alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Federal Guidelines:

Do not flush prescription drugs down the toilet or drain unless the label or

accompanying patient information specifically instructs you to do so.  For

information on drugs that should be flushed visit the FDA’s website.

To dispose of prescription drugs not labeled to be flushed, you may be able to

take advantage of community drug take‐back programs or other programs, such

as household hazardous waste collection events, that collect drugs at a central

location for proper disposal.  Call your city or county government’s household

trash and recycling service and ask if a drug take‐back program is available in your

community.

If a drug take‐back or collection program is not available:

1. Take your prescription drugs out of their original containers.

2. Mix drugs with an undesirable substance, such as cat litter or used coffee

grounds.

3. Put the mixture into a disposable container with a lid, such as an empty

margarine tub, or into a sealable bag.

4. Conceal or remove any personal information, including Rx number, on the

empty containers by covering it with black permanent marker or duct tape,

or by scratching it off.

5. Place the sealed container with the mixture, and the empty drug containers,

in the trash.

Office o f National Drug Control Policy       October 2009

Proper Disposal of Prescription Drugs

Office of National Drug Control Policy

750 17th St. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503

p (202) 395‐ 6618   f (202) 395‐6730

www.WhiteHouseDrugPolicy.gov
August 6 , 2015

M r. F rederick Hagan

1405 Isabella View Ct.

Fisherville, KY 40023

Dear Mr. Hagan :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

§ xx.xx of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not

process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We received your May 26

, filed in D ocket No

. FAA

- 20 15

- 1930 , but we are unable to process

your request any further. Your petiti on does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81

(copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the

following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the

relief you se ek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would prov ide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.2

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Avia tion Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 1 1.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at

least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. I f

you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure3
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 21-5025 September Term, 2020

1:20-cv-03354-UNA

Filed On: May 25, 2021

Donald White,

Appellant

v.

Edward Markey, United States Senate, et al.,

Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Pillard and Walker, Circuit Judges, and Sentelle, Senior Circuit 

Judge

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and on the brief and supplement filed by appellant. See

Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order entered December

22, 2020, be affirmed. Appellant has not shown that the district court erred in

dismissing the case without prejudice for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 8(a) and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Appellant’s complaint did not

set forth “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction” or “a

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Additionally, appellant failed to plead facts to establish his

standing to sue, and “the defect of standing is a defect in subject matter jurisdiction.” 

Haase v. Sessions, 835 F.2d 902, 906 (D.C. Cir. 1987). To establish Article III

standing, plaintiffs must allege an injury that is “concrete, particularized, and actual or

imminent; fairly traceable to the challenged action; and redressable by a favorable

ruling.” Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 409, 133 S. Ct. 1138, 1147 (2013)

(quoting Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139, 149–50 (2010)). 

Appellant has not

demonstrated what, if any, injury he sustained as a result of the facts alleged.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 21-5025 September Term, 2020

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.

P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy 

Deputy Clerk

Page 2
No. 48889.

#### Petition 6145-R of Close & Stewart.

C. D. 777. Petitioner’s application for rehearing granted.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Employees observe Native American Heritage Month

By Jake JoyDLA Disposition Services

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
No. 74-907.

#### Keyser, dba Keyser Towing Co., et al. *v.*Dunlop, Secretary of Labor.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>   1

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed
Registration Statements on Forms S-3 (File Numbers 333-09917, 333-10117 and
333-37098) and Forms S-8 (File Numbers 333-09911, 333-09909 and 333-46086).


                                                    /S/  ARTHUR   ANDERSEN  LLP
                                                    ---------------------------
                                                    ARTHUR   ANDERSEN  LLP


Phoenix, Arizona
  December 15, 2000.
Exhibit 32.1


                           INTRAOP MEDICAL CORPORATION

                            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 Intraop  Medical  Corporation  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009,  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P.
Powers, 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:

     (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 Company.


                                        /s/   John P. Powers
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        John P. Powers
                                        Chief Executive Officer

                                        Date:  May 14, 2009


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Intraop Medical  Corporation and will be retained by Intraop Medical
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
**Exhibit 32.1**

AMTECH SYSTEMS, INC. AND ITS
SUBSIDIARIESCERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of
Amtech Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended September
30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Jong S. Whang, President and Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 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.



|By |  | /s/ Jong S. Whang                           |  | 
|-- |  | ------------------------------------------- |  | 
|   |  | Jong
      S. Whang                        
|   |  | President and
      Chief Executive Officer | 
|   |  | Date:
      December 12, 2007
#### Buddy GRAVER, et al. v. MONSANTO COMPANY, INC., et al.

No. 98-C-2616.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 8, 1999.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 26, 1999.

In re Monsanto Company Inc.; — Defendants); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; Parish of St. Charles, 29th Judicial District, Court, Div. “D”, No. 45,-965; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 97-CA-0799.

Granted. The lower court rulings certifying this case as a class action are reversed. *See Ford v. Murphy Oil U.S.A., Inc.,*703 So.2d 542 (La.1997).

CALOGERO, C.J., and KIMBALL and JOHNSON, JJ., would grant and docket.

LEMMON, J., not on panel.
#### David Merrill SCATES, Petitioner-Respondent, v. STATE of Missouri, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, and Donna Faye Barton, Respondents-Appellants.

