alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### DRAFT AGENDA

US E NVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

OPEN MEETING

SEPTEMBER 15

- 18, 2015

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

D OCKET N UMBER : EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2015

- 0424

U.S. E NVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

C ONFERENCE C ENTER L OBBY L EVEL

O NE POTOMAC Y ARD ( SOUTH B LDG. )

2777 S. C RYSTAL DRIVE , A RLINGTON , VA 22202

“The Development of a Spatial Aquatic Model (SAM) for Pesticide Risk

Assessment ”

Please note that all times are approximate (see note at end of Agenda)

. Day 1

September 15, 2015

9 :00 A .M. Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures

– Fred Jenkins

, Ph.D.

, Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA

9 :05 A .M. Introduction and Identification of Panel Members

– Stephen Klaine , Ph.D.

, FIFRA Scientific Advisory Chair

9 :1 0 A .M. Welcome and Opening Remarks

– EPA

9 :2 5 A .M. EPA Presentations

10:30 A.M. Break

10:45 A.M. EPA Presentations (Cont'd)

12 : 00 P .M. Lunch

1: 00 P.M. EPA Presentations ( C ont’d)

3 : 00 P.M. Break

3 : 15 P.M. EPA Presentations ( C ont’d)

5 :30 P.M. A djournDay 2

Wednesday, September 16, 2015

9:00 A.M. Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures

– Fred Jenkins, Ph.D.

, Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA

9:05 A .M. Introduction and Identification of Panel Members

– Stephen Klaine , Ph.D.,

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Chair

9:10 A.M. F ollow

- up from the previous day presentations

9:40 A.M. P ublic Comments

10: 3 0 A.M B reak

10:40 A.M. Public Comments (C ont ’d )

12:00 P.M. L unch

1: 00 P.M. Charge to Panel

3: 00 P

. M

. B reak

3: 15 P

. M

. C harge to Panel

5:30 P

. M

. A djournDay 3

Thursday

, September 1 7 , 2015

9:00 A.M. Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures

– Fred Jenkins, Ph.D.

, Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA

9:05 A.M. Introduction and Identification of Panel Members

– Stephen Klaine , Ph.D.,

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Chair

9:10 A.M. Follow

- up from the previous day discussions

9:30 A.M. Charge to Panel (Cont’d)

10:30 A.M. B reak

10:45 A.M. Charge to Panel (Cont’d)

12:00 P.M. L unch

1: 00 P.M. Charge to Panel (Cont’d)

3:00 P.M. B reak

3: 15 P.M. Charge to Panel (Cont’d)

5:30 P.M. A djourn

Please be advised that agenda times are approximate; when the discussion for one topic is

completed, discussions for the next topic will begin. For further information, please contact

the Designated Federal Official for this meeting, Dr. Fred Jenkins, via telephone: (202) 564

- 3327; fax: (202) 564

- 8382; or email: jenkins.fred@epa.gov
1



# FACA 101 Overview **Advisory Committees** An Advisory

Committee is any

committee, board, commission, council, conference, panel, task force, or similar group, or an y subcommittee or other subgroup thereof, which is established by statute or established or utilized by the President or by

an agency in the interest of obtaining advice or recommendations for the President or the agency and which has at least one member who is not a full

- time or permanent part

- time officer or employ ee of the Federal government. DHS advisory

committees have issued app roximately 2,448 recommendations. Approximately 56 percent have been fully implemented and approximately 33 percent have been partiall y implemented. An advisory

committee (advisory

committee or FACA committee) is subject to the provisions of FACA and 41 C FR Parts 101

- 6 and 102

- 3. Of the 27 advisory

committees 2 are established under Presidential Executive Order (non

discretionary ); 14 established by statute (non

- discretionary ) and 11 established under agency authority (discretionary ). http://dhsconnect.dhs.gov/org/comp/plcy /hsac/cmo/Pages/Advisory Committee.aspx **Federal Advisory Committee Act** The Federal Advisory

Committee Act (5 U.S.C., App) or FACA, and the FA CA I mplementing Regulations (41 CFR 101

- 6 and 102

- 3) provide the basis for and guidance concerning the management and operation of federal advisory committees (FACs). Ty

pically , groups subject to FACA require:

 Open, pre

- announced meetings;

 Public a ccess to discussions, deliberations, records and documents;

 Opportunity

for the public to provide written (and often oral) comments;

