alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Broeckling, Kevin [mailto:Kevin.Broeckling@maritz.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 10:05 AM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: RIN 1210-AB33

I strongly oppose having the Federal Government meddle any further in retirement 401k/IRA 

plans. 

First, there is no provision in the Constitution for the Federal Government to insinuate itself into 

financial planning for United States Citizens.

Second, even if there were, we wouldn't need this action if the OTHER so called retirement plan 

we're (mostly) all forced to participate in (Social Security) were working.

Third, if I wanted someone to give me financial advice, I'd look to someone who had 

demonstrated an ability to live within their means. I wouldn't be taking advice from the same 

people who most recently gave us TARP and the AIG bailout.

No thanks. When the government says they're worried about my retirement, it makes me 

nervous. They're worried about it all right, they're worried about how to get their hands on it!

 Kevin Broeckling 

Confidentiality Warning: This e-mail contains information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. 

If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the 

intended recipient, any dissemination, publication or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. The sender does not 

accept any responsibility for any loss, disruption or damage to your data or computer system that may occur while using 

data contained in, or transmitted with, this e-mail. 

If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail. Thank you.
```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 184 (Monday, September 24, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 54274]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4708]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute; 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 contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contracted proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute 
Special Emphasis Panel; Heart Study Research Project.
    Date: October 18, 2007.
    Time: 9 a.m. to 1 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: Hilton Crystal City, 2399 Jefferson Davis Hwy, Arlington, 
VA 22202.
    Contact Person: Holly Patton, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Review Branch/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood 
Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7188, Bethesda, MD 20892-7924, 
301-435-0280, [email protected].

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, 
National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and 
Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, 
Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of 
Health, HSS)

    Dated: September 17, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-4708 Filed 09-21-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-07-M
```
Exhibit
32





Written
Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350





Solely
for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of WidePoint Corporation (the
“Company”), respectively, hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31,
2010 (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.







/s/ STEVE L.
KOMAR





Steve
L. Komar


Chief
Executive Officer







/s/ JAMES T.
MCCUBBIN





James T.
McCubbin


Chief
Financial Officer





Date: May
17, 2010
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 23, 2009

s0615 

# Order

June 23, 2009

137818

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137818 COA: 283349 Oakland CC: 02-183038-FC HENRY DEQUAN MAY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 10, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered , and it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
----

(2004/C 84 E/0208)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0160/04

by Uma Aaltonen (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 January 2004)

Subject:   Use in the EU institutions of sniffer dogs trained to detect explosives

The security mechanisms employed in the EU institutions have failed to detect the letter bombs sent to senior officials over the last few weeks.

No one has yet been seriously injured by these letter bombs. The question arises, however, as to whether in future officials can go on simply trusting to their luck when mail of this kind lands on their desks. Can EU staff continue to open mail without fear of being blown up?

It is astonishing that items of mail can reach officials' desks without being inspected by a real professional in this sphere — a dog trained to sniff out explosives. No x-ray machine or other technical apparatus can beat the performance and precision of a trained dog, as exemplified by the dogs used to detect bombs and mines.

I have studied this topic in detail and have been able to offer the Labrador-retriever Amanda, who was used as a mine-detector dog in Bosnia-Herzegovina, a home in her retirement.

For that reason, I should like to put the following questions to the Commission:

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Each Institution is responsible for its own security systems and their operation. An inter Institutional working group on security ensures the exchange of relevant information.

The Commission does not offer opinions on security practices employed by other Institutions. The Honourable Member should raise the issue of her personal safety with the Parliamentary authorities if she has any reason to believe that she has cause for concern.

In the Commission, mail-handling security measures are based principally on technical detection systems because they have been shown to be more effective for this type of control. While the Commission does not make general use of dogs in its mail-checking procedures, the use of trained dogs can be helpful for other checks such as explosives detection as part of the security process in buildings and offices. This working method has periodically been used by the Commission in cooperation with Member States.

----
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Home
  ABOUT US
  HISTORY
  HISTORY-VIEW
 HISTORY View Jan. 10, 2023 This Day in CENTCOM History – 28 years ago, CENTCOM announced Operation United Shield. TAMPA, Fla. —
                
                This Day in CENTCOM History – 28 years ago, CENTCOM announced Operation United Shield. The mission: conduct operations to assist in the final withdrawal of UN peacekeeping troops from Somalia. The decision came in response to a UN request for American protection of its peacekeeping forces serving in the war-torn African nation.
 ArticleCS - Article View
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
United States Office of Water EPA 821-F-02-010

Environmental Protection 4303T May 2002

Agency

Fact Sheet

Metal Products and Machinery Effluent

Limitations Guidelines and Standards, Notice

of Data Availability

Summary

Today’s notice makes available for public review and comment new data and information

submitted to EPA during the public comment period for the January 2001 proposed rule.

