alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [FRL-8766-9]

# AGENCY:

 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

# ACTION:

Notice, request for public comments.

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act  (“CERCLA”), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a proposed Administrative Agreement for Recovery of Past Response Costs  (“Agreement,” Region 9 Docket No. 9-2009-04) pursuant to Section 122(h) of CERCLA concerning the Atlas Iron and Metal Site (the “Site”), located in Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California. The settling parties are S&W Atlas Iron and Metal Co., Inc., and 10019 S. Alameda LLC (“Respondents”). Through the proposed Agreement, the Respondents will reimburse the United States $74,000 for response costs incurred at the Site. The Agreement provides Respondents with a covenant not to sue for response costs at the Site, and contribution protection. For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this Notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the proposed Agreement. The Agency's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at EPA's Region IX offices, located at 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105.

# DATES:

Comments must be submitted on or before March 6, 2009.

# ADDRESSES:

The proposed Agreement may be obtained from Andrew Helmlinger, in the Office of Regional Counsel, telephone (415) 972-3904. Comments regarding the proposed Agreement should be addressed to Andrew Helmlinger at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (ORC-3), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105, and should reference the Atlas Iron and Metal Site Agreement, and Region IX Docket No. 9-2009-04.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrew Helmlinger, Office of Regional Counsel, (415) 972-3904, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.

Dated: January 6, 2009.

Keith A. Takata, 

Director, Superfund Division.

[FR Doc. E9-2340 Filed 2-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
§ 1070.37 Prohibition on providing expert or opinion testimony. ( a ) Except as provided in this section, and subject to 5 CFR 2635.805, CFPB employees or former employees shall not provide opinion or expert testimony based upon information which they acquired in the scope and performance of their official CFPB duties, except on behalf of the CFPB or the United States or a party represented by the CFPB, or the Department of Justice, as appropriate.
( b ) Any expert or opinion testimony by a former employee of the CFPB shall be excepted from paragraph (a) of this section where the testimony involves only general expertise gained while employed at the CFPB.
( c ) Upon a showing by the requester of exceptional need or unique circumstances and that the anticipated testimony will not be adverse to the interests of the United States, the General Counsel may, consistent with 5 CFR 2635.805, exercise his or her discretion to grant special, written authorization for CFPB employees, or former employees, to appear and testify as expert witnesses at no expense to the United States.
( d ) If, despite the final determination of the General Counsel, a court of competent jurisdiction or other appropriate authority orders the appearance and expert or opinion testimony of a current or former CFPB employee, that person shall immediately inform the General Counsel of such order. If the General Counsel determines that no further legal review of or challenge to the court's order will be made, the CFPB employee, or former employee, shall comply with the order. If so directed by the General Counsel, however, the employee, or former employee, shall decline to testify.
42213.

#### FRANKLIN v. THE STATE.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

1. Where in investigating the cause of an automobile collision in which a death has resulted, evidence obtained from an examination of the death weapon, the automobile, by police officers at the scene of the collision without a search warrant is not inadmissible as having been obtained in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights under the decisions exemplified by Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (81 SC 1684, 6 LE2d 1081), *Raif v. State,*109 Ga. App. 354 (136 SE2d 169), and similar cases, as contended by the defendant.

2. Where the sole admission by the defendant is no more than an incriminating admission not amounting to a confession, *305it is not error to refuse to charge on confessions. See *Pressley v. State,*201 Ga. 267, 270 (39 SE2d 478), and citations^

Submitted September 12, 1966

Decided September 20, 1966.

*Sanders, Mottola & Haugen, Willis G. Haugen,*for appellant.

*Wright Lipford, Solicitor General,*for appellee.

3. The requirement that a prima facie showing as to voluntariness be made before an incriminating admission is admissible in evidence (see *Bryant v. State,*191 Ga. 686 (1), 13 SE2d 820), is met where the evidence discloses that such admission is made before arrest in a public building not under the control of the police to whom such admission is made.