 Fairl y balanced membership; and,

 The evaluation of conflicts of interest for certain members.
In general, the provisions of FACA appl y when the government utilizes (i.e., manages and controls) an outside group (two or more individuals) to provide advice and recommenda tions to a Federal official. Although man y groups that advise the Department are sub ject to FACA, the question whether FACA applies to the Department’s dealings with other groups is not alway s eas y to answer, requiring a careful application of the facts involved to the law. Departmental staff who have questions about FACA’s applicability should contact the Department’s Committee Management Office or the General Law Division of the Office located in the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) for assistance. In addition, even in dealing with groups (particularly non - Federal groups) found not to be subject to FACA, Departmental personnel may encounter significant issues regarding matters such as: ethics and standards of conduct; information sharing; selectively benefiting one part y over2

another; procurement; and the authority to speak on behal f of the employ ee’s Component or the Department as a whole. When issues in these areas arise Departmental staff should consult the appropriate unit of OGC, i.e., that in their Component or the General Law Division, their Component’s deputy

ethics official s, or the Designated Agency Ethics Official (DAEO). http://dhsconnect.dhs.gov/org/comp/plcy /hsac/cmo/Pages/FACA.aspx
#### Alton Joseph FROISY v. Samir SALAMA, M.D.

No. 98-C-2798.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 8, 1999.

In re Salama, Samir M.D; — Defendants); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court, Div. “D”, No. 86835-D; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA98-0466.

Denied.

TRAYLOR, J., not on panel.
34157.

#### JACKSON v. THE STATE.

Per curiam.

Eloise Jackson, a/k/a Eloise Jones appeals from a conviction of murder with a life sentence. There were several eyewitnesses who saw the appellant stab the victim. Her defense was that she had stabbed him because she was afraid that she would be killed because of the beating she had sustained and the fact that the deceased had been drinking and using drugs.

The sole enumeration of error contends that the trial court erred in refusing to allow appellant’s counsel to *693examine the report of the State Crime Laboratory’s expert witness concerning her analysis of the victim’s blood. This witness was called by the state and on direct examination requested permission to refer to her notes to refresh her memory. Her testimony was used to show there was human blood on one of the knives introduced by the state. On cross examination the witness testified that she did not know whose blood was on the knife and that the identification of the blood was not part of her notes. Appellant contends that the report was needed on cross examination to determine whether the state’s expert witness had determined from an analysis of the victim’s blood if that blood showed a significant percentage of alcohol and drugs to the point that appellant’s testimony was corroborated as to the condition of the victim at the time his death took place and as to whether she was justified in her fear of him. We find no error. The appellant had no right to examine the witness’ notes which were used to refresh her memory. *Smith v. Smith,*222 Ga. 313 (149 SE2d 683) (1966).1 Also, the appellant has not shown that the lack of the material impaired her defense so as to deprive her of a fair trial. *Potts v. State,*241 Ga. 67 (243 SE2d 510) (1978).

Submitted October 13, 1978

Decided December 5, 1978.

*Davis, Davidson & Hopkins, Jack S. Davidson, Robinson, Harben, Armstrong & Millikan, Sam Harben,*for appellant.

*Nat Hancock, District Attorney, Richard J. Burkett, Assistant District Attorney, Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, G. Stephen Parker, Assistant Attorney General,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

However, as to the desirability of this rule, see 29 Encyclopedia of Georgia Law, Witnesses, § 29.
FluoroCouncil

- EPA Meeting February 11, 2015 1

- 2pm; WJC East 4140

Agenda

 EPA’s proposal to make inapplicable the exemption for person s who import LCFAC chemicals as part of articles.

 Definition of impurity.

 D ocumentation supporting the “ongoing use s. ”

 A dditional action s by EPA to support the 2009 Long

- Chain Perfluorinated Chemicals Action Plan ( http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/actionplans/pfcs.html ).
EXHIBIT 32.2

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of SonoSite, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010, I, Marcus Y. Smith, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
SonoSite, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) such Annual Report on Form 10-K of SonoSite, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K of SonoSite, Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of SonoSite, Inc.



/s/    MARCUS Y. SMITHMarcus Y. SmithSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)


March 16, 2011
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT


         THIS  AMENDMENT  NO. 1 dated as of January 1,  1999,  to the  Agreement
dated  February 3, 1996 (the  "Agreement"),  by and between  Point West  Capital
Corporation  (formerly Dignity Partners,  Inc.), a Delaware  corporation ("Point
West") and The Echelon Group of  Companies,  LLC, a Delaware  limited  liability
company ("Echelon") is made by and between Point West and Echelon.

                                    RECITALS

         WHEREAS, Point West and Echelon previously entered into the Agreement;

         WHEREAS,  the  operations  of  Point  West  and  Echelon  have  changed
resulting in Point West utilizing more and Echelon  utilizing less office space;
and

         WHEREAS,  Point West anticipates  leasing new office space or releasing
the office space subject to the Lease referenced in the Agreement.

