alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPublic Schedule...Public Schedule – January 19, 2022

# 									Public Schedule – January 19, 2022							

Public Schedule

Office of the Spokesperson

January 18, 2022

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

**SECRETARY ANTONY J. BLINKEN**

Secretary Blinken is on travel to Kyiv, Berlin, and Geneva from January 18-21, 2022.  Please click here for more information.

**10:45 a.m. LOCAL** Secretary Blinken holds a meet and greet with U.S. Embassy Kyiv in Kyiv, Ukraine.**(POOLED PRESS COVERAGE FOR OPENING REMARKS)**

**12:30 p.m. LOCAL** Secretary Blinken meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Kyiv, Ukraine.**(POOLED CAMERA SPRAY AT TOP)**

**2:00 p.m. LOCAL** Secretary Blinken meets with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba in Kyiv, Ukraine.**(POOLED CAMERA SPRAY AT TOP)**

**3:30 p.m. LOCAL** Secretary Blinken holds a joint press availability with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba in Kyiv, Ukraine.**(POOLED PRESS COVERAGE)**

*The joint press availability will be livestreamed on**www.state.gov**and**www.YouTube.com/statedept**.*

**DEPUTY SECRETARY WENDY R. SHERMAN**

Deputy Secretary Sherman attends meetings and briefings from the Department of State.

**DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES BRIAN P. MCKEON**

Deputy Secretary McKeon attends meetings and briefings from the Department of State.

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

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

**BRIEFING SCHEDULE**

No Department Press Briefing

Tags

Office of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
Index of /Travel

```

```
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            OSI PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (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, Colin
Goddard, Ph.D., Chief Executive 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:

(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.

Date: May 14, 2004                           /s/ Colin Goddard, Ph.D.
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Colin Goddard, Ph.D.
                                             Chief Executive Officer

                                       38
#### William F. Barclay, respondent, *v.*Charles Roome Parmele Company, appellant.

[Argued June 26th, 1906.

Decided January 2d, 1907.]

On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery, advised by Vice-Chancellor Emery, whose opinion is reported in *70 N. J. Fq. (J/. Robb.) @18.*

iliessrs. *Guild, hum & Tamblyn*and *Mr. Arthur A. Mickell*(of the New York bar), for the appellant.

*Messrs. Goult, Howell & Sm,iih*and *Mr. Henry W. Goodrich,*for the respondent.

Per Curiam:.

The decree of the court of chancery is affirmed, for the reasons given by Vice-Chancellor Emery in the court below.

*For*affirmance—Garrison, Fort, Garretson, Hendrickson, Pitney, Swayze, Eeed, Trenohard, Bogert, Vredenburgh, Vroom, Green, Gray, Dill—14.

