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

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 597 

Urging the release of information regarding the September 11, 2001, terrorist 

attacks upon the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 30, 2018 

Mr. BLUMENTHAL (for himself, Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. MURPHY, and Mr. MENENDEZ) submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Urging the release of information regarding the September 

11, 2001, terrorist attacks upon the United States. 

Whereas tens of thousands of pages of documents relating to 

the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks upon the 

United States remain classified by the Federal Government; 

Whereas the contents of these documents are necessary for 

a full public understanding of the events and circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks; 

Whereas the decision to maintain the classified status of 

many of these documents prevents the people of the 

United States from having access to information about 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 597 IS 

the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, including the 

involvement of certain foreign governments in the attacks; and 

Whereas the people of the United States and the families of 

the victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks 

deserve full and public disclosure of the events surrounding the attacks: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that— 

2 (1) documents related to the events of Sep3 tember 11, 2001, should be declassified to the great4 est extent possible; and 

5 (2) the survivors, the families of the victims, 

6 and the people of the United States deserve answers 

7 about the events and circumstances surrounding the 

8 September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks upon the 

9 United States. 

Æ 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
[No. 17530-4-II.

Division Two.

February 9, 1996.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Juan Luis-Ricardo, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Cowlitz County, No. 93-1-00419-0, Milton R. Cox, J., entered September 9, 1993. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Houghton, J., concurred in by Seinfeld, C.J., and Morgan, J.
# Publicatieblad C 210A/25 m

| | ISSN 1977-0995 |
| --- | --- |
| Publicatieblad
  van de Europese Unie | C 210A |
| | |
| Uitgave in de Nederlandse taal | Mededelingen en bekendmakingen | 65e jaargang25 mei 2022 |

ISSN 1977-0995

Publicatieblad

van de Europese Unie

C 210A

Uitgave in de Nederlandse taal

Mededelingen en bekendmakingen

65e jaargang25 mei 2022

---

| Inhoud | Bladzijde |
| --- | --- |
| | Rectificaties |
| 2022/C 210 A/01 | Rectificatie van Gemeenschappelijke Onderneming Een circulair biogebaseerd Europa — Bekendmaking van een vacature voor de functie van uitvoerend directeur (Tijdelijk functionaris — graad AD 14) — COM/2022/20077 ( PB C 206 A van 23.5.2022 ) | 1 |

Inhoud

Bladzijde

Rectificaties

2022/C 210 A/01

Rectificatie van Gemeenschappelijke Onderneming Een circulair biogebaseerd Europa — Bekendmaking van een vacature voor de functie van uitvoerend directeur (Tijdelijk functionaris — graad AD 14) — COM/2022/20077 ( PB C 206 A van 23.5.2022 )

( PB C 206 A van 23.5.2022 )

1

---

| NL | |
| --- | --- |

NL

---

Rectificaties

| 25.5.2022 | NL | Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie | CA 210/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2022

NL

Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie

CA 210/1

---

Rectificatie van Gemeenschappelijke Onderneming “Een circulair biogebaseerd Europa” — Bekendmaking van een vacature voor de functie van uitvoerend directeur (Tijdelijk functionaris — graad AD 14) — COM/2022/20077

(
  Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie C 206 A van 23 mei 2022
  )

(2022/C 210 A/01)

Bladzijde 5, “Uiterste inschrijvingsdatum”, eerste alinea:

| in plaats van: | “De inschrijving wordt afgesloten op 13 juni 2022 om 12.00 uur ’s middags Belgische tijd. Na dit tijdstip is inschrijven niet meer mogelijk.”, |
| --- | --- |

in plaats van:

“De inschrijving wordt afgesloten op 13 juni 2022 om 12.00 uur ’s middags Belgische tijd. Na dit tijdstip is inschrijven niet meer mogelijk.”,

| lezen: | “De inschrijving wordt afgesloten op 4 juli 2022 om 12.00 uur ’s middags Brusselse tijd. Na dit tijdstip is inschrijven niet meer mogelijk.”. |
| --- | --- |

lezen:

lezen:

“De inschrijving wordt afgesloten op 4 juli 2022 om 12.00 uur ’s middags Brusselse tijd. Na dit tijdstip is inschrijven niet meer mogelijk.”.

---
From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Lowry, Nick (OST) 

Thursday, February 14, 2013 1:53 PM 

Alec Bramlett (alec.bramlett@aa.com) 

B. Edelman (bedelman@hbs.edu); Podberesky, Samuel (OST); Graber, Kimberly (OST); 

Dockets Mail 

B. Edelman v. American Airlines, Motion for Extension; Dkt DOT OST 2013-0024 

This notice is In reference your motion of February 8, 2013. 