         NOW, THEREFORE,  in exchange for good and valuable  consideration,  the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged,  the parties do hereby
covenant and agree as follows:

Section 1.         Definitions.
                  -----------

         Capitalized  terms used herein which are not otherwise  defined  herein
have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Agreement.

Section 3.        Consideration.
                  -------------

         Section 3 of the  Agreement  is hereby  amended and restated to read as
follows:

         So long as Echelon  uses any portion of the  Premises  or other  office
space leased by Point West,  Echelon shall pay on the first day of each calendar
month an amount  equal to twenty  percent  (20%) of any rent due and  payable by
Point West to the landlord  for the  Premises or other office space  without any
set-off or deduction.  Payments for any partial calendar month shall be prorated
on a per diem basis.

Section 6.        Insurance.
                  ---------

         Section 6 of the  Agreement  is hereby  amended and restated to read as
follows:

         Point West shall  maintain and keep in full force and effect all of the
insurance  policies  required  by  Section  6.01 (b) of the Lease and by any new
lease  and  Echelon  shall be  named  as an  additional  named  insured  on such
policies.  Echelon  shall pay  twenty  percent  (20%) of all  premiums  for such
insurance policies.


<PAGE>



         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No.
1 to the Agreement as of the day and year first above written.





                                   POINT WEST CAPITAL CORPORATION



                                    /s/Alan B. Perper
                                    -----------------------------
                                    Alan B. Perper




                                   The Echelon Group of Companies, LLC


                                    /s/John Ward Rotter
                                    -----------------------------
                                    John Ward Rotter
No. 74-272.

No. 74-481.

No. 74-482.

No. 74-5367.

No. 74-5701.

No. 74-5721.

#### Seminole Nation of Oklahoma *v.*United States, Virginia *v.*United States et al., Cissna *v.*McQuaid, Trustee in Bankruptcy, Smith *v.*Maryland, Clark *v.*Dumbauld, U. S. District Judge, Carter *v.*Estelle, Corrections Director,

*ante,*p. 907;

*ante,*p. 901;

419 U. S. 1050;

*ante,*p. 909;

*ante,*p. 905; and

*ante,*p. 912. Petitions for rehearing denied.
#### The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Boris MASIP, Appellee.

No. 98-893.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 21, 1999.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Maya Saxena, Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Betty Hyman, for appellee.

Before LEVY, GERSTEN, and SHEVIN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The State of Florida appeals an order granting Boris Masip’s petition for writ of error coram nobis. We reverse.

On May 3,1989, Masip was charged with committing a lewd assault on a minor. Masip pleaded no contest to the charge and, on May 4, 1989, he was sentenced to three years probation. At some point thereafter, deportation proceedings were instituted against Masip, who is a native of Columbia. On January 15, 1998, Masip moved to vacate his plea and set aside the judgment via a petition for writ of error coram nobis, arguing that his plea was not voluntarily entered because he was not made aware that his plea would subject him to deportation proceedings. The trial court granted Masip’s petition and this appeal followed.

A petition for a writ of error coram nobis should be granted only where *432no other remedy is available. *See Russ v. State,*95 So.2d 594 (Fla.1957); *Peart v. State,*705 So.2d 1059 (Fla. 3d DCA), *rev. granted,*722 So.2d 193 (Fla.1998). The adoption of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 has limited coram nobis applicability to instances where a person is not in state custody and is thereby precluded from obtaining 3.850 relief. *See Richardson v. State,*546 So.2d 1037 (Fla.1989).

Here, Masip was in state custody for three years. *See State v. Bolyea,*520 So.2d 562 (Fla.1988) (holding that court-ordered probation constitutes “custody” for 3.850 purposes); *Peart v. State,*705 So.2d at 1062. Consequently, he could have raised the present claim by way of a timely 3.850 motion. He failed to do so.

The instant coram nobis petition represents nothing more than an attempt to circumvent rule 3.850’s time limitation. The writ cannot be used for such a purpose. *See Peart v. State,*705 So.2d at 1062.

Accordingly, the order under review is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to deny Masip’s petition for writ of error coram nobis.

