alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 170.215 Application Programming Interface Standards. The Secretary adopts the following standards and associated implementation specifications as the available standards for application programming interfaces (API): ( a ) *API base standard.* The following are applicable for purposes of standards-based APIs. ( 1 ) *Standard.* HL7® Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR®) Release 4.0.1 (incorporated by reference, see § 170.299).
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( b ) *API constraints and profiles.* The following are applicable for purposes of constraining and profiling data standards. ( 1 ) *United States Core Data Implementation Guides* — ( i ) *Implementation specification.* HL7® FHIR® US Core Implementation Guide STU 3.1.1 (incorporated by reference in § 170.299). The adoption of this standard expires on January 1, 2026.
( ii ) *Implementation Specification.* HL7® FHIR® US Core Implementation Guide STU 6.1.0 (incorporated by reference, see § 170.299).
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( c ) *Application access and launch.* The following are applicable for purposes of enabling client applications to access and integrate with data systems. ( 1 ) *Implementation specification.* HL7® SMART Application Launch Framework Implementation Guide Release 1.0.0, including mandatory support for the “SMART Core Capabilities” (incorporated by reference, see § 170.299). The adoption of this standard expires on January 1, 2026.
( 2 ) *Implementation specification.* HL7® SMART App Launch Implementation Guide Release 2.0.0, including mandatory support for the “Capability Sets” of “Patient Access for Standalone Apps” and “Clinician Access for EHR Launch”; all “Capabilities” as defined in “8.1.2 Capabilities,” excepting the “permission-online” capability; “Token Introspection” as defined in “7 Token Introspection” (incorporated by reference, see § 170.299).
( d ) *Bulk export and data transfer standards.* The following are applicable for purposes of enabling access to large volumes of information on a group of individuals. ( 1 ) *Implementation specification.* FHIR® Bulk Data Access (Flat FHIR®) (v1.0.0: STU 1), including mandatory support for the “group-export” “OperationDefinition” (incorporated by reference, see § 170.299).
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( e ) *API authentication, security, and privacy.* The following are applicable for purposes of authorizing and authenticating client applications. ( 1 ) *Standard.* OpenID Connect Core 1.0, incorporating errata set 1 (incorporated by reference, see § 170.299).
( 2 ) [Reserved]
[89 FR 1428, Jan. 9, 2024]
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 225 (Wednesday, November 22, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 67642]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9334]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--AAF Association, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on October 6, 2006, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), AAF Association, Inc. has 
filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General 
and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. 
The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Agile Broadcast, 
London, United Kingdom; and Mediaware International, Inc., Arlington, 
VA have been added as parties to this venture. Also, BAE Systems, San 
Diego, CA; and Seachange International, Maynard, MA have withdrawn as 
parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and AAF Association, Inc. intends to 
file additional written notification disclosing all changes in 
membership.
    On March 28, 2000, AAF Association, Inc. filed its original 
notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of 
Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 
6(b) of the Act on June 29, 2000 (65 FR 40127).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on June 21, 
2006. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on July 12, 2006 (71 FR 39364).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 06-9334 Filed 11-21-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
§ 1168.100 Conditions on use of funds. ( a ) No appropriated funds may be expended by the recipient of a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative ageement to pay any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with any of the following covered Federal actions: the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
( b ) Each person who requests or receives from an agency a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement shall file with that agency a certification, set forth in appendix A, that the person has not made, and will not make, any payment prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) Each person who requests or receives from an agency a Federal contract, grant, loan, or a cooperative agreement shall file with that agency a disclosure form, set forth in appendix B, if such person has made or has agreed to make any payment using nonappropriated funds (to include profits from any covered Federal action), which would be prohibited under paragraph (a) of this section if paid for with appropriated funds.
( d ) Each person who requests or receives from an agency a commitment providing for the United States to insure or guarantee a loan shall file with that agency a statement, set forth in appendix A, whether that person has made or has agreed to make any payment to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with that loan insurance or guarantee.
( e ) Each person who requests or receives from an agency a commitment providing for the United States to insure or guarantee a loan shall file with that agency a disclosure form, set forth in appendix B, if that person has made or has agreed to make any payment to influence or attempt to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with that loan insurance or guarantee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

ROBERTO CARLOS MARQUEZ, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 21-50257 

D.C. No. 3:20-cr-02044-H-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 12, 2022**

Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Roberto Carlos Marquez appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the 87-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for 

importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

JUL 21 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-50257 

Marquez contends that the district court erred by denying his request for a 

minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 because it failed to compare his 

culpability to that of other likely participants in the drug-smuggling operation. We 

review the district court’s interpretation of the Guidelines de novo, its factual 

findings for clear error, and its application of the Guidelines to the facts for abuse 

of discretion. See United States v. Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 

2017) (en banc). 