Background

On January 3, 2001 (66 FR 424), EPA published a proposal to establish technologybased effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards for the metal products and

machinery (MP&M) point source category. The proposal would apply to approximately 10,000

facilities that manufacture, rebuild, or maintain metal products, parts, or machines in eight

regulatory subcategories. EPA developed the proposal to address changes in the metal finishing

and electroplating sectors over the last 20 years, including measures that reduce pollution. The

proposal would establish national regulations for some industry sectors for the first time as well

as increasing the degree of environmental protection from that achieved under the previous rules.

 In the MP&M proposal, EPA specifically solicited comment on various issues in addition

to the general comment solicitation. EPA received comments from various stakeholders,

including State and local regulatory authorities, environmental groups, individual industrial

facilities and industry groups, and private citizens. This notice presents a summary of data

received in comments since the proposal and additional data collected by EPA and describes

how these data may be used by EPA in developing final MP&M regulations. 

 EPA is evaluating how the comments and new data may change certain aspects of the

proposal and how this information might affect the regulatory options considered for the

proposal. EPA is also evaluating the underlying data and methodology that EPA uses to estimate

the costs, pollutant load reductions, and financial impacts associated with the regulation in light

of the comments and new information. The notice describes EPA’s current thinking on these

subjects and presents information on how the new data and information received since proposal

would affect the proposed limitations and standards. EPA is making these data and new

information available for public review and comment. EPA solicits public comment on the issues

and information presented in this notice of data availability and in the administrative record

supporting this notice.
EPA held a public meeting on today’s notice on Friday, June 7, 2002. EPA published a

separate notice announcing the details of this meeting on May 21, 2002 (67 FR 35774). Meeting

materials will be posted on the EPA MP&M website at:

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/guide/mpm/.

For Further Information:

Contact Mr. Carey A. Johnston at (202) 566-1014 or at the following e-mail address:

johnston.carey@epa.gov.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsWind turbine acousticsAvailable information on the physical characteristics of the noise generated by wind turbines is summarized, with example sound pressure time histories, narrow- and broadband frequency spectra, and noise radiation patterns. Reviewed are noise measurement standards, analysis technology, and a method of characterizing wind turbine noise. Prediction methods are given for both low-frequency rotational harmonics and broadband noise components. Also included are atmospheric propagation data showing the effects of distance and refraction by wind shear. Human perception thresholds, based on laboratory and field tests, are given. Building vibration analysis methods are summarized. The bibliography of this report lists technical publications on all aspects of wind turbine acoustics.Document ID19910007366Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsHubbard, Harvey H.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Shepherd, Kevin P.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateDecember 1, 1990Subject CategoryAcousticsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.60:3057E-5663DOE/NASA/20320-77NASA-TP-3057Accession Number91N16679Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: DE-AI01-76ET-20320PROJECT: RTOP 776-33-41Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19910007366.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### § 800.28 Delegation to the Chief Financial Officer.

The Board delegates to the Chief Financial Officer the authority to settle claims for money damages of $2,500 or less against the United States arising under Section 2672 of 28 United States Code (the Federal Tort Claims Act) because of acts or omissions of Board employees.

[63 FR 71606, Dec. 29, 1998]
1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC

FLIGHTLINE GROUND, INC., d/b/a )

FLIGHTLINE FIRST, )

)

Complainant, )

)

v. ) DOCKET NO. 16-11-01

)

LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF )

TRANSPORTATION AND )

DEVELOPMENT, AS SUCCESSOR TO )

THE LOUISIANA DIVISION OF )

ADMINISTRATION and THE BOARD )

OF COMMISSIONERS FOR THE )

MANAGEMENT OF THE LAKEFRONT )

AIRPORT; NON-FLOOD PROTECTION )

ASSET MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, )

AS SUCCESSOR TO THE BOARD OF )

COMMISSIONERS OF THE ORLEANS )

PARISH LEVEE DISTRICT and )

ORLEANS PARISH LEVEE DISTRICT, )

DIVISION OF NON-FLOOD ASSETS, )

)

Respondents. )

COMPLAINANT’S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME

TO RESPOND TO THE ANSWER OF THE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY

COMES NOW, Flightline Ground, Inc., Complainant in the above-captioned matter, 

pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 16.19(a) and moves to extend the time to respond to the Answer of the 

Non-Flood Protection Asset Management Authority, as successor to the Board of Commissioners 

of the Orleans Parish Levee District and Orleans Parish Levee District Division of Non-Flood 

Assets (the “Management Authority”) based upon the following:

1.