Reversed and remanded.
Exhibit 99.2







CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the Annual Report of Triant Technologies Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark A. Stephens, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Mark A. Stephens______________

Mark A. Stephens,

Chief Financial Officer

April 28, 2002
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v RICHARD C. WALTER, Private E-2, U. S. Army, Appellant

8 USCMA 620, 25 CMR 124

*621No. 10,612

Decided January 24, 1958

*Colonel Edward M. O’Connell*was on the brief for Appellant, Accused. *Lieutenant Colonel John G. Lee*and *First Lieutenant Jay D. Fischer*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

HomeR FERGUSON, Judge:

The issue presented in this case concerns the correctness of the law officer’s instruction on the question of the accused’s intent to desert. The instruction was as follows:

> “As to length of absence without authority, it is within the province of the court to determine whether or not the length of time involved, if in the absence of satisfactory explanation, is of sufficient duration from which it can infer an intent to remain away permanently. You must determine whether or not the absence was much prolonged, and if so, whether or not there was a satisfactory explanation for it.”

A similar instruction was recently condemned as being prejudicially erroneous in the case of United States v Soccio, 8 USCMA 477, 24 CMR 287.

For the reasons stated in that opinion, the accused’s conviction of desertion must be reversed. The record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for submission to a board of review. In its discretion, the board may approve the lesser offense of absence without leave and reassess the entire sentence or it may order a rehearing on the charge of desertion.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

LatimeR, Judge

(dissenting):

I dissent. My reasons for so doing are expressed in my concurring opinion in United States v Soccio, 8 USCMA 477, 24 CMR 287.
#### Eliza TURNER and Willie Bean v. The PARISH OF JEFFERSON, through the DEPARTMENT OF RECREATION, Houma Motels, Inc. d/b/a Holiday Inn Holidome, ABC Insurance Company and XYZ Insurance Company.

No. 98-C-2823.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 8, 1999.

*637In re Turner, Eliza; Bean, Willie;— Plaintiffs); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 98-CA-0336; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “G”, No. 490-569.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J., not on panel.

VICTORY and TRAYLOR, JJ, would grant the writ.
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 377 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 26, 2008 

Received 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a 

ceremony commemorating the 60th Anniversary of the 

beginning of the integration of the United States Armed 

Forces. 

Whereas African American men and women have served with 

distinction, courage, and honor in the United States 

Armed Forces throughout the history of the nation, even 

when they were denied the basic constitutional freedoms 

promised to all citizens; 

Whereas the practice of racial segregation and discrimination 

in the military prevented African Americans 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

HCON 377 RDS 

from receiving the full recognition to which they were entitled as a result of their service; 

Whereas African Americans, in leading the effort to protest 

discriminatory treatment in the armed forces, paved the 

way for successful integration of women, Asians, Hispanics, and other ethnic minorities; 

Whereas the dedicated and heroic service of African American men and women during World War II led to President Truman’s historic executive order 60 years ago that 

marked the beginning of racial integration in the United 

States Armed Forces; 

Whereas as a result of President Truman’s action, the United 

States Armed Forces has become one of the nation’s best 

examples of an institution committed to equality, opportunity, and advancement based on merit rather than 

race, religion, or ethnicity; and 

Whereas the heroic contributions of each member of the 

United States Armed Forces should be honored and celebrated: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. USE OF ROTUNDA FOR CEREMONY COMMEMO4 RATING 60TH ANNIVERSARY OF INTEGRA5 TION OF THE ARMED FORCES. 

6 (a) USE OF ROTUNDA.—The rotunda of the Capitol 

7 is authorized to be used on July 23, 2008, for a ceremony 

8 commemorating the 60th anniversary of President Tru9 man’s Executive Order No. 9981, which states, ‘‘It is 

10 hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
3 

HCON 377 RDS 

1 shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all per2 sons in the armed services without regard to race, color, 

3 religion or national origin.’’. 

4 (b) PREPARATIONS.—Physical preparations for the 

5 ceremony referred to in subsection (a) shall be carried out 

6 in accordance with such conditions as the Architect of the 

7 Capitol may prescribe. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 25, 2008. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 

By DEBORAH M. SPRIGGS, 

Deputy Clerk. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Al-Anbar awakening [electronicresource].**
 
v1|v2|
 
SuDoc Number:D 214.13:IR 1/4/V.1-2

Item Number:Link0383-B (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000807903

 
July 16, 2018
No. 74-5918.

#### Callahan *v.*South Carolina.

Sup. Ct. S. C. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 23.2

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (333-57685) of our reports dated March 4, 1996 relating 
to the financial statements of Huxley Envelope Corporation and March 6, 1996
relating to the financial statement of United Envelope Co., Inc. and its
affiliate. Rex Envelope Co., Inc., included in Workflow Management, Inc.'s
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended April 25, 1998.

HERTZ, HERSON & COMPANY, LLP
New York, New York
July 20, 1998