alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1200 New Jersey Avenue. SE.

Washington,DC 20590 

In Reply Refor to: HCR-20 

DOT# 2019-0059 

JUN 1 3 2019 

Subject: Dismissal of Complaint DOT# 2019-0059 

Dear -

This letter is to infonn you that the Federal Highway Administration (FI-IW A) Office of Civil 

Rights has determined that it wil1 dismiss the above complaint, which alleges violations that may 

be related to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. the U.S. Department of Transportation 

(USDOT) Title VI implementation regulations at 49 C.F.R. Part 2 l and/orFHW A's Title VI 

regulations at 23 C.F.R. Part 200 (hereinafter Title VI). Title VJ prohibits discrimination on the 

basis ofrace, color. or national origin in programs and activities receiving Federal financial 

assistance. 

To be accepted for investigation, a complaint must meet the jurisdictional requirements provided 

by 49 C.F.R. § 21.11. as well as the legal standards discussed in the U.S. Depa1tment of Justice 

Title V[ Lerrnl Manual. First, complaints must be filed within 180 calendar days of the alleged 

discriminatory act, unless the time for filing is extended by FHWA. Second. the matters must 

concern recipients of federal financial assistance for a program or programs authorized under a 

law administered by FHWA. Finally. the complaint must describe an alleged discriminatory act 

or acts that, if true, would fall under FHWA's jurisdiction and potentially violate FHWA 's Title 

VI regulations. 

You allege the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments (BFCG) violated Title VI when it 

denied your application for a business loan as pari of its Microloan Program for Women and 

Minority-Owned Businesses. Specifically. you allege that, after you were denied a loan, a 

representafrve from the BFCG who did not take part in the applicaiion denial made raciallyinsensitive remarks to you. You further allege that the fonner Executive Director ofthe BFCG 

minimized your concerns. 

After carefuJ consideration. FI-IWA has determined the allegations and facts in your complaint 

do not meet the minimum criteria under which FHWA could establish a case ofdisparate 

treatment under Title VI. For this reason, this complaint will be dismissed by Fl-lWA and closed 

with no further action. 

lfyou have any questions, please contact Nichole McWhorter at (202) 366.1396. 
Nichole McWho er 

Title VI Team Leader 

Office ofCivil Rights 

cc: Daniel Mathis, Division Administrator, FHW A WA Division Office 

Melinda Roberson, Assistant Division Administrator, FHW A WA Division Office 

Jodi Petersen, Civil Rights Program Manager, FHW A WA Division Office 

Jim Esselman, Senior Attorney-Advisor, FHWA Office ofChief Counsel 

Yvette Rivera, Associate Director, Equal Employment Opportunity Programs Division, 

Departmental Office of Civil Rights 

Kevin Resler, National Title VI Program Coordinator, FHW A Office ofCivil Rights 

Page 2 of2
Amended Consulting Agreement-Sadegh Panahi



 
Exhibit 4.1(g)

 
Amendment No. 2 to Consulting Agreement

Between Calypte Biomedical Corporation 
and Sadegh Panahi 
 
This Agreement amends and modifies the Consulting Agreement between Calypte Biomedical Corporation (“Calypte” or the “Company”) and Sadegh Panahi (“Consultant”) dated November 20, 2002 and is effective
as of February 14, 2003. 
 
Whereas, the Company desires to extend
the time period during which Consultant will provide services to the Company pursuant to the above referenced Consulting Agreement and Consultant is agreeable to extending the time for providing such services. 
 
Now therefore, in consideration of the premises and mutual promises set forth
herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
 

	  	 1.	  	 The term of Consultant’s Consulting Agreement shall be extended and, by virtue of this Amendment, shall terminate on December 31, 2003 rather than July 20,
2003. 

 

	  	 2.	  	 In consideration for the extension of the services to be performed by Consultant, the Company will immediately grant to Consultant 3,000,000 shares of its
registered common stock. The Company will also immediately grant Consultant a warrant to purchase Three million (3,000,000) shares of the common stock of the Company at an exercise price of $0.05 per share, or an aggregate purchase price of
$150,000. The warrant is immediately exercisable upon grant and will expire on November 20, 2003. All compensation pursuant to the Consulting Agreement and this Amendment is fully earned upon execution of this amendment. 

 

	  	 3.	  	 The Company at the same time is canceling its obligation to grant, subject to stockholders’ approval of the increase in shares and annual stock grant limits in
the 2000 Equity Incentive Plan, an option to purchase 3,000,000 shares of the registered common stock of the Company at $0.05 per share, or an aggregate purchase price of $150,000. The option would have been immediately exercisable upon grant and
expired on November 20, 2003. 