4. Under the decision in *Sims v. State,*221 Ga. 190 (144 SE2d 103), the trial court did not err in overruling the defendant’s, motion for a separate hearing on the question of the voluntariness of the incriminating admission that she had had “one drink,” nor was the defendant denied any constitutional right to counsel under the decision in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478 (84 SC 1758, 12 LE2d 977), where no arrest had taken place at the time the defendant made the alleged incriminating admission and under all the evidence in -the case the defendant was not under custodial interrogation and persons (nurses and doctors) only concerned with the defendant’s physical welfare and well-being were present in the room during the period when such admission was made. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (86 SC 1602, 16 LE2d 694).

5. The fourth enumeration of error complains of the following excerpt from the court’s charge: “The burden rests upon the State to prove all of the material allegations in the indictment to your satisfaction, beyond a reasonable doubt, and, if the State does this, then you would be authorized to find the defendant guilty of the offense charged.” Under the decision of the Supreme Court in *Salisbury v. State,*221 Ga. 718 (2) (146 SE2d 776), such charge limited the jury to a consideration of the State’s evidence only and requires that a new trial be granted.

*Case remanded for new• trial.*

*Hall and Deen, JJ., concur.*
41831. 41832.

#### ANDERSON v. WILSON. BROWN v. WILSON.

Argued February 7, 1966

Decided July 1, 1966.

*20*Jones ■& Kemp, Charles M. Jones, Bennett, Pedrick & Bennett, E. Iiontz Bennett,*for appellants.

*Benjamin Smith, Jr.,*for appellee.

Felton, Chief Judge.

In an action founded upon negligence, mere general averments of negligence are sufficient as against a general demurrer. *Hudgins v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.,*122 Ga. 695 (1) (50 SE 974); *Close v. Rape,*109 Ga. App. 230 (136 SE2d *2116) and cit. “It is well-settled law that questions of negligence, diligence, contributory negligence, proximate cause, and the exercise of ordinary care for one’s protection, ordinarily are to be decided by a jury, and a court should not decide them on demurrer, except in plain and indisputable cases.” *De Golian v. Faulkner,*74 Ga. App. 866, 869 (41 SE2d 661) and cit. Accepting the allegations of the petitions as true, they do not demand an inference of contributory negligence on the part of either plaintiff. In the absence of special demurrers calling for the more particular and detailed allegations which the defendant contends in his brief are essential, the general allegations of the defendant’s negligence are sufficient as against the general demurrers; therefore, the court erred in its judgments sustaining the general demurrers to the petitions in both cases.

*Judgments reversed.*

*Frankum, J., concurs. Pannell, J., concurs specially.*

Pannell, Judge,

concurring specially. The part of the specifications of negligence in the two petitions alleges that certain acts were negligence per se because of the violation of the following: *Code*§§ 68-1626(b)2, 68-1626(a), and 68-1626(c). There are no such Georgia Code sections, nor are there any such sections of Georgia Law as *Code Ann.*§§ 68-1626(b)2, 68-1626(a), and 68-1626 (c). *Mallard v. State,*220 Ga. 31 (136 SE2d 755); *Morgan v. Todd,*214 Ga. 497 (106 SE2d 37); *Bowen v. State,*215 Ga. 471 (111 SE2d 44); *Underwood v. Atlanta & W. P. R Co.,*217 Ga. 226 (122 SE2d 100). However, since the facts constituting the alleged violation of law are set forth in the allegations of negligence and the decision here being on general demurrer, the allegations are sufficient.
§ 53.31 Annual report. ( a ) A State receiving payment under this part shall provide to VA a report setting forth in detail the use of the funds, including a descriptive analysis of how effective the employee incentive program has been in improving nurse staffing in the SVH. The report shall be provided to VA within 60 days of the close of the Federal fiscal year (September 30) in which payment was made and shall be subject to audit by VA.
( b ) A State receiving payment under this part shall also prepare audit reports as required by the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards under 2 CFR part 200 and submit them to VA.
(The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information collection provisions in this section under control number 2900-0709) (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101, 501, 1744)
[73 FR 73560, Dec. 3, 2008, as amended at 80 FR 43322, July 22, 2015]
PCRX - 3.31.15 - EX 10.5