No. 22395.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division One.

Oct. 28, 1998.

James M. McCoy, Dept, of Social Services, Division of Legal Services, Jefferson City, for Appellant.

No brief filed, for Respondent.

PREWITT, Presiding Judge.

The Division of Child Support Enforcement attempted to modify a judicial child support order, pursuant to Section 454.496, RSMo 1994. Following a purported modification, Respondent David Merrill Scates sought judicial review. The trial court entered judgment in his favor, finding that the modification “was not judicially approved by this or any other Court and no judicial order has been entered finding that there were facts to justify said modification decision and order of the Division.” Respondents in the trial court appeal, contending that the circuit court erred in not reviewing and approving the modification order.1

*794We deem this matter to be controlled by *Chastain v. Chastain*932 S.W.2d 396 (Mo. banc 1996). There, the forty-five day automatic approval provision of that statute was held unconstitutional, but even though the order was not approved, the Court did not dismiss the action but remanded it to the trial court “for a determination of the merits of the remaining issues raised in the father’s petition for judicial review and the conformity of the Division’s modification order to Rule 88.01.” We conclude that this matter should likewise be remanded.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for the trial court to make *a*determination on the merits of the issues in Respondent’s petition for judicial review and the conformity of the Division’s modification order to Rule 88.01.

CROW and BARNEY, JJ., concur.

1

. Respondent has filed no brief. While there is no penalty for that omission, we must adjudicate Appellants’ claim of error without the benefit of whatever argument, if any, Respondent could have made in response to it. *Sherrod v. Director of Revenue,*937 S.W.2d 751, 752 (Mo.App.1997).
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2258 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2258

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the rule 
   providing 5-year amortization of expenses incurred in creating or 
                  acquiring music or music copyrights.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 29, 2012

 Ms. Snowe (for herself, Ms. Landrieu, Mrs. Hutchison, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. 
  Alexander, and Mr. Corker) introduced the following bill; which was 
          read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the rule 
   providing 5-year amortization of expenses incurred in creating or 
                  acquiring music or music copyrights.

    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 ``Songwriters Tax Simplification 
Reauthorization Act''.

SEC. 2. SPECIAL RULE FOR AMORTIZATION OF MUSICAL WORKS AND COPYRIGHTS 
              MADE PERMANENT.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (8) of section 167(g) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking subparagraph (E).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2273 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2273

To designate the Talkeetna Ranger Station in Talkeetna, Alaska, as the 
                Walter Harper Talkeetna Ranger Station.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 29, 2012

 Ms. Murkowski introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the Talkeetna Ranger Station in Talkeetna, Alaska, as the 
                Walter Harper Talkeetna Ranger Station.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF THE WALTER HARPER TALKEETNA RANGER STATION, 
              ALASKA.

    (a) Designation.--The Talkeetna Ranger Station located on B Street 
in Talkeetna, Alaska, approximately 100 miles south of the entrance to 
Denali National Park, shall be known and designated as the ``Walter 
Harper Talkeetna Ranger Station''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Talkeetna Ranger 
Station referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 
to the ``Walter Harper Talkeetna Ranger Station''.
                                 <all>
```
(Reap. Dec. 9703)

#### Frank P. Dow, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 1128.

(Decided May 10, 1960)

*Stein & Shostak*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant

Wilson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has 'been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation entered into between counsel for the parties herein:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, as to the merchandise covered by the Appeal for Reappraisement set out in the attached Schedule:

> 1. Thalt the merchandise covered by this Appeal was exported from Japan on or about August 20,1958.

> 2. That the merchandise covered by this ease is not on the final list of articles published by the Secretary of the Treasury in T.D. 54521, on which valúa*712tion under the Tariff Act is made on the basis of Section 402 of said Act as originally enacted; that the merchandise covered by the entry the subject of this Appeal, not being on said list, is subject to appraisement under Section 402 as modified by the Custom's Simplification Act of 1956, which became effective February 28, 1958, prior to the date of the entry the subject of this Appeal.

3. That at the time of exportation to the United States of the merchandise covered by this Appeal, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was sold and freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of the containers or coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States were the invoiced unit values, ex-factory, as entered.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Appeal for Reap-praisement set out in the attached Schedule may be deemed submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and bold the export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved,.and that such values were the invoiced unit values, ex-factory, as entered.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 96-1156.

#### Presbytery of New Jersey of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church et al. *v.*Whitman, Governor of New Jersey, et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Sanitized – Attachment 007 

Page 1 of 2
Sanitized – Attachment 007 

Page 2 of 2
Before the Third Division,

October 2, 1940

No. 44398

#### Protest 20365-K of New York Mdse. Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Woolworth*v. *United States*(T. D. 47857) and Abstract 34216 the claim for free entry under paragraph 1703 was sustained.
EXHIBIT 31.2


                                 CERTIFICATIONS
                                 --------------

I, Andrew Reiben, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report (this "annual report") on Form 10-K of ATC
Healthcare, 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;

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
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

                  (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

                  (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluations; and

                  (c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
fourth Fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

                  (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

                  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting.

Date: May 26, 2005               /s/ ANDREW REIBEN
                                ------------------------------------------------
                                Andrew Reiben
                                Chief Financial Officer,
                                Senior Vice President, Finance and Treasurer