alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 06-726 

________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENSE 

Research and Development 

 Memorandum of Understanding 

Between the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and AUSTRALIA 

Signed at Washington July 26, 2006 

 

 with 

 

Annexes 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
AUSTRALIA 

Defense: Research and Development 

 Memorandum of understanding signed 

 at Washington July 26, 2006; 

 Entered into force July 26, 2006. 

 With annexes. 

NOTE: It is noted that Section VII appears on page 19.



































NOTE: In the first paragraph on this page, "Section VII" should be "Section VI" and the title for Section VIII should read "EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL TRANSFERS".
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.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - [DA 07-193]

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

In this document, the Video Division of the Media Bureau announces a 60-day period beginning February 22, 2007 and ending April 23, 2007, for parties with proposals in the mutually exclusive (MX) groups listed in the Public Notice from the July-August 2000 filing window to enter into settlement agreements or otherwise resolve their mutual exclusivities by means of engineering solutions.

      ( print page 11878)    

# DATES:

The deadline for submitting a settlement or engineering amendment is April 23, 2007.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Shaun Maher of the Video Division, Media Bureau, at (202) 418-1600.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On February 22, 2007, the Video Division of the Media Bureau released a Public Notice announcing a 60-day period beginning February 22, 2007 and ending April 23, 2007, for parties with proposals in the mutually exclusive (MX) groups listed in the Public Notice from the July-August 2000 filing window to enter into settlement agreements or otherwise resolve their mutual exclusivities by means of engineering solutions. Interested parties listed in the Attachment A to the Public Notice must submit their settlement or engineering amendment by 6 p.m. ET, April 23, 2007. The settlements or engineering amendments must be filed via the Commission's CDBS electronic filing system and paper-filed settlements and engineering amendments will not be accepted. Complete instructions for filing settlements and engineering amendments via CDBS were included in the Public Notice.

*Paperwork Reduction Act Approval:*                     The FCC Form 346 was assigned control number 3060-0016 and was approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on May 25, 2005. Section 73.3525 of the Commission's rules was assigned control number 3060-0213 and was approved by OMB on December 21, 2006.                

Federal Communications Commission.

Barbara Kreisman,

Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau.

 [FR Doc. E7-4539 Filed 3-13-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate recor d, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argumentwould not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. Se e Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1 (G). The cause is therefore ordered s ubmitted without oral argument. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### FEB 16 1999 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
LEE TRAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, vs. DIANE CYPERT; KEN KLINGER, Defendants - Appellees. No. 98-6174 (D.C. No. 97-CV-909) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before PORFILIO , KELLY , and HENRY , Circuit Judges. **
Mr. Lee Traylor, an inmate appearing pro se in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, appeals from a grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants. The district court adopted, over Mr. Traylor’s objectio n, the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. On appeal, Mr. Traylor contend s that he has been denied a liberty interest without due process and equal prot ection based upon classification- 2 -

changes culminating in his transfer to the OklahomaState Penitentiary where he was placed in protective custody in a single cell. The summary judgment record indicates that prison officials moved Mr. Traylor b ased upon safety concerns of other inmates. Despite Mr. Traylor’s characterizat ion of the transfer as “summary punishment,” his due process claim is barred by San din v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). The confinement alleged does not implicate a protected liberty interest. See id . at 486. Mr. Traylor’s equal protection challenge is likewise without merit--Defendants established that any disparate tr eatment is rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose. See Riddle v. Mondragon , 83 F.3d 1197, 1207 (10 thCir. 1996). We have liberally construed Mr. Traylor’s pro se pl eadings, see Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) (per curiam), and rev iewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on his remaining claims de novo, see Barney v. Pulsipher , 143 F.3d 1299, 1306 (10 thCir. 1998). We affirm for substantially the same reasons given by the district court, inclu ding the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge. See R. docs. 15 & 17. AFFIRMED. Entered for the Court Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge
No. 53020.

#### Armour & Company *v.*United States,

protests 144582-K and 144583-K (Detroit).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of “ox gall concentrate,” the same in all material respects as the substance passed upon in *G. D. Searle & Co.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 112, C. D. 1138). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1669 was therefore sustained.
No. 58963.

protests 944755-G, etc. (New York).

