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

★(Star Print)

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 861

To require a General Accounting Office study of duplication among certain

international affairs grantees.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 25 (legislative day, MAY 15), 1995

Ms. SNOWE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Foreign Relations

A BILL

To require a General Accounting Office study of duplication

among certain international affairs grantees.

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

3 SECTION 1. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE STUDY OF

4 DUPLICATION AMONG CERTAIN INTER5 NATIONAL AFFAIRS GRANTEES.

6 (a) STUDY OF CERTAIN GRANTEES FOR DUPLICA7 TION OF FUNCTIONS .—The Comptroller General of the

8 United States shall conduct a study on the purposes and

9 activities of the North/South Center, East-West Center,

10 Asia Foundation, and the National Endowment for De-
2

S 861 IS1S

1 mocracy on the extent to which the activities of these orga2 nizations duplicate activities that are conducted elsewhere

3 in the United States Government. Such study shall in4 clude, but not be limited to, an evaluation of whether such

5 organizations undertake unique activities that are central

6 to the conduct of American foreign policy and which are

7 incapable of being performed directly by an agency of the

8 United States Government.

9 (b) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than one year

10 after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller

11 General of the United States shall prepare and submit a

12 report of the findings of such study to the Committee on

13 Foreign Relations of the Senate and Committee on Inter14 national Relations of the House of Representatives.

Æ
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6075 

To clarify the United States interest in certain submerged lands in the 

area of the Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 20, 2016 

Mr. KEATING introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To clarify the United States interest in certain submerged 

lands in the area of the Monomoy National Wildlife 

Refuge, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. UNITED STATES INTEREST IN CERTAIN SUB4 MERGED LANDS. 

5 The Congress finds that the United States did not 

6 acquire any right, title, or interest in or to submerged 

7 lands in Nantucket Sound or the waters above such sub8 merged lands as a result of the taking described in United 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6075 IH

1 States v. 3,000 Acres of Land, Misc. Civil Action No. 

2 6340 (D. Mass., dated June 1, 1944). 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
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 J OS HU A MOS E S HE L L ON , P e titio n e r- A p p e llan t, v. T. FE LKER , W ar d e n a n dATTORNEY GE NE R AL OF T HE S T AT E OF C AL I F ORNI A, R esp o n d en t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 16248 D. C . No . 2 : 0 7 - c v - 0 1 8 1 6 - L KK 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 L aw r e nc e K . K ar l t on, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r27, 2011 ** B efo re: S IL V E R M A N , W . F L E T C H E R , an dM U R G U IA , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C a l i f orni as t a t e pr i s one rJ os huaM os e s H e l l on appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e ntde ny i ng hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 habe a s pe t i t i on. W e ha ve ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 , an dw e a f f irm . 

# FI LED OC T 05 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 16248 2 H e l l on c ont e nds tha tthe pr os e c ut ore nga ge d i n vi ndi c t i ve pr os e c ut i on by a m e ndi ng the c r i m i na l i nf orm a t i on t o a dd as e c ond s tr i ke pr i ort o hi s tr i a l . T he st at e c ou rt ’ s r ej ec t i on of H el l on ’ s c l ai m of vi nd i ct i ve prosecut i on w as no tcontrary t o, or an un re as on abl e app l i cat i on of, cl earl y e st abl i shed fe dera l l aw , as det erm i ned b yth e U n ite dS ta te s S up r e m e C o u rt. See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) ; U ni ted States v. G o o dw in , 457 U . S . 368, 381- 82 ( 1982) ( i n c a s e s i nvol vi ng pr e - tr i a l c har gi ng de c i s i ons , t i m i ng of

de c i s i on a l one i s i ns uf

f i c i e ntt o c r e a t e pr e s um pt i on of v in d ic tiv e n e s s ) . F urthe rm or e , i n l i ghtof the pr os e c ut or ’ s e xpl ana t i on f orw hys he di d not i ni t i a l l yc har ge H e l l on’ s s e c ond s tr i ke , the s t a t e c ourt ’ s de c i s i on w a s notba s e d on a n u n r e a s o n ab le d e te rm in a tio n o f th e f a c ts . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) ( 2 ) . H e l l on’ s m ot i on t o e xpand the r e c or d i s de ni e d. AF F I RME D.
### County ofTehama 

## Air Pollution Control District P.O. Box 1169 • Red Bluff, California 96080 Kristin Hall-Stein Phone: {530) 527-3717 Air Pollution Control Officer September 4, 2015 Mrs. Carol Sutkus Air Resources Board P.O Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812 Fax: {530)527-0959 E-mail: khall@tehcoapcd.net

Subject: Adoption ofDraft Rule 2:3c, New and Modified Major Sources in the Tuscan Buttes NonattairunentArea Dear Mrs. Sutkus: Enclosed is the Rule Action Package for Draft Rule 2:3c (New and Modified Major Sources in the Tuscan Buttes NonattainmentArea), adopted by the Tehama County Board ofSupervisors on September 1, 2015. Rule 2:3c became effective upon BoardAdoption. The RuleAction Package will be sent electronically to
**csutkusr~i1arb.ca.gov.** The District requests that the CaliforniaAir Resources Board (CARB) forward all appropriate documentationto the US. EPA Region IX office as a NewRule. The District also requires that theARB update their District Rule database ofRules and Regulations located on theARB website at http:/1\v\VW.arb.ca.gov/drdb/ker/cur.htin to include Rule 2:3c once it has been approved by EPA. Included inthe Rule Action Plan Package are the following attachments: 1. Completed and Clean Copy ofthe Rule 2. Cetiified Board ofSupervisors Resolution 3. Certified Notice ofExetnption to the Clerk 4. Evidence ofPublic Notice and Public Hearing 5. Other Materials (Final staffreport) Sincerely,