Exhibit 10.5
AMENDMENT #5 TO SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Amendment #5 to Services Agreement (this “Amendment”), is entered into as of March 17, 2015, by and between Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (the “Company”), MPM Asset Management LLC (“MPM”) and Gary Patou (“Consultant”).
This Amendment #5 amends the Services Agreement dated October 28, 2010 by and among the Company, MPM and Consultant, as amended on December 8, 2011, November 29, 2012, September 11, 2013 and November 17, 2014 (the “Original Agreement”).  If there is any conflict between the provisions of this Amendment and those in the Original Agreement, the provisions of this Amendment govern.  Except as expressly stated in this Amendment, capitalized terms used and not defined herein have the same meanings defined in the Original Agreement.  Except as expressly amended herein, all other terms and provision of the Original Agreement remain in full force and effect.
RECITALS
Consultant currently devotes approximately 50% of his business time to the Company for a monthly service fee of $15,880.40 through December 31, 2015.  Due to the fact that 50% of the consultant’s business time currently costs MPM $20,904 per month, the Company agrees to a monthly service fee of $20,904 per month from April 1, 2015 through the remainder of this Agreement. 
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the representations, warranties and agreements contained in this Agreement and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:
		
	1.
	Section 4(a) is hereby amended to add that the amount of Monthly Services Fee as of April 1, 2015 is $20,904.






[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]















IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.




PACIRA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
By: /s/ David Stack    
Dave Stack
President, CEO and Chairman






MPM ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC
By: /s/ Luke Evnin    
Luke Evnin
Managing Director
    




CONSULTANT




/s/ Dr. Gary Patou        
Dr. Gary Patou
§ 1081.402 Notice of appeal; review by the Director. ( a ) *Notice of appeal* — ( 1 ) *Filing.* Any party may file exceptions to the preliminary findings and conclusions of the hearing officer by filing a notice of appeal with the Office of Administrative Adjudication within 14 days after service of the preliminary findings and conclusions. The notice must specify the party or parties against whom the appeal is taken and must designate the preliminary findings and conclusions or part thereof appealed from. If a timely notice of appeal is filed by a party, any other party may thereafter file a notice of appeal within seven days after service of the first notice, or within 14 days after service of the preliminary findings and conclusions, whichever period expires last.
( 2 ) *Perfecting a notice of appeal.* Any party filing a notice of appeal must perfect its appeal by filing its opening appeal brief within 28 days of service of the preliminary findings and conclusions. Any party may respond to the opening appeal brief by filing an answering brief within 28 days of service of the opening brief. Any party may file a reply to an answering brief within seven days of service of the answering brief. These briefs must conform to the requirements of § 1081.403.
( b ) *Director review other than pursuant to an appeal.* In the event no party perfects an appeal of the hearing officer's preliminary findings and conclusions, the Director will, within 42 days after the date of service of the preliminary findings and conclusions, either issue a final decision and order adopting the preliminary findings and conclusions, or order further briefing regarding any portion of the preliminary findings and conclusions. The Director's order for further briefing must set forth the scope of review and the issues that will be considered and will make provision for the filing of briefs in accordance with the timelines set forth in paragraph (a)(2) of this section (except that that opening briefs will be due within 28 days of service of the order of review) if deemed appropriate by the Director.
( c ) *Exhaustion of administrative remedies.* Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 704, a perfected appeal to the Director of preliminary findings and conclusions pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section is a prerequisite to the seeking of judicial review of a final decision and order, or portion of the final decision and order, adopting the preliminary findings and conclusions.
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 Quarterly  Report of Research
Frontiers Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph
M. Harary, President, Treasurer and Principal Accounting 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), as applicable, 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/ Joseph M. Harary
    Joseph M. Harary
    President, Treasurer and Principal Accounting Officer
    May 9, 2005
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2021 Fiscal Transparency Report…Bahamas