Marquez’s cursory request for a minor role adjustment before the district 

court failed to present any arguments regarding his relative culpability, and 

throughout the proceedings he provided little and inconsistent information about 

the offense. On this record, we conclude that the district court did not err in 

denying a minor role adjustment because Marquez failed to meet his burden to 

demonstrate that he was “substantially less culpable than the average participant in 

the criminal activity.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(A); see also United States v. 

Diaz, 884 F.3d 911, 914 (9th Cir. 2018) (defendant bears the burden of establishing 

entitlement to minor role adjustment); id. at 916 (relative culpability is determined 

by comparing defendant’s involvement to that of “all likely participants in the 

criminal scheme for whom there is sufficient evidence of their existence and 

participation”). 

AFFIRMED.
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AND

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CHANGE OF CONTROL AGREEMENT

                   
This Amendment No. 1 to Employment Agreement and Amendment No. 1 to Change of
Control Agreement is made as of the 31st day of October, 2000, by and between
Stewart Enterprises, Inc., a Louisiana corporation (the "Company"),
and Everett N. Kendrick (the "Employee").


W I T N E S S E T H:


                   
WHEREAS, the Company has entered into an Employment Agreement with the Employee
dated as of January 31, 2000 (the "Employment Agreement");

                   
WHEREAS, the Company has entered into a Change of Control Agreement with the
Employee dated as of January 31, 2000 (the "Change of Control
Agreement"); and

                   
WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee have agreed to an extension of the terms
of the Employment Agreement and the Change of Control Agreement, as set forth
herein.

                   
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the continued employment of Employee
by the Company and the payment of wages, salary and other compensation to
Employee by the Company, the parties hereto agree as follows, effective
October 31, 2000:

                   
Section 1.     Except as expressly amended herein, all
of the terms and provisions of the Employment Agreement and Change of Control
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

                   
Section 2.     Article I, Section 2 of the Employment
Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:


  
               
    Employment Term.     The term of this Agreement (the
    "Employment Term") shall commence on the Agreement Date and shall
    continue through October 31, 2001, subject to any earlier termination
    of Employee's status as an employee pursuant to this Agreement.

  



                   
Section 3.     Article II, Section 2.1(a) of the Change
of Control Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:


  
                2.1   
     Employment Term and Capacity after Change of Control. (a) If a
    Change of Control occurs on or before October 31, 2001, then the Employee's
    employment term (the "Employment Term") shall continue through the
    second anniversary of the Change of Control, subject to any earlier
    termination of Employee's status as an employee pursuant to this
    Agreement.

  



                   
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly
executed and signed as of the date indicated above.


	 	STEWART ENTERPRISES, INC.
      By:  /s/ James W. McFarland                  

                  James W. McFarland

                  Compensation Committee Chairman

	 	 
      EMPLOYEE:

           /s/  
      Everett N.
      Kendrick                 
        

                     
      Everett N. Kendrick
§ 1351.22 What additional requirements apply to these programs? ( a ) *Non-discriminatory and culturally and linguistically sensitive services and training.* Service delivery and staff training must comprehensively address the individual strengths and needs of youth as well as be language appropriate, gender appropriate (interventions that are sensitive to the diverse experiences of male, female, and transgender youth and consistent with the gender identity of participating youth), and culturally sensitive and respectful of the complex social identities of youth (*i.e.,* race, ethnicity, nationality, age, religion/spirituality, gender identity/expression, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, physical or cognitive ability, language, beliefs, values, behavior patterns, or customs). No runaway youth or homeless youth shall, on any of the foregoing bases, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under, any program or activity funded in whole or in part under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act. ( 1 ) The criteria that grantees adopt to determine eligibility for the program, or any activity or service, may include an assessment of the needs of each applicant, and the health and safety of other beneficiaries, among other factors.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( b ) *Medical, psychiatric or psychological treatment.* No youth shall be subject to medical, psychiatric, or psychological treatment without the consent of the youth and, for youth under the age of emancipation in their state of residence, consent of a parent or guardian, if required by state law.
( c ) *Conflict of interest.* Employees or individuals participating in a program or project under the Act shall not use their positions for a purpose that is, or gives the appearance of being, motivated by a desire for private gain for themselves or others, particularly those with whom they have family, business or other ties.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-20902 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus PEDRO ANTONIO GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-00-CR-305-1