By a motion dated February 8, 2013, Counsel for American Airlines, Inc., requested an extension of time in which to 

prepare an answer in the above-referenced third-party complaint to March 22, 2013. The Respondent's motion advises 

that the Complainant was contacted and has no objection to grant of the request. 

This office has decided to grant for good cause the requested extension. This notice is issued under authority 

assigned in 14 CFR 302.405(a). 

Note to Dockets: Please place this e-mail in Dkt DOT-OST-2013-0024. 

Nicholas Lowry 

Senior Attorney 

Office of Aviation Enforcement & Proceedings 

Oflice of the General Counsel 

U.S. Dept. ofTransport'ltion 

202-366-9351 (ph) 

1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

1 p.m., Wednesday, April 11, 2012.

# PLACE:

The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, 9th Floor, 601 New Jersey Avenue NW., Washington, DC.

# STATUS:

Open.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

                        The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open session:                         *William Metz*                         v.                         *Carmeuse Lime, Inc.,*                         Docket No. PENN 2009-541-DM. (Issues include whether the operator terminated the miner's employment in violation of 30 U.S.C. 815(c)(3).)                    

Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFO:

Jean Ellen (202) 434-9950 (202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

Emogene Johnson,

Administrative Assistant.

[FR Doc. 2012-8587 Filed 4-5-12; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6735-01-P
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Loan Repayment 2012.                    

*Date:*                         May 2, 2012.                    

*Time:*                         9 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Bita Nakhai, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, Gateway Bldg., 2C212, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814, 301-402-7701,                         *nakhaib@nia.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: April 5, 2012.

Anna Snouffer,

Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2012-8722 Filed 4-10-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
IV

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 441

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Children’s Internet Protection

Act is constitutional as it applies to public libraries.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 15, 2002

Mr. ANDREWS submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Children’s

Internet Protection Act is constitutional as it applies

to public libraries.

Whereas the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) simply regulates the time, place and manner of speech in a

reasonable way;

Whereas the Children’s Internet Protection Act regulates one

medium, Internet access in public libraries, for the delivery of speech, but does not limit the speech itself; and

Whereas the Children’s Internet Protection Act is needed to

protect young people from receiving harmful material in

public libraries via the Internet: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the
2

•HCON 441 IH

1 Children’s Internet Protection Act is constitutional as it

2 applies to public libraries.

Æ
EXHIBIT
      32.1




CERTIFICATION
      OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


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 GlobalOptions Group, Inc., (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Harvey W. Schiller, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the
      Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S. C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
      knowledge:




(1)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) of
                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.




November
      14, 2006




/s/
      Harvey W. Schiller


Harvey
      W.
      Schiller


Chairman
      of the Board and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive
      Officer)
#### The State, ex rel. Newdick, Appellant, *v.*O’Leary et al., Appellees.

(No. 31436

Decided April 28, 1948.)

*Messrs. McGhee, Rowe & Evans,*for appellant.

*Mr. James R. Freemas,*prosecuting attorney, for appellees.

By the Court.

Charles S. Keeney filed his declaration of candidacy and petition for nomination as a Republican candidate for the office of probate judge of Vinton county, at the primary election to be held on May 4, 1948.

Thereafter, Frederick L. Newdick filed with the board of elections a protest against the candidacy on the ground that the declaration of candidacy failed to designate the term of office as required by Section 4785-71a, General Code. The board, after complying with all the provisions of the tenth paragraph of Section 4785-70, General Code, as to notice and hearing, declared by unanimous vote the declaration of candidacy valid.

Thereupon, Newdick filed in the Court of Appeals a petition in mandamus to compel the board of elections to allow his protest.

There is only one probate judge to be elected in November 1948 for a full term of six years commencing February 9, 1949.

*441The Court of Appeals on March 24, 1948, denied a writ and dismissed relator’s petition. That court expressed the view that the provisions of Section 4785-71a, General Code, are mandatory only where two or more judges of the same court are to he elected at an election; that the board of elections properly determined the declaration of candidacy to be valid; and that there was no flagrant misinterpretation or disregard of that statute.

On March 31, 1948, in *State, ex rel. McGinley,*v. *Bliss et al., Board of Elections, ante,*329, 78 N. E. (2d), 715, this court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Summit county and held that the requirements of Section 4785-71a, General Code, as to designation of the judicial office and the term, are mandatory.

On April 6, 1948, the relator in the instant case filed in the Court of Appeals a motion for reconsideration and rehearing, citing the *McGinley case, supra.*That court overruled the motion for the reason that it was filed out of rule, as a motion for rehearing, and the statutory time had elapsed for filing a motion for new trial.