#### Dmitrovsky Bros., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of lambskin plates the same in all material respects as those the subject of *A. S. Gold & Bro., Inc.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 120, C. D. 1643), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Ford, J., concurred.

Mollison, J.,

dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C. D. 1643, *supra.*
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

              Statement Reference Computation of Per Share Earnings

Basic earnings per share represents income available to common stockholders
divided by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding during the
period. Diluted earnings per share reflects additional common shares that would
have been outstanding if dilutive potential common shares had been issued, as
well as any adjustment to income that would result from the assumed issuance.
Potential common shares that may be issued by the Company relate solely to
outstanding stock options and are determined using the treasury stock method.

The weighted average number of shares used in the computation of basic earnings
per share was 878,570 for 2001 and 680,356 for 2000 and 705,260 for 1999. The
weighted average number of shares used in the computation of diluted earnings
per share was 889,705 for 2001 and 727,194 for 2000 and 758,765 for 1999.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of
Lpath, Inc. (the Corporation) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Scott R. Pancoast, President and Chief
Executive Officer and I, Gary J. G. Atkinson, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our
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 results of operations of the Corporation.

Date: May 11, 2011



/S/    SCOTT R. PANCOASTScott R. PancoastPresident and Chief Executive Officer/S/    GARY J. G. ATKINSONGary J. G. AtkinsonVice President and Chief Financial Officer


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

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Lpath, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date
of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
<PAGE>



                                                                    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 annual report of PrimeEnergy Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Beverly
A. Cummings, Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

         (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/ Beverly A. Cummings
------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
March 30, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 460 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 460

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to establish an urban 
  Indian organization confer policy for the Department of Health and 
                            Human Services.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Urban Indian Health Confer Act''.

SEC. 2. URBAN INDIAN ORGANIZATION CONFER POLICY.

     Section 514 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 
1660d) is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the 
following:
    ``(b) Requirement.--The Secretary shall ensure that the Service and 
the other agencies and offices of the Department confer, to the maximum 
extent practicable, with urban Indian organizations in carrying out--
            ``(1) this Act; and
            ``(2) other provisions of law relating to Indian health 
        care.''.

            Passed the Senate July 18, 2023.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
118th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 460