# 					2021 Fiscal Transparency Report: Bahamas			

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: The Bahamas 

## Government-by-Government Assessments: The Bahamas

During the review period, the government made its executive budget proposal, enacted budget, and end-of-year report widely and easily accessible to the general public, including online.  Information on debt obligations was publicly available.  Budget documents provided a substantially complete picture of the government’s planned expenditures and revenue streams.  Information in budget documents was generally considered reliable.  However, the supreme audit institution, which meets international standards of independence, did not publish an audit report of the government’s executed budget within a reasonable period of time.  The criteria and procedures by which the national government awards contracts or licenses for natural resource extraction were outlined in law and appeared to be followed in practice.  Basic information on natural resource extraction awards was public. The Bahamas’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

- ensuring the supreme audit institution audits the government’s executed budget; and

- making audit reports publicly available within a reasonable period of time.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: The Bahamas 

Tags

Bureau of Economic and Business AffairsDivision for International Finance and DevelopmentThe Bahamas

Back to Top

                - White House
                - USA.gov
                - Office of the Inspector General
                - Archives
                - Contact Us

follow us
FacebookXInstagramYouTubeFlickrGovDelivery

              - Privacy Policy
              - Accessibility Statement
              - Copyright Information
              - FOIA
              - No FEAR Act

## U.S. Department *of* State

#### The Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future
Exhibit 32.2

             CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE, ACCOUNTING AND
             FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Beeper Plus, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I Robert Muniz,
Secretary/Treasurer of the Company, hereby 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/Robert Muniz
------------------
Robert Muniz
Secretary/Treasurer/Director
September 11, 2003
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Office of the Secretary

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society, October 8, 2009, 8 a.m. to October 9, 2009, 3:30 p.m., Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC 20201 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on August 17, 2009, 74FR41436.                

                    This notice is being amended to change the meeting location to the Park                           ( print page 49388)                        Hyatt Hotel, 1201 24th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037. The meeting is open to the public.                

Dated: September 23, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-23341 Filed 9-25-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### Charles Marggraf, Respondent, *v.*Julia McLean, as Executrix, etc., of William Snell, Deceased, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff.

Andrew F. Murray, for appellant.

Ashley, Emley & Rubino (Henry A. Rubino & Jay Noble Emley, of counsel), for respondent.

*821Eitzsimocts, Ck. J.

The plaintiff was bound to prove that the testator engaged him to perform the services sued for, or that they were performed with his knowledge or consent. 6 App. Div. 535. No attempt was made to offer such testimony. The defendant’s testator was, so far as the evidence in this case shows, apparently entirely ignorant of the fact that the said services were rendered, or material furnished. Therefore, plaintiff has. no legal right to ask compensation therefor. The verdict is,, therefore, against the law and the evidence and must be reversed.

It is so directed and a new trial is ordered, with costs to appellant,

Sohtjohmah, J., concurs.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant.
§ 48.640 Employee. ( a ) *Employee* means the employee of a recipient directly engaged in the performance of work under the award, including— ( 1 ) All direct charge employees;
( 2 ) All indirect charge employees, unless their impact or involvement in the performance of work under the award is insignificant to the performance of the award; and
( 3 ) Temporary personnel and consultants who are directly engaged in the performance of work under the award and who are on the recipient's payroll.
( b ) This definition does not include workers not on the payroll of the recipient (e.g., volunteers, even if used to meet a matching requirement; consultants or independent contractors not on the payroll; or employees of subrecipients or subcontractors in covered workplaces).