*For*reversal—None.
Editorial Note on Part 84
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 84 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 84.198 Half-mask facepieces, full facepieces, mouthpieces, hoods, and helmets; fit; minimum requirements. ( a ) Half-mask facepieces and full facepieces shall be designed and constructed to fit persons with various facial shapes and sizes either: ( 1 ) By providing more than one facepiece size; or
( 2 ) By providing one facepiece size which will fit varying facial shapes and sizes.
( b ) Hoods and helmets shall be designed and constructed to fit persons with various head sizes, provide for the optional use of corrective spectacles or lenses, and insure against any restriction of movement by the wearer.
( c ) Mouthpieces shall be equipped with noseclips which are securely attached to the mouthpiece or respirator and provide an airtight fit.
( d ) Full facepieces shall provide for optional use of corrective spectacles or lenses which shall not reduce the respiratory protective qualities of the respirator.
( e ) Facepieces, hoods, and helmets shall be designed to prevent eyepiece fogging.
§ 222.17 Withdrawal of claims; dismissal. ( a ) *General.* A party may request to withdraw its own claim or counterclaim by filing a written request with the Board seeking withdrawal, and therefore dismissal. Such written request shall consist of a brief statement seeking dismissal and shall follow the procedures set forth in § 220.5(a)(1) of this subchapter.
( b ) *Withdrawal before a response.* If the written request is received before a response to the claim or counterclaim is filed with the Board, the Board shall dismiss the claim or counterclaim without prejudice, unless all parties agree in a written stipulation filed with the Board that the claim or counterclaim shall be dismissed with prejudice.
( c ) *Withdrawal after a response.* If the written request is received after a response to the claim or counterclaim is filed with the Board, the Board shall issue a *final determination* dismissing the claim or counterclaim with prejudice, unless the Board determines in the interests of justice that such dismissal shall be without prejudice or all parties agree in a written stipulation filed with the Board that the claim or counterclaim shall be dismissed without prejudice.
( d ) *Effect of dismissal.* Dismissal of a claim or counterclaim under this section will not affect any remaining claims or counterclaims in the proceeding.
[87 FR 30077, May 17, 2022; 87 FR 36060, June 15, 2022]
§ 102.4 Requirements for making requests. ( a ) A request for USPTO records that are not customarily made available to the public as part of USPTO's regular informational services must be in writing, and shall be processed under FOIA, regardless of whether FOIA is mentioned in the request. Requests should be sent to the USPTO FOIA Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 (records FOIA requires to be made regularly available for public inspection and copying are addressed in § 102.2(c)). For the quickest handling, the request letter and envelope should be marked “Freedom of Information Act Request.” For requests for records about oneself, § 102.24 contains additional requirements. For requests for records about another individual, either a written authorization signed by that individual permitting disclosure of those records to the requester or proof that individual is deceased (for example, a copy of a death certificate or an obituary) facilitates processing the request.
( b ) The records requested must be described in enough detail to enable USPTO personnel to locate them with a reasonable amount of effort. Whenever possible, a request should include specific information about each record sought, such as the date, title or name, author, recipient, and subject matter of the record, and the name and location of the office where the record is located. Also, if records about a court case are sought, the title of the case, the court in which the case was filed, and the nature of the case should be included. If known, any file designations or descriptions for the requested records should be included. In general, the more specifically the request describes the records sought, the greater the likelihood that USPTO will locate those records. If the FOIA Officer determines that a request does not reasonably describe records, the FOIA Officer will inform the requester what additional information is needed or why the request is otherwise insufficient. The FOIA Officer also may give the requester an opportunity to discuss the request so that it may be modified to meet the requirements of this section.
[65 FR 52917, Aug. 31, 2000, as amended at 68 FR 14338, Mar. 25, 2003]
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Clarence BRENTLY v. Hayden DEES, Warden/Dixon Correctional Institution and C. Paul Phelps, Secretary/Louisiana Department of Corrections.

No. 65253/65315.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 14, 1980.

In re Clarence Brently, applying for writ of certiorari. Parish of East Baton Rouge. No. 222-740.

Granted.
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3568

To designate 51.7 miles of the Clarion River, located in Pennsylvania, as

a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 4, 1996

Mr. CLINGER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Resources

A BILL

To designate 51.7 miles of the Clarion River, located in

Pennsylvania, as a component of the National Wild and

Scenic Rivers System.

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

3 That section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16

4 U.S.C. 1274(a)) is amended by adding at the end the fol5 lowing new paragraph:

6 ‘‘( ) CLARION RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA.—The

7 51.7-mile segment of the main stem of the Clarion

8 River from the Allegheny National Forest/State

9 Game Lands Number 44 boundary, located approxi10 mately 0.7 miles downstream from the Ridgway Bor-
2

•HR 3568 IH

1 ough limit, to an unnamed tributary in the back2 waters of Piney Dam approximately 0.6 miles down3 stream from Blyson Run, to be administered by the

4 Secretary of Agriculture in the following classifica5 tions:

6 ‘‘(A) The approximately 8.6-mile segment

7 of the main stem from the Allegheny National

8 Forest/State Game Lands Number 44 bound9 ary, located approximately 0.7 miles down10 stream from the Ridgway Borough limit, to

11 Portland Mills, as a recreational river.

12 ‘‘(B) The approximately 8-mile segment of

13 the main stem from Portland Mills to the Alle14 gheny National Forest boundary, located ap15 proximately 0.8 miles downstream from Irwin

