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

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

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

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting of the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel.

The meetings 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 Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel; Career Development (Ks) and Conference Support (R13) Review.                    

*Date:*                         November 9, 2023.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health,  Democracy II, Suite 920,  6707 Democracy Blvd.,  Bethesda, MD 20817 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Alexander O. Komendantov, Ph.D., MS,  Scientific Review Officer, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Institutes of Health, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 451-3397,                         *alexander.komendantov@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Institutes of Health)

Dated: September 20, 2023.

Victoria E. Townsend,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-21489 Filed 9-28-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Date,Total,Households,Business,State and local govts.,Federal
2002,7.3,10.6,3.0,11.1,7.6
2003,8.0,11.8,2.2,8.3,10.9
2004,9.3,11.1,6.6,11.9,9.0
2005,9.2,11.1,8.9,5.5,7.0
2006,8.5,9.8,10.8,3.7,3.9
2007,8.4,6.6,13.6,5.4,4.9
2008,5.9,-0.1,6.1,0.7,24.2
2009,3.1,-1.7,-2.3,3.9,22.7
2010,4.1,-2.2,0.8,2.2,20.2
2011,3.6,-1.5,4.5,-1.9,11.4
2010Q1,3.7,-2.8,0.1,2.4,20.6
2010Q2,3.7,-2.2,-2.0,-0.5,22.5
2010Q3,4.0,-2.2,2.7,2.1,16.0
2010Q4,4.6,-1.5,2.3,4.8,16.4
2011Q1,2.4,-1.6,4.1,-3.3,7.9
2011Q2,2.4,-3.0,5.0,-3.5,8.6
2011Q3,4.5,-1.1,3.8,0.0,14.1
2011Q4,4.9,-0.2,4.9,-1.0,13.1
2012Q1,4.7,-0.4,5.2,-1.8,12.4
AAM-13-165-E February 04, 2013

Exemption No. 10707 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-0032

Mr. Lloyd Hetrick HR Manager/Drug Alcohol Program Manager

Hetrick Air Services 1930 Airport Road Lawrence, KS 66044

Dear Mr. Hetrick:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated January 8, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Hetrick Air Services for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if gr anted, would allow Hetrick Air Services, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing program.

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

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Hetrick Air Services.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Hetrick Air Services an exemption from 14 CFR part 120 to the extent necessary to allow Hetrick Air Services, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject

to the conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Hetrick Air Services are subj ect to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the Hetrick Air Services part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on February 28, 2015, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/
James R. Fraser, M.D. Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
Process Flow Sheet(CBI ) Attachment 7
Pa g e 1/1 TS-K784YD ( CBI )CBI
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER - 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

LEXINGTON INSURANCE CO.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANDRA SWANSON, 

Defendant.

No. C05-1614MJP

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION 

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Lexington’s motion for reconsideration of the

Court’s June 6, 2007, order in which the Court awarded costs to Defendant for her motion to compel

the Litigation Management Guidelines without a protective order. (Dkt. No. 197.)

In this district, motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The Court will ordinarily deny

such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new

facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable

diligence. Local Civil Rule 7(h).

Lexington argues that the Court erred in awarding costs to Swanson. At the time Lexington

made its request for the protective order, a similar order had been made in the corollary state case

(and was subsequently upheld by a second reviewing judge) regarding the same documents. Based

on these state court orders, Lexington argues that it was substantially justified in seeking a protective

order in this case before producing the Litigation Management Guidelines to Swanson. 

Lexington was not substantially justified in refusing to produce the Litigation Management

Guidelines. Whether or not a separate court considering the issue granted a protective order,

Case 2:05-cv-01614-MJP Document 201 Filed 06/14/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER - 2 

Lexington needed to have a basis for requesting the protective order here. As the Court explained in

its previous order, Lexington failed to make the requisite showing for a protective order here. The

Court’s award of costs is therefore not manifestly erroneous.

The motion for reconsideration is therefore DENIED. 

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this order to all counsel of record. 

Dated: June 13th, 2007.