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to establish an urban 
  Indian organization confer policy for the Department of Health and 
                            Human Services.
```
**EXHIBIT 99.4**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporationby reference in Registration Statements Nos. 333-105130 and 333-151733 on Form S-8 and to the use of our reports datedFebruary 15, 2017 relating to the consolidated financial statements of Sun Life Financial Inc. (the “Company”) and the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2016. 

/s/ “Deloitte LLP”

Chartered Professional Accountants 

Licensed Public Accountants 

Toronto, Canada

February 15, 2017
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOEL WHITNEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2683 DFL PAN P

vs.

SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On January 24, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court agrees with the findings and recommendations that plaintiff has failed to exhaust

administrative remedies. However, the court’s reasoning is somewhat different from that of the

Case 2:04-cv-02683-DFL-PAN Document 22 Filed 03/08/06 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

2

magistrate judge. The magistrate judge relies on plaintiff’s refusal to submit to a videotaped

interview. Although the facts are somewhat unclear, plaintiff now states that he was prepared to

submit to an audiotaped interview. It is unclear whether he communicated this willingness to

prison officials. Assuming that he did, the court is not prepared to hold, on the limited record

before it, that an inmate, who claims that he (1) has been raped, (2) is too distraught to

participate in a videotaped interview, but (3) will participate in an audiotaped interview, thereby

fails to exhaust available administrative remedies. Nonetheless, it is undisputed that plaintiff

declined to appear for two scheduled interviews with T. Hansen as part of the administrative

process. There was no issue as to videotaping with respect to these interviews. Plaintiff now

says that he is willing to be interviewed at the Director’s Level. But it is not for the plaintiff to

pick and choose when, at what level and by whom he will be interviewed during the grievance

process. The court further agrees with the magistrate judge that the administrative process

remains open to plaintiff should he wish to pursue it.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed January 24, 2006, are adopted to the

extent indicated above; and

2. Defendants’ July 15, 2005, motion to dismiss is granted and this action is

dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 

DATED: 3/7/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02683-DFL-PAN Document 22 Filed 03/08/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit
32.01 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 Essential
Innovations Technology Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter
ended July 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Jason McDiarmid, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, 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 and belief: (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/ Jason
        McDiarmidJason McDiarmidChief Executive OfficerSeptember 7, 2007 A signed original of this written statement required
by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise
adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 8 A0 12 0

. OMATAYO A

. I DOW U v . NORTH AMERI CAN SPECI ALTY I NSURANCE COMPANY.

I n t h i s b reach of co n t ract act i o n , t h e t ri al co u rt en t ered a co n s en t o rd er award i n g d am ag es t o t h e p l ai n t i ff o n M ay 1 7
, 2 01 6

. O n J u n e 3 0
, 2 0 16
, Om at ay o Id o wu fi led a n o t i ce o f ap p eal t o t h i s Co u rt . W e l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n

. A n o t i ce o f ap p eal m

u s t b e fi l ed wi t h i n 3 0 d ay s o f en t ry o f t h e o rd er so u g h t t o b e ap p eal ed

. OCGA § 5 -6 -3 8 (a). Th e p ro p er an d ti m el y fi l in g o f a n o t i ce o f ap p eal
i s an ab s o l u t e req u i rem en t t o co n fer j u ri sd i ct i o n o n th i s Co u rt

. Ro wl a n d v. S t a t e , 2 6 4
Ga. 8 7 2
, 8 7 2 (1 ) (4 5 2 SE2 d 7 5 6 ) (1 9 9 5 ). Id o wu ’ s n o ti ce of ap peal i s u n t im el y , as i t

was fi l ed 4 4 d ay s aft er en t ry o f t h e ju d g m en t ag ai ns t h i m

. Co n s eq u en t ly
, t h i s ap p eal
i s h ereb y DISM ISSED fo r l ack o f ju ri s d i ct i o n

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t if y t h a t th e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t
h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. September 06, 2017

09/06/2017
Order filed May 13 , 2021

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 21

- 00205

- CV

____________ IN RE K
. P
. , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS On Appeal from the 257th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017

- 22874



### ORDER On April 20, 2021, relator K.P. filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking this court to compel the Honorable Sandra Peake, presiding judge of the 257 th District Court in Harris County, Texas, to se t aside her April 19, 2021 orders for application of Indian passports for the children

. Relator ’s appendix and supplemental appendix include documents , which contain un redacted sensitive information such as the names and bir thdates of the minor children. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.9( a)(3). Parties are required to redact all sensitive information in documents filed in this court unless the inclusion of the sensitive data is specifically required by a statute, court rule, or admin istrative regulation. Id. 9.9(b). There is no statute, court rule, or administrative regulation requiring the inclusion of sensitive data.Accordingly, we ORDER relator to redact all sensitive information from her

appendix and supplement appendix and ref ile them in this court on or before May 17, 2021 . Failure to compl y wi th this order will result in the denial of relator’s petition.
We fur ther request that real party in interest file a response to the petition on or before June 1 , 2021

. PER CURIAM Panel Consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Hassan.
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SODA MOUNTAIN WILDERNESS

COUNCIL,

NO. CIV. S-04-2583 LKK/CMK

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

GAIL NORTON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

On May 25, 2005, plaintiffs objected to the administrative

record and moved to compel defendants to include additional

documents in the record. Defendants are directed to either file

an opposition, or lodge the administrative record (and file a

statement of non-opposition to the motion to compel) by 4:00 p.m.

on June 24, 2005. 

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-02583-LKK -CMK Document 21 Filed 06/14/05 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

2

If defendants file an opposition, plaintiffs will file their

reply, if any, by July 1, 2005 at 4:00 p.m. The court will decide

the motion to compel without oral argument. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 14, 2005.

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

for LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

Case 2:04-cv-02583-LKK -CMK Document 21 Filed 06/14/05 Page 2 of 2