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

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11173-11174]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04347]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8647]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Lygia Clark''

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: Notice, correction.

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

SUMMARY: On May 3, 2012, notice was published on page 26353 of the 
Federal Register (volume 77, number 86) of determinations made by the 
Department of State pertaining to the exhibition ``Lygia Clark.'' The 
referenced notice is corrected here to include additional objects as 
part of the exhibition. Notice is hereby given of the following 
determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of 
October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 
of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 
1998 (112 Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), 
Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of 
Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation 
of

[[Page 11174]]

Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the 
additional objects to be included in the exhibition ``Lygia Clark,'' 
imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, 
are of cultural significance. The additional objects are imported 
pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I 
also determine that the exhibition or display of the additional exhibit 
objects at the Museum of Modern Art, New York, New York, from on or 
about May 10, 2014, until on or about August 24, 2014, and at possible 
additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the 
national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these 
Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the additional exhibit objects, contact Paul W. Manning, 
Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202-632-6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of 
State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: February 12, 2014.
Kelly Keiderling,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-04347 Filed 2-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
REF ID:A275659 

Dear Bill 

I have taken the liberty of reading the script of 

your lecture to the Marine Corps Schools and am glad I 

did. ~"1(' I can 'u6d:er-stztn-O why it was so enthusiastically received It is most entertaining as well as informative 

and I can see a benefit from having Marine Corps personnel 

so favorable impressed with our types of work. I could 

p:t~:-N.J. ~ f>v 

not however, . .,.&ht' making a security appraisalof-tke ~obt"'-<""...\.t.. ~ 

(~tv~ ... ;~-45 ~ ~v-~~~ 

As I have told you before I feel that existing rules 

do not satisfy such a need and therefore I have the personal dilemma of choosing between instinct and logic. I 

' 

lilfl dissatisfied with instinct because it 1s inadequate for 

action and I have a hard time ~t~::i;:~o be logical 

In this case I feel that I must make the choice of attempting to be logical. I assume the lecture is to be presented 

again largely as now written and to an unindoctrinated but 

TOP SECRET audience. My question is whether CODEWORD 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on OS-16-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a 
REF ID:A275659 e 

information is involved. 

I interpret the logic behind CODEWORD usage to be that 

it invokes indoctrination and a stricter than average application of "need to know" to protect COMINT activities 

agahst such specific foreign COMSEC actions or new COMSEC 

concerns as may be stimulated bf disclosures of information. 

I feel that your lecture includes an abundance of material 

~hat would prdably stimulate to some degree any complacent 

or inactive COMSEC organization} particularly if delivered 

direct, but would have no effect on an alert and active 

COMSEC organization or one incapable of sophisticated • 

response. Moreove;, I feel that the specific nature of 

the informat1on would probably have disappeared by the 

time it might possibly beAdisclosed 

~ by any of your audie~ce. 