AMarsha J. Pechman

 United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01614-MJP Document 201 Filed 06/14/07 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Farid Wady, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 618]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.), rendered September 11, 1991, convicting him of murder in the second degree, attempted murder in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On January 26, 1990, the defendant shot to death his estranged wife, and shot and seriously injured the man who had dropped her off at her mother’s home. The defendant then fled the scene. At the trial, the defendant testified that he shot the man in self-defense and that the shooting of his wife was accidental. The defense presented further testimony intended to show that he was emotionally disturbed at the time of the shootings.

The defendant contends that the trial court’s instructions to the jury with respect to flight as evidence of consciousness of guilt were erroneous. He contends that those instructions were unwarranted under the circumstances of the case and that the charge as given was "unbalanced” and "prejudicial”. The defendant’s objections to the language of the instructions as "unbalanced” and "prejudicial” were not raised in the trial court and therefore are unpreserved for appellate review *(see, People v Dewindt,*156 AD2d 706). Giving an unsolicited flight charge was proper since the prosecutor noted in summation that the defendant’s flight supported the People’s theory that *632the shootings were intentional *(see, People v Lockerby,*178 AD2d 805, 807). The flight charge "did not alter” that theory "but merely instructed the jury on how to weigh the evidence” *(People v Dewindt,*156 AD2d 706, 708, *supra).*Therefore, the trial court’s failure to advise the defendant of its intent to give the flight instruction prior to summations was not improper.

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Thompson, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.
No. 59780.

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

protests 248560-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of glass stones the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 59105, except that said stones are not faceted, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
February 23, 1961

No. 65198.

Suit 5038.

#### John B. Hewett Co., Inc. v. United States.

C.D. 2140 affirmed November 17,1960. C.A.D. 757.
---

Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David Q. Tognoni, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Carmelo Marrelli, Chief Financial Officer of BE Resources (the “Company”) certify that:

1. I have reviewed the annual report on Form 10-K of BE Resources Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report; and

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for,
the period presented in this annual report.

Date: March 30, 2011

/s/ David Q. TognoniDavid Q. Tognoni 
President and Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Carmelo MarrelliCarmelo Marrelli 
Chief Financial Officer

---
Before the First Division,

February 13, 1958

No. 61554.

#### R. H. Macy & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 299556-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of hoods the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *United States*v. *Accurate Millinery Co., Roberts,, Reilly & Sons, et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 229, C. A. D. 599), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                      134114 
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                               427681 
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            784088 
<PP&E>                                       60098 
<DEPRECIATION>                               16939 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             1114343 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      1301375 
<BONDS>                                     675000 
<COMMON>                                  21919002 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               1114343 
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           1467227 
<CGS>                                       985196 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               256001 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             19668 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           32995 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  0
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         226029 
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                172534 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .02 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79270-79271]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32606]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Aviation Proceedings, Agreements Filed the Week Ending December 
3, 2011

    The following Agreements were filed with the Department of 
Transportation under the sections 412 and 414 of the Federal Aviation 
Act, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1382 and 1384) and procedures governing 
proceedings to enforce these provisions. Answers may be filed within 21 
days after the filing of the application.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2011-0218.
    Date Filed: November 30, 2011.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject:

Composite Passenger Tariff Coordinating Conference Singapore, 14 
October 2011.
Composite Resolution 017i.
(Memo PTC COMP 1652,).
Intended Effective Date: 1 April 2012.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2011-0219.
    Date Filed: November 30, 2011.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject

:Composite Passenger Tariff Coordinating Conference Singapore, 14 
October 2011,
Composite Resolution 011b.
(Memo PTC COMP 1653.)
Intended Effective Date: 1 June 2012.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2011-0220.

