alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

94–998 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 114–38 

[ERRATA] 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY 

PANELS AND PROCESSES AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON S. 543, THE SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD REFORM ACT OF 2015 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND, WASTE 

MANAGEMENT, AND REGULATORY OVERSIGHT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 20, 2015 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
2 

ERRATA 

Questions for the record and the witnesses’ responses were inadvertently omitted from the above hearing. Available in the committee’s records are questions and responses for the following witnesses: Dr. Roger O. McClellan, Mr. Ted Hadzi-Antich, Mr. Alfredo 

Gomez, Dr. Terry Yosie, and Mr. Scott Faber.
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 

MY BA DINH,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 05-484M 

DETENTION ORDER 

Offenses charged:

Conspiracy to import marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A),

and 846 and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C.§§ 841

(a)(1), 841 (b)(1)(D).

Date of Detention Hearing: October 14, 2005

The Court, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), and

based upon the factual findings and statement of reasons for detention hereafter set forth,

finds: 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e), there is a rebuttable presumption that

defendant is a flight risk and a danger to the community based on the nature of the pending

charges. 

Case 2:05-mj-00484-JPD Document 19 Filed 10/14/05 Page 1 of 2
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 15.13

18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) Rev. 1/91

PAGE 2

(2) Defendant’s interview with Pretrial Services produced substantial discrepancies

regarding his living arrangements, employment arrangements, citizenship status

and passport information. These issues raise substantial questions regarding

the risk of nonappearance. In addition, substance abuse questions remain. As

a result, the defendant has not overcome the statutory rebuttable presumption

set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (e). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

(1) Defendant shall be detained pending trial and committed to the custody of the

Attorney General for confinement in a correction facility separate, to the extent

practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in

custody pending appeal;

(2) Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation

with counsel;

(3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the

government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which defendant

is confined shall deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal for the

purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding; and

(4) The Clerk shall direct copies of this Order to counsel for the United States, to

counsel for the defendant, to the United States Marshal, and to the United

States Pretrial Services Officer.

DATED this 14th day of October, 2005.

AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-mj-00484-JPD Document 19 Filed 10/14/05 Page 2 of 2
ttoo-ex1044_518.htm



EXHIBIT 10.44

AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE

TO 

CONSULTING AGREEMENT

 

This Amendment Number Three to Consulting Agreement (this “Amendment”) is entered into this 13th day of October, 2017, between T2 Biosystems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and Dr. Robert Langer (the “Consultant”).  Capitalized terms used herein without definition shall have the meaning ascribed thereto in the Consulting Agreement (as defined below).

Recitals

A.The Company and the Consultant have entered into that certain Consulting Agreement, dated as of July 20, 2006, as amended by that certain letter dated March 20, 2013 and further amended by that certain letter dated July 24, 2014 (collectively, the “Consulting Agreement”), pursuant to which the Consultant agreed to provide certain services to the Company on the terms and conditions set forth therein.

B.The Company and the Consultant mutually desire to amend the Consulting Agreement to revise certain terms relating to, among other things, the term of the Consulting Agreement and the compensation of the Consultant.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual promises made herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree to amend the Consulting Agreement in accordance with Section 20 of the Consulting Agreement as follows:

1.Amendment of Term.  The first sentence of Section 6 of the Consulting Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the word “third” and replacing it with the word “sixth” immediately prior to the word “anniversary”.

2.Amendment of Compensation.  Section 7 of the Consulting Agreement (as amended to date) is hereby amended by deleting clause (a) in its entirety and replacing it with the following:

“(a) During the Term, the Company shall pay you annual compensation of $25,000 per year, to be paid in quarterly installments. 

3.No Other Amendments.  Except to the extent amended hereby, all of the definitions, terms, provisions and conditions set forth in the Consulting Agreement are hereby ratified and confirmed and shall remain in full force and effect.  The Consulting Agreement, and this Amendment shall be read and construed together as a single agreement and the term “Agreement” shall henceforth be deemed a reference to the Consulting Agreement as amended by this Amendment.  This Amendment may be signed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.  In making proof of this Amendment, it shall not be necessary to produce or account for more than one such counterpart.

 


			
	
 
	
 
	
 




 



 

In Witness Whereof, the parties have duly authorized and caused this Amendment to be executed as of the date first written above.


		
	
T2 BIOSYSTEMS, INC.

 

 

By:/s/ John McDonough

Name:  John McDonough

Title:  President & CEO

 
	
 




 

 

CONSULTANT:

/s/ Robert Langer_
Name: Dr. Robert Langer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1444

SIMON BANKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GATES, HUDSON & ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-00-1107-A) Submitted: June 21, 2001 Decided: June 28, 2001 Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Simon Banks, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Russell Siciliano, DECARO, DORAN, SICILIANO, GALLAGHER & DEBLASIS, L.L.P., Lanham, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Simon Banks appeals a district court judgment rendered against him, in accordance with a jury verdict, in his action against an apartment management agency. Banks has failed to provide this court with a transcript of the proceedings or move to have such transcript produced at Government expense. See 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (1994). We find that the appeal does not present a substantial question. We further find no reason to disturb the judgment. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 9, 2015

p0831

Order 

Clerk

September 9, 2015

150455 & (15)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 150455

COA: 321789

Wayne CC: 05-011168-FC

HASSAN MOHAMMED RIZK, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 19, 2014 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The 

motion to remand is DENIED.
No. P69/67.

protests 67/55516, etc. (New York).

