alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1803.11 Compliance procedures. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this section applies to all allegations of discrimination on the basis of handicap in programs or activities conducted by the Foundation.
( b ) The Foundation shall process complaints alleging violations of § 504 with respect to employment according to the procedures established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 29 CFR part 1613 pursuant to section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791).
( c ) Responsibility for implementation and operation of this section shall be vested in the Executive Secretary.
( d ) The Foundation shall accept and investigate all complete complaints for which it has jurisdiction. All complete complaints must be filed within 180 days of the alleged act of discrimination. The Foundation may extend this time period for good cause.
( e ) If the Foundation receives a complaint over which it does not have jurisdiction, it shall promptly notify the complainant and shall make reasonable efforts to refer the complaint to the appropriate government entity.
( f ) The Foundation shall notify the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board upon receipt of any complaint alleging that a building or facility that is used by the Foundation that is subject to the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4151-4157), is not readily accessible to and usable by individuals with handicaps.
( g ) The Foundation shall notify the complainant of the results of the investigation within 90 days of the receipt of a complete complaint over which it has jurisdiction. Notification must be in a letter, and must include— ( 1 ) Findings of fact and conclusions of law;
( 2 ) A description of a remedy for each violation discovered; and
( 3 ) A notice of the right to appeal.
( h ) Appeals of the findings of fact and conclusions of law or remedies must be filed by the complainant within 90 days of receipt from the agency of the letter required by paragraph (f) of this section. The Foundation may extend this time for good cause.
( i ) Timely appeals shall be accepted and processed by the General Counsel.
( j ) The Foundation shall notify the complainant of the results of the appeal within 90 days of the receipt of the request. If the Foundation determines that it needs additional information from the complainant, it shall have 90 days from the date it receives the additional information to make its determination on the appeal.
( k ) The time limits cited in paragraphs (g) and (h) of this section may be extended with the permission of the Assistant Attorney General.
( l ) The Foundation may delegate its authority for conducting complaint investigations to other federal agencies, but may not delegate to another agency the authority for making the final determination.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-7151

IVY L. HORTON,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

ERIC K. SHINSEKI., Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in

06-0931, Judge Ronald M. Holdaway.

ON MOTION

Before GAJARSA, LINN, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves to waive the requirements of Fed. Cir.

R. 27(f) and to dismiss Ivy L. Horton's appeal from the United States Court of Appeals

for Veterans Claims judgment in Horton v. Peake, 06-0931, for lack of jurisdiction.

Horton sought review by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims of a Board of

Veterans' Appeals decision that denied Horton's claims for entitlement to benefits other

than health care. The Veterans Court vacated and remanded the appeal for

readjudication. Horton now seeks review of the remand order.

Under 38 U.S.C. § 7292, this court has limited jurisdiction over appeals from

decisions of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. See Forshey v. Principi, 284

F.3d 1335, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc). This court typically lacks jurisdiction over

Veterans Court remands because they are not final judgments. This court can only
review remands, inter alia, where "the remand disposes of an important legal issue that

would be effectively unreviewable at a later stage of litigation." Winn v. Brown 110 F.3d

56, 57 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Because the Veterans Court's decision to remand in this case

does not include any legal issue that would be effectively unreviewable at a later stage

of litigation, this court does not have jurisdiction to review the Veterans Court's nonfinal

remand order.*

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The Secretary's motions are granted. The appeal is dismissed.

Each side shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT

FEB 6 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly FILED Clerk	U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

Date

cc:	Ivy L. Horton

Dawn E. Goodman, Esq.

s20

FEB 6 2009

FEB 0 6 2009

JAN HORBALY

CLERK

ISSUED AS A MANDATE:

* If the Veterans Court issues an adverse final decision at a later date, Horton

may thereafter seek review of that decision, if appealable and within this court's

jurisdiction.

2008-7151	 - 2 -
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF 

### PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT ROBERTWAGNER, : No. 98 MM 2019 

### Respondent

v. DAVID F. 

### GOULD III, ESQUIRE, GOULD LAW 

### ASSOCIATES, PC, ET. AL., 

### Petitioners ORDER PER 

### CURIAM AND NOW, this25th 

### day of 

### November, 2019, the "Motion 

### for Leave to File Petition 

### forAllowance of

### Appeal One Day Late 

### (Nunc Pro Tunc)" is DENIED.
#### Willard C. Wagner, Respondent, *v.*Hudson Valley Railway Company, Appellant.

*Wagner*v. *Hudson Yulley By. Go.,*124 App. Div. 916, affirmed.

(Submitted January 25, 1909;

decided February 9, 1909.)

Appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered January 17, 1908, unaniiiiously affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been received through defendant’s negligence.

*Lewis E. Carr*and *W. L. Kiley*for appellant.

*James W. Verbeck*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs ; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock and Chase, JJ.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

CRAIG R. ZOBEL

, Appellant,

v.

ANN M. ZOBEL

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 1866

[ May 17, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm

Beach County ; Rosemarie Scher , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2005DR004553FH

.