On Saturday, March 19, 2011, counsel for the complainant received the Answer of the 

Management Authority. 
2

2.

Neither counsel for the Management Authority nor counsel for the Louisiana Department 

of Transportation and Development oppose or object to an extension whereby the Complainant 

may file its Response to the Answer of the Management Authority by Monday, April 4, 2011.

 WHEREFORE, Complainant prays that the Complainant have an extension of time to 

respond to the Answer of the Management Authority until Monday, April 4, 2011

Respectfully submitted, this 21th day of March, 2011.

s / Alan Armstrong

____________________________________

Alan Armstrong

Georgia Bar No. 022075

Counsel for Complainant

Alan Armstrong Attorney at Law

2900 Chamblee Tucker Road

Building 5, Suite 350

Atlanta, Georgia 30341

P: 770.451.0313

F: 770.451.0317

alan@alanarmstronglaw.com
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the foregoing Complainant’s Motion to Extend Time to Respond to the 

Answer of the Management Authority has been served upon Brandon Brown, Esq., Counsel for the 

Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development via electronic mail at brandon.brown@la.gov

and also that a copy of same has been served upon Charles Curtis, Esq. , by electronic mail 

at ccurtis@metzgerlawfirm.com, counsel for the Non-Flood Protection Asset Management Authority (the 

“authority”) and also Gerard Metzger, Esq., counsel for the Authority be electronic mail 

at gerry@metzgerlawfirm.com.

This the 21th day of March, 2011.

s / Alan Armstrong

________________________________

Alan Armstrong

Alan Armstrong Attorney at Law

2900 Chamblee Tucker Road

Building 5, Suite 350

Atlanta, Georgia 30341

P: 770.451.0313

F: 770.451.0317

alan@alanarmstronglaw.com
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1523

DIANE LOGAN,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, 

Magistrate Judge. (7:10-cv-00212-mfu)

Submitted: August 25, 2011 Decided: August 29, 2011

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Diane Logan, Appellant Pro Se. Quinn E.N. Doggett, SOCIAL 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Diane Logan appeals the magistrate judge’s order*

AFFIRMED

granting summary judgment for the Commissioner of Social 

Security in her action seeking review of the Commissioner’s 

denial of social security benefits. On appeal, we confine our 

review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th 

Cir. R. 34(b). Because Logan’s informal brief does not 

challenge the basis for the magistrate judge’s disposition, 

Logan has forfeited appellate review of the magistrate judge’s 

order. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

 * The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate 

judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6320

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MALIK LUCIEN EANES, a/k/a Lucien Clarke Watts,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District 

Judge. (3:06-cr-00173-JRS-1)

Submitted: April 19, 2012 Decided: April 26, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Malik Lucien Eanes, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Childs Ackley, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Sara Elizabeth Chase, 

Richard Daniel Cooke, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Malik Lucien Eanes appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582 (2006). We have reviewed the record and conclude that 

the district court did not abuse its discretion. See United 

States v. Goines, 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004) (stating 

standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Editorial Note on Part 40
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 73 FR 33329, June 12, 2008.

§ 40.321 What is the general confidentiality rule for drug and alcohol test information? Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, as a service agent or employer participating in the DOT drug or alcohol testing process, you are prohibited from releasing individual test results or medical information about an employee to third parties without the employee's specific written consent. ( a ) A “third party” is any person or organization to whom other subparts of this regulation do not explicitly authorize or require the transmission of information in the course of the drug or alcohol testing process.
( b ) “Specific written consent” means a statement signed by the employee that he or she agrees to the release of a particular piece of information to a particular, explicitly identified, person or organization at a particular time. “Blanket releases,” in which an employee agrees to a release of a category of information (*e.g.,* all test results) or to release information to a category of parties (*e.g.,* other employers who are members of a C/TPA, companies to which the employee may apply for employment), are prohibited under this part.
###### Editorial Note on Part 40

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 73 FR 33329, June 12, 2008.

#### §§ 40.75-40.78 [Reserved]