#### Fedtro, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Newman, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of oilcan spouts similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Hollywood Accessories, Division of Allen Electronics & Equip. Co.*v. *United States*(60 Cust. Ct. 360, C.D. 3391), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 62776.

#### Elite Sales Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 290957-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of constituent and integral parts of toilet-box assemblies the same in all material respects as those the subject of *The Durst Mfg. Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(36 Cust. Ct. 220, C.D. 1778), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND

Petitioner V. BRANDON D. ROSS • IN THE • COURT OF APPEALS • OF MARYLAND

• Misc. Docket AG
• No.

81
• September Term, 2016 Respondent
ORDER This matter having come before the Court on the presentation or a certified copy of the Order of the New Hampshire Supreme Court dated September 19, 2016 wherein Brandon D. Ross was disbarred from the practice of law in the State of New Hampshire; and it appearing that Brandon D. Ross is also a member of the Bar of this Court; it is this 13th day of January ,2017, ORDERED by the Court of Appeals of Maryland that the Respondent, Brandon D. Ross, be, and he is hereby, indefinitely suspended, effective immediately, from the further practice of law in the State of Maryland, pending further order of this Court, pursuant to Maryland Rule 19- 737(d); and it is further, ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall strike the name Brandon D. Ross from the register of attorneys, and pursuant to Maryland Rules 19-737(i) and 19-761(b) shall certify that fact to the Trustees of the Client Protection Fund and the clerks of all judicial tribunals in the State.

/s/ Clayton Greene Jr Senior Judge
From: JacqieK@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:52:53 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Jacquelyn Kruger

Almo, KY 42020
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theAnnual Report of Adelphia Recovery Trust (the “Trust”) on Form 10-K forthe year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jeffrey A. Brodsky, a memberof Quest Turnaround Advisors, L.L.C., Trust Administrator of the Trust,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theTrust.

 

 

By:  Quest Turnaround Advisors, L.L.C.

 

as Trust Administrator ofthe Adelphia Recovery Trust

 

 
| /s/ Jeffrey A. Brodsky   |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
|                     |   |
| Jeffrey A. Brodsky       |   |
|                     |   |
| Member                   |   |
|                     |   |
|                     |   |
| Date: March 9, 2009 |   |

 

----
From: scott.hinkle@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:30:16 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Scott Hinkle

Dayton, OH 45439
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT QIQUAN LI, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-72147 Age n c y No. A096-057-789 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d De c e m

be r 17, 2013 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, WALLAC E, a nd GR AB ER , C irc uit Judge s. Qiqua n Li, a native and c itiz e n

of C hina , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m i gration Appe a l s ’ orde r dism issing his a p pe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing his motion to re ope n re m ova l proc e e dings c onduc te d in a bse ntia . W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for a buse of disc re tion the 

# FIL ED D EC 18 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).de nia l of a

m otion to re ope n, A v agy an v . Holde r , 646 F.3d 672, 678 (9th C ir. 2011), a nd we de ny

the pe tition for re vie w. The a ge n c y

did not a b u se its disc re tion in deny ing Li’ s m otion to re ope n a s untim e l y whe re it wa s file d ove r six y e ars a fte r the date of his orde r of re m ova l, se e 8 C .F.R . § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii), a nd Li fa i le d to show the due dilige nc e re q uire d for e q uita ble tolling of the filing de a dline , se e Av agy an, 646 F.3d a t 679-80 (e quita ble tolling is a

va ila b le to a pe t itione r who e sta blishe s de c e ption, fra

u d or e rror, and e xe rc ise d due dilige nc e in disc ove ring suc h c irc um s ta nc e s). In his ope ning brie f, Li fa ils to ra ise , and the re fore ha s wa ive d, a ny c ha lle nge re ga

rding la c k of notic e of his he aring. Se e Rizk v . Holde r , 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th C ir. 2011) (a pe titione r wa ive s a

n issue by fa iling to raise it in the o pe ning brie f). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 2 - 7 2 1 4 7 2
Exhibit
34.1











Report
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm








To the
Board of Directors and Stockholder of


Caterpillar
Financial Services Corporation:





We have
examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Management's
Report on Compliance with Regulation AB Criteria, that Caterpillar Financial
Services Corporation (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set
forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB
for equipment leases other than those securitized prior to January 1, 2006 (the
Platform) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2008, excluding criteria
1122 (d)(1)(ii) through 1122 (d)(1)(iv), 1122 (d)(2)(ii), 1122 (d)(2)(iii), 1122
(d)(2)(vi), 1122 (d)(3)(ii) through 1122 (d)(3)(iv), 1122 (d)(4)(ix) through
1122 (d)(4)(xiii), and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Company has determined are not
applicable to the servicing activities performed by them with respect to the
Platform.  Appendix A to management's assertion identifies the
individual asset-backed transactions and securities defined by management as
constituting the Platform.  Management is responsible for the
Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.  Our responsibility
is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on our
examination.





Our
examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining,
on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable
servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances.  Our examination included testing of
selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform,
testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and
determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and
performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing
criteria.  Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions
and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by
this report.  Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance
arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests
that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the
Company during the period covered by this report.  We believe that our
examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our
examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance
with the servicing criteria.





In our
opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2008 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material
respects.








/s/PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS
LLP





Peoria,
Illinois


March
27, 2009
From: mrgnellie@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:19:26 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Earl Gudeman

Roanoke, VA 24017