 

	  	 4.	  	 All other terms and conditions of the Consultant Agreement dated November 20, 2002 remain unchanged. 

 

	  Consultant:
	  	  	  	  Calypte Biomedical
Corporation       

	
	  /s/    SADEGH PANAHI

	  	  	  	  By:
	  	  /s/    RICHARD D.
BROUNSTEIN            


	  Sadegh Panahi
	  	  	  	  	  	  Richard Brounstein
  Executive Vice President & CFO
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 203 (Tuesday, October 21, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 54636]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28021]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Agency Holding the Meeting: Federal Maritime Commission.
    Time and Date: 12:30 P.M.--October 17, 1997.
    Place: 800 North Capitol Street, N.W.--Room 1000, Washington, D.C.
    Status: Closed.
    Matter(s) to be Considered:

    1. Docket No. 96-20--Port Restrictions and Requirements in the 
United States/Japan Trade
    Contact Person for More Information: Joseph C. Polking, Secretary, 
(202) 523-5725.
Joseph C. Polking,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-28021 Filed 10-17-97; 3:43 pm]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
EXHIBIT 10.24

[HEARME LETTERHEAD]

September
10, 2001

Michael
Cottle
HearMe

Dear
Mike,

This
letter documents decisions made by the HearMe Board of Directors with regard to your compensation during this challenging period of shutting down the Company. The goal of the
Board of Directors is two-fold: 1) to retain you as the best person for the job of product sale and customer liability reduction in the hopes of providing the best possible return
to the shareholders, and 2) to provide you an incentive to maximize the return to shareholders.

The
provisions of this agreement are as follows:



---



You
understand that your employment continues at all times to be on an at-will basis.

Mike,
I personally want to thank you for your commitment and dedication to your tasks. Throughout your time with HearMe you have consistently demonstrated an ability to perform
effectively in the most challenging of situations.

|Sincerely,                      |  |             |  | 
|------------------------------- |  | ----------- |  | 
|/s/JAMES SCHMIDT                |  | 10-SEP-2001 |  | 
|James Schmidt
CEO               |  |             |  | 
|AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED:         |  |             |  | 
|/s/MICHAEL COTTLEMichael Cottle |  | 9/10/01Date |  | 

---
#### THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. William W. CHARLES, Respondent.

No. 39028.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 14, 1970.

Albert D. Smallwood, Jr., North Miami Beach, for The Florida Bar, complainant.

William W. Charles, in pro. per.

PER CURIAM.

This case is before the Court for review of the judgment entered by the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar on October 3, 1969.

*475Said judgment reads in part:

> “The Board of Governors finds that the respondent, while a member of The Florida Bar, undertook to represent one Violet Guischard in a real estate transaction. His client entrusted $4,148.19 to the respondent and at the conclusion of said transaction the respondent failed to account for $2,443.44. He has failed and refused to account for said sum of money to this day. Said funds were misappropriated by the respondent subsequent to January 1,1967.

> “Because of his disbarment further disciplinary action is not recommended.”

Examination of the record reveals that respondent pleaded guilty to this charge. He has not requested a hearing before this Court.

The record and judgment of the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar have been examined by this Court. It is ordered that the judgment of said Board that respondent did misappropriate the funds of Violet Guischard, but that no disciplinary action be taken in view of respondent’s present disbarment (see The Florida Bar v. Charles, 201 So.2d 713 (1967)) be, and the same is approved and adopted as the judgment of this Court.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
International Fuel Technology, Inc. 10-Q


EXHIBIT 32.2
  CERTIFICATIONS
  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
 
 TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In conjunction with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of International Fuel Technology, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
 
 I, Stuart D. Beath, the 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, to the best of my knowledge:
 
 (1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
  (2)           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 November 15, 2010
By:
/s/ Stuart D. BeathStuart D. BeathChief Financial Officer
SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR SPEED MANAGEMENT

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• Death/serious injury is unacceptable: • Humans make mistakes/humans are vulnerable: • Responsibility is shared: • Safety is proactive: • Redundancy is crucial:

.

This Case Study is part of the Safe S y stem Approach for Speed Management Report: Click here to read the full report he re.
SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR SPEED MANAGEMENT

street redesigns.

