alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 216 (Friday, November 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 60244]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29662]


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

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

FEDERAL REGISTER NUMBER: 97-28967.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED DATE AND TIME: Wednesday, November 5, 1997, 10:00 
a.m., Meeting open to the public. The Public Hearing on Recordkeeping 
and Reporting Notice of Proposed Rulemaking has been CANCELLED.

DATE AND TIME: Wednesday, November 12, 1997 at 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 437g.
Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 437g, Sec. 438(b), and Title 
26, U.S.C.
Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or 
arbitration.
Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a 
particular employee.

DATE AND TIME: Thursday, November 13, 1997 at 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (ninth floor).

STATUS: This meeting will be open to the public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

Correction and Approval of Minutes.
Advisory Opinion 1997-22: Business Council of Alabama by William F. 
O'Connor, Jr., President.
Briefing: Status of Systems Development Project.
Administrative Matters.

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: Mr. Ron Harris, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 219-4155.
Marjorie W. Emmons,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 97-29662 Filed 11-5-97; 3:06 pm]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-M
Record of Discussion Docket No. FAA- Dir ect orate Identifier: -AD
With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e. , Design Approval Holder, m a nufacturer, ATA , NBAA , RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)?

ORGANIZATION PE RSON CONTAC T E D DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED Boeing Various- TARA review 1 / 2

/ 2015 Compliance data A4A Robert Ire l and 4/ 24/2015 E -m ai l not ifi catio n

Other/ Additional Information:
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 08-213 

________________________________________________________________________ 

SCIENTIFIC COOPERATION 

Earth Sciences 

 Memorandum of Understanding 

Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and FRANCE 

Signed at Antony February 13, 2008 

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.” 
FRANCE 

Scientific Cooperation: Earth Sciences 

 Memorandum of understanding signed 

 at Antony February 13, 2008; 

 Entered into force February 13, 2008. 

 With annexes. 

 





NOTE: It is noted that the section number for "Business Confidential Information" should be IV.


NOTE: The numbering of the Article IV subsections of this text differ from the English text.
From: Laura K. McAfee [ mailto:LMcAfee@bdlaw.com ]

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:40 PM

To: Fruh, Steve; French, Chuck; Chin, Conrad

Subject: Felman 2012 ICR Stack Testing



### Conrad, Chuck, and Steve

–

Attached for your review is the information we have received on the stack test results, which LAN has

summarized in an Excel spreadsheet and described in a cover memo. We will follow up with the report

as soon as it is available.

Thanks.

Laura

La ura K. McAfee

201 North Charles St. Suite 2210

Baltimore, MD 21201

T (410) 230

- 1330 ~ F (410) 230

- 1389

LMcAfee@bdlaw.com

CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: This electronic message contains information from the law firm of Beveridge & Diamond,

P.C. and may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) or

entity(ies) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or

use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you have received this e

- mail in error, please notify us immediately

by telephone at (202) 789

- 6000 or by e

- mail reply and delete this message. Thank you.

Please consider the environment before printing this e

- mail.
Exhibit 13.1

Certification

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350



Pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section
1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of China Ceramics Co., Ltd. (the "Company"),
does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2016 of the
Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained
in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|             | CHINA CERAMICS CO., LTD.
|------------ | ------------------------
|             |                         
|May 15, 2017 | By:                     
|             |                         
|             |                         
|             |                         
|May 15, 2017 | By:                     
|             |                         
|             |                         
|             |
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 215 (Thursday, November 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60095-60096]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29360]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice

[[Page 60096]]

is hereby given of the following National Cancer Institute Special 
Emphasis Panel (SEP) meeting:

    Name of SEP: Preclinical Toxicology Studies of Chemopreventive 
Agenda.
    Date: November 14, 1997.
    Time: 9:00 a.m. to Adjournment.
    Place: Executive Plaza North, Conference Room J, 6130 Executive 
Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Contact Person: Lalita Palekar, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Administrator, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 6130 Executive 
Boulevard, EPN, Room 622B, Bethesda, MD 20892-7405, Telephone: 301/
496-7575.
    Purpose/Agenda: To review, discuss and evaluate responses to a 
Request for Proposal.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations imposed by 
the review and funding cycle.
    The meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C. Proposals 
and the discussions could reveal confidential trade secrets or 
commercial property such as patentable material and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the applications, 
the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Numbers: 93.393, 
Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394; Cancer Detection and 
Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, 
Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, 
Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control)

    Dated: October 30, 1997.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-29360 Filed 11-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

John Paul Lewis, Jr., * From the 29th District Court

of Palo Pinto County,

Trial Court No. 15995D.

Vs. No. 11

- 19

- 00014

- CR * December 18, 2020

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Wright, S.C.J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Wright, S.C.J.,

sitting by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opi nion,

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
#### Melvina Loraine JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 43560.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 7, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 273 So.2d 814.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
10.1

Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen Local No. 7 Pension Plan

Checklist Item #10

Does the application include a demonstration that the proposed suspension is reasonably estimated 

to achieve the level necessary to avoid insolvency for the extended period, including illustrations 

regarding the plan’s solvency ratio and available resources? See section 4.02(1).

Document 10.1 provides a demonstration that the proposed suspension is reasonably estimated to 

achieve the level necessary to avoid insolvency for the extended period.
10.2

4.02(1) Demonstration that the Proposed Suspension Is Reasonably Estimated to 

Enable the Plan to Avoid Insolvency

Document 10.1

Proposed Suspension Is Reasonably Estimated

to Enable the Pension Plan to Avoid Insolvency

This application filed on behalf of the Pension Plan includes an actuarial certification of 

plan solvency under ERISA § 305(e)(9)(c)(i) and IRC Section 432(e)(9)(C)(i) as of the effective 

date of the proposed benefit suspension, which is May 1, 2017. 

Exhibit IV of Checklist Item #7 provides an illustration based on the deterministic basis 

showing that the proposed suspension is reasonably estimated to avoid insolvency throughout the 

extended period. This illustration provides the market value and solvency ratio for the period 

beginning on May 1, 2015 and ending on April 30, 2050. As of April 30, 2050, the funding 

percentage for the Pension Plan is projected to be less than 100%. 

The stochastic projections are not required for the Pension Plan. See Revenue Procedure 

2016-27, Section 4.02(2).

Exhibit VII of Checklist Item #7 describes the actuarial assumptions and methodology used

in the reports filed with this application, as required under Revenue Procedure 2016-27, Section

4.02(3).
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 97-20324

Summary Calendar

_________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RICKY LAYNE WAGGONER,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas 

(H-CR-96-212-1)

April 21, 1998

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ricky Layne Waggoner appeals his conviction for embezzlement.

In challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, Waggoner argues

that there was insufficient evidence to corroborate his admissions

of guilt, offered through the testimony of three witnesses. He

also argues that the district court erred in denying his motion for

mistrial after the jury deadlocked.
-2-

We have carefully reviewed the arguments and the appellate

record. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to prove

Waggoner’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v.

Garth, 773 F.2d 1469, 1479 (5th Cir. 1985). We also conclude that

the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the

motion for mistrial. See United States v. Garcia, 732 F.2d 1221,

1227-28 (5th Cir. 1984).

AFFIRMED.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T DWI GH T A. S T AT E N, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. J A M E S W A L K E R , W ar d e n ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 16011 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 8 - c v - 0 0 5 1 7 - J A MGG H ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J ohn A . M e nde z , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M ay25, 2010 ** B e f o r e : C A N B Y , T H O M A S , an dW . F L E T C H E R , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . D w i gh tA . S t at en, a C al i forni a s t at e pri soner, appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct c ourt ’ s or de rde ny i ng hi s m ot i on t o a l t e rora m e nd the j udgm e ntdi s m i s s i ng hi s 42 