[[Page 79271]]

    Date Filed: November 30, 2011.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject:

Composite Passenger Tariff Coordinating Conference Singapore, 14 
October 2011.
Composite Resolutions 012, 017c.
(Memo PTC COMP 1654.)
Intended Effective Date: 1 April 2012.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2011-0221.
    Date Filed: November 30, 2011.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject:

Composite Passenger Tariff Coordinating Conference Singapore, 14 
October 2011.
Composite Resolutions 010o.
(Memo PTC COMP 1655.)
Composite Passenger Tariff Coordinating Conference Singapore, 14 
October 2011 Minutes,
(Memo PTC COMP 1656.)
Intended Effective Date: 30 January 2012.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2011-0222.
    Date Filed: November 30, 2011.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject

.Mail Vote 695.
TC3 Special Passenger Amending Resolution 010n.
Special Passenger Amending Resolution between China (excluding Hong 
Kong SAR and Macao SAR) and Japan.
(Memo 1440.)
Intended Effective Date: December 15, 2011.

Renee V. Wright,
 Program Manager, Docket Operations Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2011-32606 Filed 12-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
```
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-20433 Summary Calendar

DARRYL WAYNE BROCK, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus R. ACREMAN; ET AL., Defendants, J.D. BALLARD, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. CA-H-92-3520

- - - - - - - - - - May 13, 1997 Before SMITH, DUHE’ and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Darryl Wayne Brock (a/k/a Darryl Wayne Bell), Texas prisoner # 611583, moves this court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants and the dismissal of his civil rights complaint. On January 29, 1997, Chief Judge Politz ordered Brock to complyNo. 96-20433 - 2 - with the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) by filing an affidavit setting forth all assets Brock possesses and filing a certified statement by the custodian of Brock’s prison trust-fundaccount, stating the average balance in the account for the sixmonth period preceding April 8, 1996. The order held Brock’s appeal in abeyance for 30 days pending payment of the $105 filing fee or the submission of the required documents pursuant to the PLRA. The documentation submitted by Brock does not comply with the requirements imposed by the PLRA because he did not submit information regarding his prison trust-fund account. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), (b). Accordingly, Brock’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and his appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See 5th Cir. R. 42.3. Should Brock wish to reinstate his appeal, he is instructed to pay the $105 filing fee to the clerk of the district court within 30 days from the date of this order.
MOTION DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED.
No. 57737.

protest 207978-K (New York).

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the merchandise, consisting of tennis rackets, in cases 1/R 2349/64, which the inspector reported “not landed— not found,” was not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty is not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as not landed, not found. The protest was sustained to this extent.
Before The First Division,

April 20, 1964

No. 68468.

protests 63/389 and 60/12638 (New York).

#### Impecco, Ltd. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fishing reels with two spools similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Charles Garcia & Co., Inc.*(48 CCPA 140, C.A.D. 780), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 13.1

Certification

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)

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 Telmex Internacional, S.A.B. de C.V., a sociedad anónima bursátil de capital variableorganized under the laws of Mexico (the Company), does hereby certify, to
such officers knowledge, that:

The annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 (the
Form 20-F) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.



|                    |  |     |  |                               |  |                        
|------------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: May 26, 2010 |  | By: |  | /S/    OSCAR VON HAUSKE SOLÍS
|                    |  |     |  |                              
|                    |  |     |  | Name:                         |  | Oscar Von Hauske Solís 
|                    |  |     |  | Title:                        |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                    |  |    
|Dated: May 26, 2010 |  | By: |  | /S/    GONZALO LIRA CORIA    
|                    |  |     |  |                              
|                    |  |     |  | Name:                         |  | Gonzalo Lira Coria     
|                    |  |     |  | Title:                        |  | Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 15.2

January 31, 2013

China Distance Education Holdings Limited (the Company)

18th Floor, Xueyuan International Tower

1 Zhichun Road, Haidian District

Beijing 100083, Peoples Republic of China

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We have acted as legal
advisors as to the laws of the Peoples Republic of China to the Company in connection with the filing by the Company with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission of an annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2012 and any amendments thereto (the Annual Report).

We hereby consent to the use and reference to our name
and our opinions and views in the Annual Report. We further consent to the filing of this letter as an exhibit to the Annual Report.

In
giving such consent, we do not thereby admit that we come within the category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the regulations promulgated thereunder.

Sincerely yours,



|                        
|------------------------
|/s/ Jingtian & Gongcheng
|Jingtian & Gongcheng