Therefor~! have no personal pang of conscience in Judging 

that none of the substance shoul~ logically be considered 

CODEWORD 

2 
llEF ID :A275659 

There is a further consideratio./'howeve_:;in the fact 

that DCID Mo. 6/3 prescribes that types of information 

~r.-111'11 which "Indicatet a sophist1catedl\.technique" IQ Iii must 

bear a codeword This ~s a rule which 1s explicit and which 

causes me to urge you to damp out el'l!e Bf your references 

to the more modern practices of NSA. I feel too that a 

~~~JiJf>~~ classification of TOP SECRETAwould be more appropriate 

! t I 

(" 

than SECRET, thus assuring some additional protection. 

Please discuss this matter with me if I have caused 

you difficulty. 

Glad to see you back home. 

~ tJdtt~:f. ~d~~J 

3/6 ~C~ SJ';c_L~~ s cf 

UJ du~.? a_, <-° e 

3
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2837 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2837

  To amend the Public Health Service Act to clarify rules relating to 
                  drug discounts for covered entities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 23, 2021

   Mr. Braun introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Public Health Service Act to clarify rules relating to 
                  drug discounts for covered entities.

    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 ``340B Accountability Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. DRUG DISCOUNTS AND AUDITS FOR COVERED ENTITIES.

    Section 340B(a)(5)(C) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
256b(a)(5)(C)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``A covered entity shall permit'' and 
        inserting the following:
                            ``(i) Duplicate discounts and drug 
                        resale.--A covered entity shall permit''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
                            ``(i) Use of savings.--A covered entity 
                        shall permit the Secretary to audit, at the 
                        Secretary's expense, the records of the entity 
                        to determine how net income from purchases 
                        under this section are used by the covered 
                        entity.
                            ``(ii) Records retention.--A covered entity 
                        shall retain such records and provide such 
                        records and reports as determined necessary by 
                        the Secretary for carrying out this 
                        subparagraph.''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 61 (Tuesday, March 31, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 17136]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07254]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Form 20-F; SEC File No. 270-156, OMB Control No. 3235-0288.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved 
collection of information discussed below.
    Form 20-F (17 CFR 249.220f) is used by foreign private issuers to 
register securities pursuant to Section 12(b) or (g) of the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') (15 U.S.C. 78l) or as annual 
and transitional reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the 
Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) and 78o(d)). The information required in 
the Form 20-F is used by investors in making investment decisions with 
respect to the securities of such foreign private issuers. We estimate 
that Form 20-F takes approximately 2,645.52 hours per response and is 
filed by approximately 725 respondents. We estimate that 25% of the 
2,645.52 hours per response (661.38 hours) is prepared by the issuer 
for a total reporting burden of 479,501 (661.38 hours per response x 
725 responses).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this 
information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov . 
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and 
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#aaf9c2cbcddfccdecbf5ebc2c7cfceeac5c7c884cfc5da84cdc5dc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="66350e07011300120739270e0b030226090b044803091648010910">[email protected]</span></a>; and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief 
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi 
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email 
to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#76262437293b171f1a14190e3605131558111900"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="025250435d4f636b6e606d7a427167612c656d74">[email protected]</span></a>. Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 
days of this notice.

    Dated: March 25, 2015.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-07254 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2016291EN.01000101.xml

| 11.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 291/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 291/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7973 — Gerdau/Sumitomo/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 291/01)

On 2 August 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7973. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7973. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1151

MAGGIE JANE WOODS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III,

Chief District Judge. (7:14-cv-00220-D)

Submitted: November 18, 2016 Decided: November 29, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Lee Davis, III, Lumberton, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. Andy Liu, General Counsel, Daniel Callahan, Deputy 

General Counsel, Jeffrey Blair, Associate General Counsel, John 

Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Mark J. Goldenberg, 

Special Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Maggie Jane Woods appeals the district court’s order 

adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and upholding the 

Commissioner’s denial of Woods’ application for supplemental 

security income. Our review of the Commissioner’s determination 

is limited to evaluating whether the correct law was applied and 

whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence. 

Bird v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 699 F.3d 337, 340 (4th Cir. 

2012). “Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a 

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 

conclusion.” Hancock v. Astrue, 667 F.3d 470, 472 (4th Cir. 

2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). In conducting this 

analysis, we may not “reweigh conflicting evidence, make 

credibility determinations, or substitute our judgment for that 

of the [administrative law judge].” Radford v. Colvin, 734 F.3d 

288, 296 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Within this framework, we have thoroughly reviewed the 

record and the parties’ submissions and discern no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

Woods v. Colvin, No. 7:14-cv-00220-D (E.D.N.C. Jan. 20, 2016). 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.2 – CFO 906 Certification



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
Annual Report of NeoMedia Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) I, Barry Baer, hereby 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) 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 operation of the Company.



|Date: April 16, 2012 | /s/ Colonel Barry S. Baer                                             