# FI LED JU N 17 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 16011 2 U . S . C . § 1 98 3 act i on al l egi ng thatdefe nd ant s f abri cat ed a rul es vi ol at i on re po rt agai nsthi m . W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 28 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. W e r evi ew for an abus e of di s c r e t i on. Sch. D ist. N o. 1J, Mul tno m ah C ou nt y, O r. v. A Can dS

, Inc. , 5 F. 3 d1 2 5 5 , 1 2 6 2 ( 9 th Ci r . 1 9 9 3 ) . W e a f f i rm. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n b yd e n y in g S tate n ’s m o tio n to re consi der because he di d n otadvance any app l i cabl e groun d for re l i ef un der e i ther R u le 5 9 ( e ) o rR u le 6 0 o f th e F e d e r a l R u le s o f

C iv il P r o c e du r e . Se e i d. a t1262- 63 (s ett i ng forth requi re m ent s f or re consi dera t i on un der F ed. R . C i v. P . 59 (e ) and 60 ). W e d o n o t c o n s id e ris s u e s th a t w e r e n o t r a is e din S ta te n ’s o p e n in g b r ie f . See Sm i th v. M

a rsh , 19 4 F . 3d 10 45 , 10 52 (9th C i r. 19 99 ). AF F I RME D.
# L_2005316EN.01001101.xml

| 2.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 316/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 316/11

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1969/2005

of 1 December 2005

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the export of barley issued in Regulation (EC) No 1058/2005

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of barley to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1058/2005 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of barley to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1058/2005 (2).

| (2) | Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

| (3) | On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 25 November to 1st December 2005 in response to the invitation to tender for the refund for the export of barley issued in Regulation (EC) No 1058/2005.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 2 December 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 1 December 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 174, 7.7.2005, p. 12.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last modified by Regulation (EC) No 777/2004 (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 50).

3

---
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 10-201.41 

________________________________________________________________________ 

MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE 

 Agreement Amending the Treaty of 

June 12, 1981 Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and the NETHERLANDS 

Signed at The Hague September 29, 2004 

with 

Annex 

and 

Exchange of Notes 

 
 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.” 
 NETHERLANDS 

 Mutual Legal Assistance 

Agreement amending the treaty of June 12, 1981. 

Signed at The Hague September 29, 2004; 

Transmitted by the President of the United States of America 

 to the Senate September 28, 2006 (Treaty Doc. 109-13, 

 109th Congress, 2d Session); 

Reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 

 July 29, 2008 (Senate Executive Report No. 110-13, 

 110th Congress, 2d Session); 

Advice and consent to ratification by the Senate 

 September 23, 2008; 

Ratified by the President December 11, 2008; 

Exchange of Instruments of Ratification at Washington 

 September 29, 2009; 

Entered into force February 1, 2010. 

With annex and exchange of notes.
##### 



COMPREHENSIVE CARE CORPORATION
AND SUBSIDIARIES

Exhibit 31.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Mary Jane Johnson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Comprehensive Care
Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer 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 under our supervision, 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 quarterly 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 evaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants second 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 officer 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 the 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; andb) 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


January 9, 2004
    
    /s/ MARY JANE JOHNSONMary Jane JohnsonPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
July 30, 2015

Mr. Benjamin H. Harris

Harris Aerial LLC

3225 Arden Villas B ou l e v ar d

, Unit 2
Orlando, FL 32817

Dear Mr. Harris :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from part 21; § § 45.23 (b) , 61.113 (a) and (b)

, 91.7(a)

, 91.9(b)(2)

, 91.103

, 91.109

, 91.119

, 91.121

, 91.151(a)

, 91.203(a) and (b)

, 91.405(a)

, 407(a)(1)

, 409(a)(2)

, and 4 17 (a) and (b) 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 n o t Process Your Request

We received your May 4, 2015

, exemption request on behalf of Harris Aerial LLC filed into the public docket (No. FAA− 2015

− 1776 ), 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 reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

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

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 send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed ef fective date of the exemption.2

If We Do No t 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