16 Run, as a scenic river.

17 ‘‘(C) The approximately 26-mile segment

18 of the main stem from the Allegheny National

19 Forest boundary, located approximately 0.8

20 miles downstream from Irwin Run, to the State

21 Game Lands 283 boundary, located approxi22 mately 0.9 miles downstream from the

23 Cooksburg bridge, as a recreational river.

24 ‘‘(D) The approximately 9.1-mile segment

25 of the main stem from the State Game Lands
3

•HR 3568 IH

1 283 boundary, located approximately 0.9 miles

2 downstream from the Cooksburg bridge, to an

3 unnamed tributary at the backwaters of Piney

4 Dam, located approximately 0.6 miles down5 stream from Blyson Run, as a scenic river.’’.

Æ
§ 52h.11 What are the review criteria for contract projects and proposals? ( a ) In carrying out its review of a project concept under § 52h.10(a) or § 52h.10(b), the peer review group shall take into account, among other pertinent factors: ( 1 ) The significance from a scientific or technical standpoint of the goals of the proposed research or development activity;
( 2 ) The availability of the technology and other resources necessary to achieve those goals;
( 3 ) The extent to which there are identified, practical uses for the anticipated results of the activity; and
( 4 ) Where the review includes the project approach, the adequacy of the methodology to be utilized in carrying out the activity.
( b ) In carrying out its review of unsolicited contract proposals under § 52h.9, the peer review group shall take into account, among other pertinent factors, the criteria in § 52h.8 which are relevant to the particular proposals.
( c ) In carrying out its review of solicited proposals under § 52h.10(a) or (b), the peer review group shall evaluate each proposal in accordance with the criteria set forth in the request for proposals.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2043 

To provide for a Medicaid demonstration project for chronic disease 

management. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 25, 2007 

Mr. SMITH of Washington (for himself and Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce 

A BILL 

To provide for a Medicaid demonstration project for chronic 

disease management. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medicaid Access 

5 Project through Information Technology (MAP IT) Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MEDICAID CHRONIC DISEASE DEMONSTRATION 

7 PROJECT. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Health and 

9 Human Services (in this section referred to as the ‘‘Sec10 retary’’) shall establish a 2-year project (in this section 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HR 2043 IH

1 referred to as the ‘‘demonstration project’’) to dem2 onstrate the impact of health information technology on 

3 disease management under the Medicaid program under 

4 title XIX of the Social Security Act. 

5 (b) STRUCTURE OF PROJECT.—The demonstration 

6 project shall— 

7 (1) create a web-based virtual case management 

8 tool that provides access to best practices for man9 aging chronic disease; and 

10 (2) provide chronic disease patients and care11 givers access to their own medical records and to a 

12 single source of information on chronic disease. 

13 (c) COMPETITION.—Not later than 90 days after the 

14 date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall seek 

15 proposals from States to carry out the demonstration 

16 project. The Secretary shall select not less than four pro17 posals from those submitted by the States, and at least 

18 one proposal selected shall include a regional approach 

19 featuring access to an integrated hospital information sys20 tem in at least two adjoining States that permits the 

21 measurement of outcomes. 

22 (d) EVALUATION.—The Secretary shall provide for 

23 an evaluation of the demonstration project and a deter24 mination of the amount of cost-savings resulting from the 

25 project. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

3 

•HR 2043 IH

1 (e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

2 are authorized to be appropriated $15,000,000 to carry 

3 out the demonstration project under this section. Funds 

4 appropriated under this subsection shall remain available 

5 until expended without fiscal year limitation. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
Exhibit 10(o)(vi)

                                             Approved by Board February 27, 2009
                                                 Subject to Stockholder Approval

Excerpt from Corporate Governance Guidelines describing director compensation

Directors who are not employees of the Company are compensated for their
services by fees in cash and stock. All directors are reimbursed for expenses
incurred in connection with such services. In addition, the Company provides
travel and liability insurance to all directors.

Currently, directors' fees are as follows:

Annual Retainer:

Directors receive a $95,000 annual retainer. $50,000 of the annual retainer is
received in shares of Class A Common Stock of the Company pursuant to the
Directors' Annual Retainer Plan approved by the Board in February 2009. The Plan
is subject to stockholder approval. The Company expects to seek stockholder
approval at the 2009 Annual Meeting.

Share Ownership Guidelines:

The Board has adopted share ownership guidelines for the Chief Executive Officer
and the Board. Under these guidelines, directors are generally expected to
retain ownership of shares of Common Stock awarded or acquired until an
ownership equal to three (3) times the annual cash and stock retainer is
attained. A director who has attained this level may elect to receive in cash
all or a portion of a retainer payment otherwise payable in shares of Common
Stock.

Meeting Fees:

In lieu of meeting fees, each director who is not a member of the Audit
Committee receives an additional annual retainer of $25,000, all of which is
payable in shares of Class A common stock. In lieu of meeting fees, each
director who is a member of the Audit Committee also receives an additional
annual retainer of $25,000, all of which is payable in shares of Class A common
stock, plus an additional annual cash retainer of $5,000. The share portion of
this additional retainer is issued pursuant to the Directors' Annual Retainer
Plan.

Directors receive cash fees of $1,500 for each special meeting of the Board and
$1,000 for each special meeting of a committee that they attend in person or by
telephone. Directors receive $750 for their participation in each special
meeting of the Board or a committee that is designated as a telephone meeting.
The special meeting fees received by a director for any one day may not exceed
$2,500.

