and Cervical Cancer

Launched in May 2018, Go Further is an innovative public-private partnership between the PEPFAR, the George W. Bush Institute, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, Merck, and Roche aiming to end AIDS and cervical cancer in Sub-Saharan Africa within a generation.

Go Further is committed to creating a healthier future for women. The partnership aims to reduce new cervical cancer cases by 95 percent among the estimated 11 million women living with HIV who reside in the partnership’s 12 African countries, which have some of the highest rates of HIV prevalence and cervical cancer incidence in the world. Women who are HIV-positive are up to six times more likely to develop invasive cervical cancer.

Go Further invests in partner countries to integrate and scale-up cervical cancer screening and treatment services within existing platforms for HIV treatment and women’s health. The success of this program is made possible by the thousands of mothers, sisters, and daughters who bravely confront HIV and cervical cancer diagnoses every day.

As of 2023, the Go Further partnership has supported over 7.4 million cervical cancer screenings for women living with HIV, including 82% for whom it was a first-time screening, and treated 285,000 women for pre-invasive cancerous lesions.

These results [597 KB] are critical, as an estimated 110,000 women are diagnosed annually with cervical cancer in Sub-Saharan Africa. Without treatment, 66 percent of these women would be expected to die from the disease.

To address these risks, Go Further is increasing access to the human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV) to prevent cervical cancer, expanding the availability of vital cervical cancer screening, and providing treatment for women most vulnerable to developing cervical cancer. With minimal additional investment, these low-cost interventions can save millions of lives and help secure global gains against HIV/AIDS.

Back to Top
DAVID RUSSELL POSEY,

Petitioner,

v.

KAREN ROBERTS, CHIEF 

CLERK & JON S. WHEELER, as 

Clerk of Court, First District Court 

of Appeal,

Respondents.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D17-1554

Opinion filed July 6, 2017.

Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto -- Original Jurisdiction.

David Russell Posey, pro se, Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of quo warranto is denied on the merits. Petitioner is 

warned that the filing of any other pleadings deemed by the court to be meritless may 
result in sanctions, including but not limited to a prohibition on pro se filings and a 

referral to the Department of Corrections for disciplinary action under section 944.279, 

Florida Statutes. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999).

B.L. THOMAS, C.J. and LEWIS and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR.
Editorial Note on Part 84
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 84 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 84.170 Air-purifying particulate respirators; description. ( a ) *Non-powered air-purifying particulate respirators (series N, R, and P).* ( 1 ) Non-powered air-purifying particulate respirators utilize the wearer's negative inhalation pressure to draw the ambient air through the air-purifying filter elements (filters) to remove particulates from the ambient air. They are designed for use as respiratory protection against atmospheres with particulate contaminants at concentrations that are not immediately dangerous to life or health and that contain adequate oxygen to support life.
( 2 ) Non-powered air-purifying particulate respirators are classified into three series, N-, R-, and P-series. The N-series filters are restricted to use in those workplaces free of oil aerosols. The R- and P-series filters are intended for removal of any particulate that includes oil-based liquid particulates.
( 3 ) Non-powered air-purifying particulate respirators are classified according to the efficiency level of the filter(s) as tested according to the requirements of this part. ( i ) N100, R100, and P100 filters must demonstrate a minimum efficiency level of 99.97 percent.
( ii ) N99, R99, and P99 filters must demonstrate a minimum efficiency level of 99 percent.
( iii ) N95, R95, and P95 filters must demonstrate a minimum efficiency level of 95 percent.
( b ) *Powered air-purifying particulate respirators (PAPR classes HE and PAPR100).* ( 1 ) Powered air-purifying particulate respirators utilize a blower to move the ambient air through the air-purifying filter elements (filters) to remove particulate contaminants and deliver clean air to the respiratory inlet covering. They are designed for use as respiratory protection against atmospheres considered not immediately dangerous to life or health and that contain adequate oxygen to support life.
( 2 ) Powered air-purifying particulate respirators are classified into two classes, HE and PAPR100, and three series, HE, PAPR100-N, and PAPR100-P. The N-series filters are restricted to use in those workplaces free of oil aerosols. The P-series filters are intended for removal of any particulate that includes oil-based liquid particulates.
( 3 ) All three filter series, HE, PAPR100-N, and PAPR100-P, for powered air-purifying particulate respirators must demonstrate a minimum efficiency level of 99.97 percent.
§ 455.400 Purpose. This subpart implements sections 1866(j), 1902(a)(39), 1902(a)(77), and 1902(a)(78) of the Act. It sets forth State plan requirements regarding the following: ( a ) Provider screening and enrollment requirements.
( b ) Fees associated with provider screening.
( c ) Temporary moratoria on enrollment of providers.
4/29/2015

U. S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Amendment to Vision Pictures, LLC Petition for Exemption in Regulatory Docket No. FAA2015-0423

Dear Sir or Madam:

Vision Pictures, LLC submitted a Petition for Exemption Regulatory Docket No. FAA- 2015-

0423 for the purpose of conducting scripted, closed-set filming for the motion picture and television 

industry. Vision Pictures LLC hereby requests an amendment to the Petition for Exemption to allow for 

one (1) additional type of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) that fully comply with the conditions of 

the Petition for Exemption. 

Vision Pictures wishes to operate the FX8 Elite Pro under the same terms and conditions 

contained in the Petition for Exemption. Attached hereto, and submitted as highly proprietary and 

confidential documents, are the Flight Operations and Procedures Manuals (FOPM) for the one (1)

additional UAS. All operations of the additional UAS will be in full compliance with the terms of the 

Petition for Exemption. 

As this is an amendment to an existing Petition for Exemption asking for only the addition of 

another type of unmanned aerial vehicle, Vision Pictures respectfully submits that good cause 

exists so that notice does not need to be published in the Federal Register for the requested 

amendment. 

Please contact the undersigned should you have any questions concerning this request for an 

amendment to the Exemption.

Sincerely yours,

Joel S Petersen

Vision Pictures LLC

6844 Cahuenga Park Trail

Los Angeles Ca 90068

(323) 484-4022

cc:

Jonathan B. Rupprecht, Esq.

 joel petersen