• Speed limits: 

Figure 10

• School zone automated enforcement: 

• Police enforcement: 

• Speed humps and cushions: 

• Street Improvement Projects (SIP) program: 

Figure 11

control vehicular turns.
SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR SPEED MANAGEMENT

• Community outreach: 

• Education: 

as follows:

. 

.
SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR SPEED MANAGEMENT

• 

• 

.
#### CITIES SERVICE OIL COMPANY, Appellant, v. Loyette K. SPENCE, Appellee.

No. 70-722.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 30, 1971.

David J. Kadyk, and Charles W. Pittman, of Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, Tampa, for appellant.

William R. Hapner, Jr., of Rood & Hap-ner, Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is hereby affirmed.

LILES, A. C. J., and HOBSON and Mc-NULTY, JJ„ concur.
**Local Road Safety Plans**

# Mission and Vision Exercise

This is the **DOING****piece****–** how you intend to act as a **servant leader**. Your mission statement proclaims who you serve, what you serve, and how you do it every day.

This is the **DREAMING****piece****–****if everything goes right**, how will your organization change the world

**MISSION**

**VISION**

**VISION STATEMENT EXAMPLES:**

· To provide access to the world's information in one click (Google)

· To give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together. (Meta)

**MISSION STATEMENT EXAMPLES:**

· To help people go anywhere and get anything and earn their way. Movement is what we power. (Uber)

· Collaboratively plan, build, and maintain safe and innovative transportation infrastructure that enhances quality of life, drives economic growth, and accommodates new modes of transport. (INDOT)

**Local Road Safety Plans**

# Mission and Vision Exercise

***VISION STATEMENT***

***GOALS***

***MISSION STATEMENT***

# image1.png

# image2.png

# image3.svg

# image4.png
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 202 (Monday, October 20, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 54434]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27809]


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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Monday, November 3, 1997.

PLACE: 1155 21st St. N.W., Washington, D.C. 9th Fl. Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Adjudicatory Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 97-27809 Filed 10-16-97; 1:37 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
**EXHIBIT        32.1**

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

| 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. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                  November 7, 2008 | By:                                                                         | /s/                  JEAN-CHRISTOPHE HADORN |
|-----------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|
|                                    |  Jean-Christophe                  HadornChief                  Executive Officer |

----
#### In re ESTATE of Adrian BANCKER, Deceased.

No. 39705.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 30, 1970.

Rehearing Denied July 29, 1970.

Certiorari denied. 232 So.2d 431.

ERVIN, C. J., and DREW, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.

ROBERTS, J., dissents.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT



In connection with the Quarterly Report of BGF Industries, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Philippe R. Dorier, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 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/ Philippe R. Dorier 
|Philippe R. Dorier     
|Chief Financial Officer
|November 12, 2003
Thank you to each of you for your public service; I appreciate your 

hard work and the opportunity to testify. I'm Karen Fort, a 

volunteer with several climate change organizations, including 

Citizens Climate Lobby. These standards are an important step in 

the right direction. New regulations tnake sense after 45 years of 

stagnation in innovation. Lots of technologies have gotten more 

efficient over the decades, from light bulbs to homes to appliances, 

but heavy-duty truck fuel economy has barely changed since the 

1970s. The proposed heavy-duty truck fuel efficiency standards 

wi 11 reduce oil consumption, global warming emissions, and 

consumers' expenses. Commercial trucks could use less fuel and 

save billions. These regulations create tens of thousands of jobs 

and add billions to the U.S. gross domestic product. 

But the need for emergency climate action makes it critical that 

we act to reduce global warming emissions frotn this sector as 

quickly as possible. The standard should be strengthened to 

achieve 40% fue l savings by 2025. This gets us to the equivalent of 

retiring about 70 coal plants by 2030, and many of the technologies 

to get us there are ready to be deployed right now. 

Lack of investment is hurting the bottom line. By raising 

standards from 6.3 miles per gallon to 10.7 miles per gallon, 

owners of more efficient tractor-trailers would save $30,000 in fuel 

costs for each truck each year, enabling them to quickly recoup the 

estimated $32,000 they would spend on effi ciency upgrades in just 

over a year. 

The rule runs through 2029 and would prevent requiring 

further itnprove1nent until at least 2030. Wait! Why? Please amend 

that. We have this opportunity now. The window is closing but it is 

not too late. There is even economic opportunity for profit in the 

just transition to strategic, sustainable jobs.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3635 

To improve the President’s Cup Cybersecurity Competitions. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 22, 2024 

Mr. PETERS (for himself and Mr. BRAUN) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To improve the President’s Cup Cybersecurity Competitions. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Industrial Control Sys5 tems Cybersecurity Competition Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PRESIDENT’S CUP CYBERSECURITY COMPETITIONS. 