-------------------- October 29, 2001 Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Pedro Antonia Gutierrez (“Gutierrez”) appeals his conviction and 57-month sentence following his plea of guilty to illegal reentry into the United States after deportation, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Gutierrez argues that the felony conviction that resulted in his increased sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) was an element of the offense that should have been charged in his indictment. Gutierrez acknowledges that his first argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), butNo. 00-20902 -2- he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of decision in Apprendi because the Supreme Court indicated in Apprendi that Almendarez- Torres may have been wrongly decided. Because the Supreme Court has not overruled Almendarez-Torres , this court is compelled to follow it. See United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). Gutierrez’s argument is foreclosed. See Almendarez-Torres , 523 U.S. at 235. Gutierrez also argues that his indictment was defective under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments because it did not allege general intent. Because Gutierrez withdrew this argument in the district court, review is foreclosed. See United States v. Reveles , 190 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 1999); United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725 (1993). Gutierrez’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 10 (y)**

FORM OF AMENDMENT TO 

SEVERANCE AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT, dated as of*                                        *, to the Severance Agreement, dated as of, 19     (the “Severance Agreement”), is entered into between Alberto-Culver Company, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),and                                      (the“Executive”). 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Severance Agreement as set forth herein. 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual agreements contained herein, the Company and the Executive hereby agree that theSeverance Agreement shall be amended as set forth below: 

1.    Section 3(a)(2) of the Severance Agreement ishereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 

“(2)    a lump-sum cash amount which, whenadded to any other payments that must be taken into account for purposes of any computation relating to the Executive under Section 280G(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), equals, in theaggregate, (*) times the Executive’s “base amount,” as such term is defined in Section 280G(b)(3) of the Code; provided, that any amount paid pursuant to this Section 3(a)(2) shall be paid in lieu of any otheramount of severance relating to salary or bonus continuation to be received by the Executive upon termination of employment of the Executive under any severance plan, policy or arrangement of the Company. 

2.    Section 4 of the Severance Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the words “Internal Revenue Code of 1986, asamended (the “Code”)” and substituting therefor the word “Code”. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused thisAmendment to be executed by a duly authorized officer of the Company and the Executive has executed this Amendment as of the day and year first above written. 

 

Subscribed and Sworn to before me 

this        day of 

Notary Public

(*) Amount varies for each applicable executive officer as follows:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

RAYMOND RONK AND MELISSA 

BENSON,

Petitioners

v.

JUDITH ISRAEL,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 142 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 4th day of October, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Exhibit
32




CERTIFICATIONS
UNDER SECTION 906




Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Apex Bioventures Acquisition Corporation, a Delaware
corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge,
that:




The
Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the “Form 10-K”) of the
Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-K
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.


Dated:  March
      27, 2009
                                          
                                          /s/ Darrell J.
ElliottDarrell
      J. Elliott, Chief Executive
Officer
  Dated:  March
      27, 2009
                                      
                                      /s/ Gary E.
      FrashierGary
      E. Frashier, Chief Financial
Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Maxygen, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date:
    
    August 2, 2007
    
    /s/ Russell J. HowardRussell J. HowardChief Executive Officer
#### § 1321.45 How the Assistant Secretary for Aging may reallot the State agency's withheld payments.

The Assistant Secretary for Aging may disburse funds withheld from the State agency directly to any public or nonprofit private organization or agency, or political subdivision of the State that has the authority and capacity to carry out the functions of the State agency and submits a State plan which meets the requirements of this part, and which contains an agreement to meet the non-Federal share requirements.
USCA Case #21-1213 Document #2008922 Filed: 07/21/2023 Page 1 of 1 

United States Court of Appeals 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 

No. 21-1213 September Term, 2022

FILED ON: JULY 21, 2023 

JILL L. STEIN, DR. AND JILL STEIN FOR PRESIDENT, 

PETITIONERS 

v. 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, 

RESPONDENT 

On Petition for Review of an Order 

of the Federal Election Commission 

Before: HENDERSON, WILKINS and KATSAS, Circuit Judges 

J U D G M E N T 

This cause came on to be heard on the petition for review of an order of the Federal

Election Commission and was argued by counsel. On consideration thereof, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the petition for review be denied, in accordance 

with the opinion of the court filed herein this date. 

Per Curiam 

FOR THE COURT: 

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/ 

Daniel J. Reidy 

Deputy Clerk 

Date: July 21, 2023 

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge Katsas.