Relator then filed his appeal as of right to this court, the proceeding having originated in the Court of Appeals.

This court adheres to the pronouncement in *State, ex rel. McGinley,*v. *Bliss, supra.*The judgment of the Court of Appeals in the present case is reversed and final judgment entered for the appellant relator.

*Judgment reversed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Sohngen and Stewart, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-5148

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DIIJON TIMMONS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, District

Judge. (CR-04-92)

Submitted: May 26, 2006 Decided: June 7, 2006

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,

Appellate Counsel, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. John

L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Jean B. Hudson, Assistant

United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Diijon Timmons pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute in

excess of 1.5 kilograms of cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000),

and using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug

trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2000). Timmons was

sentenced to 235 months in prison for the drug offense and a

consecutive 120-month term for the firearm offense, for an

aggregate sentence of 355 months in prison. Timmons now appeals,

challenging his sentence as unreasonable. We affirm. 

After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a

district court is no longer bound by the sentencing range

prescribed by the sentencing guidelines, which are now advisory.

See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005).

However, in determining a sentence post-Booker, sentencing courts

are required to consider the correctly calculated guideline range

and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 2000 &

Supp. 2005). Id. We will affirm a post-Booker sentence if it

falls within the statutorily prescribed range and is reasonable.

Id. at 546-47. A sentence that falls within the correctly

determined guideline range is presumptively reasonable. United

States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir. 2006), cert. denied,

__ U.S. __, 2006 WL 1057741 (U.S. May 22, 2006) (No. 05-10474).

Here, the district court sentenced Timmons within the

statutorily prescribed ranges, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (2000);
- 3 -

18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii), and within the properly calculated

guideline range. The court also took note of Timmons’ Position

Statement Regarding Sentencing, in which Timmons’ attorney argued

that a 240-month aggregate sentence would be appropriate in light

of the sentencing factors set forth at § 3553(a). We therefore

conclude that the sentence imposed is reasonable. 

We accordingly affirm. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately set forth in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7216

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BRIAN BACON, a/k/a Brian Hillard,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CR-95-28, CA-97-821-R)

Submitted: November 19, 1998 Decided: December 3, 1998

Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian Bacon, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Paul Giorno, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Brian Bacon seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Bacon, Nos. CR-95-28; CA-97-821-R (W.D. Va.

July 20, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 10.6

                            NOTE EXTENSION AGREEMENT

                             Dated: ______ __, 2005

     This Note Extension Agreement ("Agreement") is made as of _______ ___, 2005
between Phase III Medical, Inc. (formerly Corniche Group Incorporated) (the
"Company") and _________________________ (the "Lender").

     1. Background. On _____________, 200__ the Lender advanced to the Company
the principal sum of $___________, which loan was evidenced by a promissory note
dated that date (the "Note"). The Note was originally due ____ days after the
date of issuance. Principal payments of $___________ have been made to date, so
that the principal sum of $_________ remains due and owing.

     2. Extension. Notwithstanding the original term of the Note, and
notwithstanding any defaults prior to the date hereof, the Lender agrees that no
further payments shall be due on the Note until ___________ ___, 2005 (the
"Maturity Date"), when all principal and accrued interest shall be due and
payable. Interest on the unpaid principal amount shall be payable monthly in
arrears on the last day of each calendar month.

     3. Other Modifications. Notwithstanding any interest term in the Note,
interest shall accrue from the date hereof through the Maturity Date at a rate
of ____% per annum. All interest has been paid through __________ ___, 2005. The
Lender shall have no further rights to acquire any securities of the Company by
reason of this Note and/or by reason of any default or delay in payment
hereunder. This Note shall not be deemed in default so long as payment is made
on the Maturity Date.

     4. Attachment to Note. The Lender agrees to attach an original of this
Agreement to the original Note.

     5. Representations by Lender. The Lender represents and warrants that it
remains the owner of the Note, and that it has never endorsed, assigned,
transferred, encumbered or otherwise disposed of the Note to any other person or
persons or to any other firm, corporation, or partnership. The Lender agrees not
to transfer the Note prior to the Maturity Date. The Lender agrees to indemnify
the Company against any loss, damage, or liability (including reasonable
attorneys' fees) resulting from or arising out of any breach of the
representations and agreements made by the Lender, including without limitation
any claims, suits, or actions by any person or entity that it is the lawful
holder or owner of the Note.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement as of the
date first written above.

PHASE III MEDICAL, INC.
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                            (Lender)
------------------------                             ---------------------------