7 Section 7121(d) of the James M. Inhofe National De8 fense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (6 U.S.C. 

9 665m(d)) is amended— 

10 (1) by striking paragraph (3); 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3635 IS

1 (2) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and 

2 (4) as subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively, 

3 and adjusting the margin accordingly; 

4 (3) by striking ‘‘Each competition’’ and insert5 ing the following: 

6 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Each competition’’; 

7 (4) in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1), as so 

8 redesignated, by striking ‘‘paragraphs (1), (2), or 

9 (3)’’ and inserting ‘‘subparagraph (A) or (B)’’; and 

10 (5) by adding at the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(2) BIENNIAL REQUIREMENTS.—Not less fre12 quently than every second competition, the competi13 tion shall incorporate categories demonstrating of14 fensive and defensive cyber operations involving— 

15 ‘‘(A) information technology (as defined in 

16 section 11101 of title 40, United States Code), 

17 such as software reverse engineering and exploi18 tation, network operations, forensics, big data 

19 analysis, cyber analysis, cyber defense, cyber ex20 ploitation, secure programming, and obfuscated 

21 coding; 

22 ‘‘(B) operational technology (as defined in 

23 section 3 of the IoT Cybersecurity Improvement 

24 Act of 2020 (15 U.S.C. 278g–3a)) or industrial 

25 control systems (as defined in section 2220C of 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3635 IS

1 the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 

2 665i)), such as knowledge of supervisory control 

3 and data acquisition systems and the protocols 

4 and communication methods used in these sys5 tems, detection of anomalies, and responding to 

6 and recovering after incidents involving such 

7 systems; or 

8 ‘‘(C) any other category of technological 

9 system requiring cybersecurity or information 

10 security, as determined appropriate by the Di11 rector.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Pedestrian Refuge 

Island

reduction in 

pedestrian crashes.2

Median with 

Marked Crosswalk

reduction in 

pedestrian crashes.2

FHWA-SA-21-044

Medians and 

Pedestrian Refuge Islands in Urban 

and Suburban Areas 

A median is the area between opposing lanes of traffic, excluding turn 

lanes. Medians in urban and suburban areas can be defined by pavement 

markings, raised medians, or islands to separate motorized and nonmotorized road users.

A pedestrian refuge island (or crossing area) is a median with a refuge area 

that is intended to help protect pedestrians who are crossing a road.

1 National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2020, March). Pedestrians: 

2018 data (Traffic Safety Facts. Report No. DOT HS 812 850). National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration

2 (CMF ID: 175) Desktop Reference for Crash Reduction Factors, FHWA-SA-08-011, 

September 2008, Table 11. 

Pedestrian crashes account for 

approximately 17 percent of all traffic 

fatalities annually, and 74 percent 

of these occur at non-intersection 

locations.1

 For pedestrians to 

safely cross a roadway, they must 

estimate vehicle speeds, determine 

acceptable gaps in traffic based 

on their walking speed, and predict 

vehicle paths. Installing a median 

or pedestrian refuge island can 

help improve safety by allowing 

pedestrians to cross one direction of 

traffic at a time.

Transportation agencies should 

consider medians or pedestrian 

refuge islands in curbed sections of 

urban and suburban multilane 

roadways, particularly in areas with 

a significant mix of pedestrian and 

vehicle traffic, traffic volumes over 

9,000 vehicles per day, and travel 

speeds 35 mph or greater. Medians/

refuge islands should be at least 

4-ft wide, but preferably 8 ft for

pedestrian comfort. Some example

locations that may benefit from

medians or pedestrian refuge islands

include:

• Mid-block crossings.

• Approaches to multilane

intersections.

• Areas near transit stops or other

pedestrian-focused sites.

Example of a road with a median and 

pedestrian refuge islands. 

Source: City of Charlotte, NC

Median and pedestrian refuge island 

near a roundabout. Source: 

www.pedbikeimages.org / Dan Burden 

46%

56% 

Safety Benefits:

OFFICE OF SAFETY

Proven Safety 

Countermeasures

For more information on this 

and other FHWA Proven Safety 

Countermeasures, please visit 

https://highways.dot.gov/

safety/proven-safety-counter 

measures and https://high 

ways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.

gov/files/2022-08/techSheet_

PedRefugeIsland2018.pdf.