|-------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     | Colonel (Ret.) Barry S. Baer                                          
|                     | Chief Financial Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
Page 1 of 2 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY 

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

MEMORANDUM

Date: 09/02/2011 

SUBJECT: Cyflufenamid. Amendment to DP# 364556 Summary Document to Recommend 

30-day PBI for All Crops. 

 

PC Code: 555550 DP Barcodes: D364556 and D393278 

Decision No.: 403833 Registration No.: 8033-RNG 

Petition No.: 8F7488 Regulatory Action: Section 3 Registration 

Risk Assessment Type: NA Case No.: NA 

TXR No.: NA CAS No.: 180409-60-3 

MRID No.: NA 40 CFR: NA 

Ver.Apr.08 

FROM: Meheret Negussie, Chemist 

 Risk Assessment Branch III (RAB3) 

 Health Effects Division (HED) (7509P) 

THROUGH: Leung Cheng, Senior Chemist 

 RAB3/HED (7509P) 

 

TO: Nancy Dodd, Risk Assessor 

 RAB3/HED (7509P) 

 and 

Marc Suarez/Samantha Hulkower RM#13 

 Insecticide Branch 

 Registration Division (RD) (7505P) 

 
Cyflufenamid Summary of Analytical Chemistry and Residue Data DP#s: 364556, 393278 

Page 2 of 2 

This memorandum amends the cyflufenamid summary document DP# D364556, M. Negussie, 

07/23/2010 to: 

 recommend a 30-day plantback interval (PBI) to all crops (the previous assessment 

concluded a 30-day PBI for small grains and leafy vegetables and 365-day PBI for all 

other crops), 

 amend the Section B revision to include a 30-day PBI for all crops, 

 amend the conclusion under 860. 1850 and 860. 1900 to reflect the aforementioned 

recommendation. 

 

HED has determined that the submitted confined rotational crop data support a 30-day plantback 

interval for all crops. Even though Metabolite 149-F6 was detected in mature carrot foliage from 

the 120-day PBI at 32.51% TRR (0.013 ppm) and carrot foliage was not planted at higher PBI, 

HED has concluded that 149-F6 is not a residue of concern since it was detected at low levels 

and was not detected in other crops. In addition, there was no toxicity concern (ChemSAC 

02/16/2011). 

All other information contained in the 2010 summary document (DP# D364556) remains 

unchanged.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 26, 2016

d0718 

# Order

Clerk July 26, 2016

151806 & (13)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 151806

COA: 326995

Wayne CC: 92

- 001856

- FC

CARL HUBBARD,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 2, 2015 order of

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to

meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The motion to

stay is treated as a motion to hold case in abeyance, and it is DENIED.
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-16-00430-CR 

CECIL R. MCDONALD, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 364th District Court 

Lubbock County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2000-434,614, Honorable Bradley S. Underwood, Presiding 

 

November 29, 2016 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. 

Appellant, Cecil R. McDonald, has filed a notice of appeal in this Court in which 

he again attempts to appeal his conviction for murder in trial court cause number 2000-

434,614. A direct appeal from this conviction was disposed of on its merits by this Court 

by our opinion of August 29, 2007, in which we affirmed his conviction. See McDonald 

v. State, No. 07-06-00276-CR, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 7139 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Aug. 
2

29, 2007, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication).1 Nonetheless, this is 

McDonald’s eighth attempt to perfect another appeal from this conviction. This Court 

has rejected his prior attempts, as has the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and the 

United States Supreme Court.2 We again dismiss his purported appeal.

As we have repeatedly stated in our prior opinions, this Court lacks jurisdiction to 

consider a second appeal from McDonald’s 2001 conviction.3 See McDonald v. State, 

No. 07-13-00438-CR, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 586, at *4 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Jan. 17, 

2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Accordingly, we dismiss this 

appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Mackey K. Hancock

 Justice

Do not publish.

 

1

Because McDonald’s first notice of appeal, sub nom, from his 2001 conviction was filed

untimely, we dismissed his original appeal on that basis. See Trimble v. State, No. 07-02-00101-CR, 

2002 Tex. App. LEXIS 1656 (Tex. App.—Amarillo March 4, 2002, no pet.) (per curiam). The Texas Court 

of Criminal Appeals later granted McDonald an out-of-time appeal. See Ex parte McDonald, No. AP75,435, 2006 Tex. Crim. App. Unpub. LEXIS 723 (Tex. Crim. App. June 14, 2006) (per curiam) (not 

designated for publication).

2 We disposed of McDonald’s latest attempted appeal in McDonald v. State, No. 07-16-00067-

CR, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 1497 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Feb. 11, 2016, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not 

designated for publication). And, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused his petition for 

discretionary review. See In re McDonald, PD-0243-16, 2016 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 484 (Tex. Crim. 

App. April 27, 2016). The United States Supreme Court has also denied writ of certiorari in a prior

appeal. See McDonald v. Texas, 136 S. Ct. 72, 193 L. Ed. 2d 69, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 5227 (U.S. Oct. 5, 

2015).

3 Until the legislature provides a process for an appellate court to deem a person a vexatious 

litigant, this Court is without any power to prohibit McDonald from filing any future frivolous appeals.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1018

JESSE JAMES JETER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

PALMETTO HEALTH, doing business as Palmetto Health Internal 

Medicine Center,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District 

Judge. (3:10-cv-02832-CMC)

Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: March 29, 2013

Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jesse James Jeter, Appellant Pro Se. Mason Abram Summers, 

RICHARDSON, PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jesse James Jeter appeals the district court’s order 

accepting in part the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

granting summary judgment against Jeter’s claims, which arose 

under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101-

12213 (West 2005 & Supp. 2012). We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Jeter v. Palmetto Health, 

No. 3:10-cv-02832-CMC (D.S.C. Dec. 14, 2012). To the extent 

that Jeter’s informal reply brief contains a motion to amend a 

motion that he had previously filed in the district court, we 

deny his request. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-12-00638-CV

IN THE ESTATE OF TEROLLE K. LUTHEN, DECEASED

On appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 1 of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2011-CPC-239-A

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause 

remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court 

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Costs 

of the appeal are adjudged against appellee.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

September 25, 2014.