Other Fees:

The Chairman of each standing committee, other than the Audit Committee,
receives an annual fee of $5,000 for such service. The Chairman of the Audit
Committee receives an annual fee of $10,000 for such service. The Chairman of
the Board receives an annual fee of $50,000 for such service. The Vice Chairman
of the Board receives an annual fee of 25,000 for such service. Directors
receive $1,500 for each day that they are engaged in Company business (other
than attendance at Board or committee meetings) at the request of the Chairman
of the Board or the Chief Executive Officer.
- Office Home
- About Us
- Key Topics
- Foreign Affairs Policy Board
- Remarks and Releases

HomePolicy Planning Staff...Remarks and Releases – Policy Planning Staff

# 						Remarks and Releases – Policy Planning Staff					

5 items
Clear All Filters

## View collection by:

Select a Year202320222021

Select a MonthJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember

Select a Bureau/OfficePolicy Planning Staff

          -    		Foreign Affairs Policy Board	   
          -    		Holly C.  Holzer	  July 12, 2022 
          -    		Matan Chorev	  January 20, 2021 
          -    		Salman Ahmed	  January 20, 2021 
          -    		Policy Planning Staff	  January 20, 2021 

Back to Top
###### Editorial Note on Part 84

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 84 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

#### § 84.87 Compressed gas filters; minimum requirements.

All self-contained breathing apparatus using compressed gas shall have a filter downstream of the gas source to effectively remove particles from the gas stream.
HomeCyber Issues...Cyber Issues

# Cyber Issues

92 items

        -    FPC Briefing  		Update on the International Counter-Ransomware Initiative	  October 15, 2021Friday, October 15, 2021 at 12:00 p.m. EDTWashington D.C. 
        -    Joint Statement  		Co-Chairs’ Statement on the Second ASEAN-U.S. Cyber Policy Dialogue	  October 13, 2021Virtual 
        -    Press Statement  		Responding to the PRC’s Destabilizing and Irresponsible Behavior in Cyberspace	  Antony J. BlinkenJuly 19, 2021 
        -    Media Note  		Rewards for Justice – Reward Offer for Information on Foreign Malicious Cyber Activity Against U.S. Critical Infrastructure	  July 15, 2021 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken at the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence’s (NSCAI) Global Emerging Technology Summit	  Antony J. BlinkenJuly 13, 2021Mayflower HotelWashington, DC 
        -    Press Statement  		Holding Russia To Account	  Antony J. BlinkenApril 15, 2021 
        -    Media Note  		The United States and Japan Expand Indo-Pacific Cooperation	  March 16, 2021 
        -    Remarks  		Security through Cooperation:  A New Phase of U.S.-EU Cyber Collaboration	  Michele G. MarkoffFebruary 24, 2021Romanian American Chamber of Commerce Event With the Atlantic CouncilWashington, DC 
        -    		State Magazine: Office of the Coordinator for Cyber Issues	  February 10, 2021 
        -    Other Release  		Joint Statement on Advancing Responsible State Behavior in Cyberspace	  September 23, 2019 

previous page1…78910next page

Back to Top
49

 
audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):          a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and          b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 7, 2009              /s/ Colin Goddard, Ph.D.   Colin Goddard, Ph.D.   Chief Executive Officer  
50
41405.

#### LANKFORD v. THE STATE.

Submitted July 7, 1965

Decided September 8, 1965.

*205
      *Vane G. Hawkins,*for plaintiff in error.

*Thomas W. Bidgway, Solicitor General,*contra.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

“The quantum of evidence sufficient to justify the trial court in revoking a probationary sentence is less than that necessary to sustain a conviction in the first instance. *Allen v. State,*78 Ga. App. 526 (51 SE2d 571); Price *v. State,*91 Ga. App. 381 (85 SE2d 627). Where, after notice and hearing, the court revokes the probationary feature of the sentence, and there is some evidence which would indicate that there had been a violation thereof, this court will not interfere unless a manifest abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court appears. *Olsen v. State,*21 Ga. App. 795 (95 SE 269).” *Harrington v. State,*97 Ga. App. 315, 319 (103 SE2d 126).

There was evidence adduced that the defendant was waiting on customers in a “track-stop” restaurant located in Oconee County, that she agreed to make a cash pay-off if “free games” were won on a pin ball machine located therein, and that she actually did make a cash pay-off (using funds from the establishment’s cash drawer) when twenty-three games were won. While there was contradictory evidence which would have exonerated the defendant from the charge of violating the terms of her probated sentence, the evidence authorized the finding of the trial court and such judgment will not be disturbed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Eberhardt and Panned, JJ., concur.*