Ralph T. White of Law Office of R.T. White, Palm Beach Gardens, for

appellant.

Deanna V. Shuler of Deanna V. Shuler, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, and

Kathryn M. Beamer of Kathryn M. Beamer, P.A., North Palm Beach, f or appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

D AMOORGIAN

, F ORST and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
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 Implant Sciences Corporation, a Massachusetts corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Roger P. Deschenes, Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.




/s/Roger P. DeschenesRoger P. DeschenesVice President, Finance and Chief Financial OfficerDate: March 21, 2011




This certification accompanies each report of the Company on Form 10-Q and Form 10-K pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by we for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.




A signed original of this written statement required by §906 has been provided to us and will be retained by us and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or our staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 10.3
                              MASSEY ENERGY COMPANY
                           EXECUTIVE PHYSICAL PROGRAM

      Eligibility:

      - Massey Energy Company 16(b) officers; select senior managers of Massey
        Energy Company and its subsidiaries

      Description of Coverage:

      - Eligible participants are required to undergo executive physicals every
        other year if under age 50 and annually beginning at age 50. Executive
        physicals include patient history, physical examination, and various
        screening procedures, with allowable cost not to exceed $1,200.
November 17, 2015

Exemption No. 12568A Regulatory Docket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 2407

Mr. Brandon Horgeshimer

Pneumatic Drone Cinema

, Inc. 4327 South Highway 27 Clermont, FL 34711

Dear Mr. Horgeshimer :

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition for an amendment. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists any changes to the original conditions

and limitations.

By letter dated July 29, 2015

, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on

behalf of Pneumatic Drone Cinema, Inc. (hereinafter petitioner or operator) for an amendment

to your current exemption . That exemption from §§ 61.23(a) and ( c ), 61.101(e)(4 ) and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a) , 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows the petitioner to operate a UAS to perform aerial data collection

. You reque sted an

amendment to add conduct closed

- set motion picture and television filming to

your operations.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested amendment to the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on thi s pe tition would be detrimental to the petitioner

. T he

unmanned aircraft authorized in the original grant are comparable in type, size, weight, speed and operating capabilities to those in this petition

.

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 12568 remains valid and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority contained

in 49 U.S.C

. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the operator is2

granted an amendment to add closed

- set motion picture and television filming to its UAS operations.

The operator shall add this amendment to its original exemption.

Conditions and Limitations

All conditions and limitations within Grant of Exemption No. 12568 remain in eff ect exc ept
as follows. Condition No. 2 has been updated to permit closed

- set motion picture and television filming

.

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption.

2. Operations for the purpose of closed

- set motion picture and television filming

are permitted.

T his exemption terminates on August 31, 2017 , unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/ s/

John S. Duncan Director, Flight Standards Service
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: June 30, 2016 107098

________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER SAM MANN, Appellant.

________________________________ Calendar Date: May 24, 2016 Before: Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Garry, Clark and Mulvey, JJ.

__________ Erin C. Morigerato, Albany, for appellant. P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Michael C. Wetmore of counsel), for respondent.

__________ McCarthy, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Herrick, J.), rendered August 14, 2014, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of strangulation in the second degree. Defendant pleaded guilty to strangulation in the second degree and waived his right to appeal. County Court sentenced defendant as a predicate felon, in accordance with the plea agreement, to a prison term of seven years followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals. Initially, we are unpersuaded by defendant's contention that the combined oral and written waiver of the right to appeal was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent (see People v Lopez, 6-2- 107098

NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Belile, 137 AD3d 1460, 1461 [2016]). The record reflects that County Court explained, and defendant acknowledged that he understood, that the waiver of the right to appeal is separate and distinct from the rights automatically forfeited by the guilty plea. In addition, defendant confirmed that he had read, understood and signed the written waiver of appeal, which he had executed in open court. Given defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal, his challenge to the agreed-upon sentence as harsh and excessive is precluded (see People v Bethea, 133 AD3d 1033, 1033 [2015]). Although defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea survives the appeal waiver, it is unpreserved for our review as the record does not indicate that defendant made any postallocution motion to withdraw his guilty plea (see CPL 220.60 [3]; People v Buck, 136 AD3d 1117, 1118 [2016]; People v Blair, 136 AD3d 1105, 1106 [2016], lvs denied ___ NY3d ___ [May 10, 2016]). Furthermore, the narrow exception to the preservation rule is inapplicable as defendant made no statements during the plea allocution that were inconsistent with his guilt or otherwise called into question the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Sawyer, 135 AD3d 1164, 1165 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1006 [2016]; People v Bethea, 133 AD3d at 1034). Lahtinen, J.P., Garry, Clark and Mulvey, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
§ 9.114 What lighting and visual standards must I meet? ( a ) You must design, shield, and focus lighting to minimize the effects of spill light on the night sky or adjacent areas.
( b ) You must reduce visual contrast in the landscape by selecting the area of operations, avoiding unnecessary disturbance, choosing appropriate colors for permanent facilities, and other means.
( c ) You must use road and pad materials similar in composition to soils in surrounding profiles whenever feasible.
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 230 (Thursday, November 30, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 69212]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9467]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of General Medical 
Sciences Emphasis Panel; Minority Biomedical Research Support SCORE 
and RISE.
    Date: December 1, 2006.
    Time: 9:30 a.m. to 12 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, 45 
Center Drive, Room 3AN-12, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Helen R. Sunshine, PhD, Chief, Office of 
Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, 
National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, Room 3AN12F, 
Bethesda, MD 20892. 301-594-2881. <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c3b0b6adb0abaaadab83adaaa4aeb0edadaaabeda4acb5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1261677c617a7b7c7a527c7b757f613c7c7b7a3c757d64">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, 
Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and 
Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and 
Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental 
Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, 
Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: November 20, 2006.
David Clary,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 06-9467 Filed 11-29-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[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: 06-9336]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Mobile Enterprise Alliance, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on October 27, 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''), Mobile Enterprise Alliance, 
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, Antenna 
Software, Jersey City, NJ has been added as a party to this venture. 
Also Appear Networks AB, Stockholm, SWEDEN has withdrawn as a party 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 Mobile Enterprise Alliance, Inc. 
intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes 
in membership.
    On June 24, 2004, Mobile Enterprise Alliance, 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 July 23, 2004 (69 FR 44062).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on September 
14, 2006. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on October 20, 2006 (71 FR 62013).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 06-9336 Filed 11-21-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
.

June 27'.1958

Mr. Tom Blackwell County Attorney Travis County Austin, Texas

Dear Mr. Blackwell: Opinion No.WW-469 Re: Duty of County Judge who has received legally sufficient petition for school bond election in aeommn school district,~and .,, prior tohis action ' thereon and six days later receives a second petition for election in the same district on adifferent amount .of,' bonds. Your request foropinion states:

"FACTSr On May 22, 1958, apetition signed by the requisite number ofvoters ina common school district was presented to the County Judge requesting an election for the issuance ofbonds in the amount of $30,000.00. OnMay 26, 1958, andprior to any actionbeing taken by the County Judge a second petition properly signed was presented to the County Judge requesting an election for the issuance of bonds in the amount of $lE,OOO.OO in the same commn school district. "QUESTION: Under the provisions of Article 2785 of the Texas Revised Civil Statutes as amended, what action should the County Judge take."Mr. Tom Blackwell, page #2 (WW-469)

We interpret your request tomean 

### (ana we proceed on this assumption) that a legally sufficient petition was 

### duly presented to

### =a accepted by the County Judge on May 22, 1958.We answer your inquiry as follows: Your County Judge should, within a reasonable time, call the election ,, requested in the first petition which was presented tohim onMay 22, 1958. :

His jurisdiction and responsibility to act on this first petition attached at themoment itwas presented to and accepted by him. A reasonable time isproperly allowed forhis investigation and determination as to the complete legal sufficiency of thepetition before an election is called. The right of thepeople tovote on the propositions contained in the first petition having been first lawfully invoked, may not be interfered with nor defeated by~~the,filing of the second petition. Article 2785:Wichita Common School Dist. No. 11 et al.v. Dickens IndependentsSchool Dist. of Dickens County et al., 206 S.WQ.2a 885 (CiV.App. 1947, error ref.): Garrett, County Judge, et al.v. Unity Common School Dist. et al., 211 S.W. 2d 238 (Civ.App. 1948, error ref. n.r.e.).

SUMMARY

ACounty Judge who receives a legally sufficient petition forschool bond election in a connoonschool district andwho prior tohis action thereon and six days later receives a second petition for election in the same district on a different,amount of bonds, should within a reasonable,’ -

Mr. Tom Blackwell, page #3 (Ww-469) *

time call the election requested in the first petition.
Very trulyyours, WILL WILSON Attorney General of Texas

WEA-s APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE Geo. P. Blackburn, Chairman L. P. Lollar J. Arthur 

### sanalin Leonard Passmore REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL By: W.V. Geppert W. E.Allen Assistant
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 34

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

06/01

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 01 Jun 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.86 N 77.06 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■

■

★ ■ ■ ■

■

★

●

●

●

●

★ ● ● ●

●
§ 1080.9 Other requirements. All recipients of grants under the Emergency Community Services Homeless Grant Program shall be subject to the following regulations applicable to the block grant programs in the Department of Health and Human Services: ( a ) 45 CFR part 96, subpart B, § 96.12—Grant Payment, concerning the timing and method of disbursing grant awards;
( b ) 45 CFR part 96, subpart B, § 96.14—Time Period for Obligation and Expenditure of Grant Funds, as amended, concerning the availability of grant funds;
( c ) 45 CFR part 96, subpart C—Financial Management, as amended, concerning financial management and audit requirements;
( d ) 45 CFR part 96, subpart E—Enforcement, as amended, concerning enforcement and complaint procedures; and
( e ) 45 CFR part 96, subpart F—Hearing Procedures, concerning hearing procedures.