## ~~k\() Kristin Hall-Stein Tehama County Air Pollution Control Officer



### ljPage
Exhibit 99.4 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Gregory McCunn, Chief Financial Officer of Asanko Gold Inc. (the Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:  (i) the Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2013 (the Annual Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  (ii) the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: March 28, 2014/s/ Gregory McCunnGregory McCunnChief Financial Officer(principal financial officer)
# EUR-Lex - 32002D0776 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002D0776

**2002/776/EC: Commission Decision of 3 October 2002 amending for the 11th time Decision 2000/284/EC establishing the list of approved semen collection centres for imports of equine semen from third countries (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2002) 3605) **

*
Official Journal L 267 , 04/10/2002 P. 0030 - 0042 *

Commission Decision

of 3 October 2002

amending for the 11th time Decision 2000/284/EC establishing the list of approved semen collection centres for imports of equine semen from third countries

(notified under document number C(2002) 3605)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2002/776/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992 laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A(I) to Directive 90/425/EEC(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1282/2002(2), and in particular Article 17(3)(b) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Decision 2000/284/EC(3), as last amended by Decision 2002/416/EC(4), established the list of approved semen collection centres for imports of equine semen from third countries.

(2) The competent authorities of Canada requested certain changes to the details provided for approved collection centres for equine semen.

(3) The competent authorities of the United States of America officially informed the Commission of the approval in accordance with the provisions of Directive 92/65/EEC of a number of equine semen collection centres.

(4) The competent authorities of New Zealand officially informed the Commission of the approval in accordance with the provisions of Directive 92/65/EEC of an equine semen collection centre.

(5) It is appropriate to amend the list of approved centres in the light of new information received from the third countries concerned, and to highlight the amendments in the Annex for clarity.

(6) Decision 2000/284/EC should be amended accordingly.

(7) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Annex to Decision 2000/284/EC is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 3 October 2002.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 268, 14.9.1992, p. 54.

(2) OJ L 187, 16.7.2002, p. 3.

(3) OJ L 94, 14.4.2000, p. 35.

(4) OJ L 150, 8.6.2002, p. 56.

ANNEX

"ANEXO/BILAG/ANHANG/ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ/ANNEX/ANNEXE/ALLEGATO/BIJLAGE/ANEXO/LIITE/BILAGA

>TABLE>"
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14021-14022]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05132]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


Impact of Health Misinformation in the Digital Information 
Environment in the United States Throughout the COVID-19 Pandemic 
Request for Information (RFI); Correction

AGENCY: Office of the Surgeon General, Department of Health and Human 
Services.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

[[Page 14022]]

SUMMARY: The Office of the Surgeon General published a document in the 
Federal Register of March 7, 2022, requesting information regarding the 
Impact of Health Information Misinformation in the Digital Information 
Environment in the United States Throughout the COVID-19 Pandemic. The 
document included a hyperlink in which the public will not be able to 
access.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Max Lesko at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fab9b5acb3beb7938993949c95a8bcb3ba929289d49d958c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="70333f2639343d1903191e161f223639301818035e171f06">[email protected]</span></a> 
or at (202) 893-5020.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In the Federal Register of March 7, 2022, in FR Doc. 2022-04777, on 
page 12713, in the third column, correct the section which reads, ``a. 
Starting with, but not limited to, these common examples of COVID-19 
vaccine misinformation documented by the Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention (CDC), any aggregate data and analysis on the prevalence 
of COVID-19 misinformation on individual platforms including exactly 
how many users saw or may have been exposed to instances of COVID-19 
misinformation.'' to read, ``a. Starting with but not limited to 
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/facts.html of COVID-
19 vaccine misinformation documented by the Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention (CDC), any aggregate data and analysis on the prevalence 
of COVID-19 misinformation on individual platforms including exactly 
how many users saw or may have been exposed to instances of COVID-19 
misinformation.''

Max Lesko,
Chief of Staff, Office of the Surgeon General.
[FR Doc. 2022-05132 Filed 3-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-28-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 32.2
 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 Barings BDC, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2019 , as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jonathan Bock, 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:
 (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/ JONATHAN BOCKJonathan BockChief Financial OfficerFebruary 27, 2020
Exhibit 31
----------

CERTIFICATION

I, Todd Noble, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Advanced ID
Corporation.

2. Based on my knowledge, the 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 officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

(c) Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the registrant's board
of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

(a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: May 12, 2004

/s/ Todd Noble
Todd Noble, Chief Financial Officer
#### Kenneth NEWKIRK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6779

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 26, 2017

Decided: November 28, 2017

Kenneth Newkirk, Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Newkirk seeks to appeal the district court’s order' dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition without prejudice for failure to comply with a prior order. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v.*McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the *269denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Newkirk has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Newkirk’s motion to reconsider the order deferring action on his in forma pauperis application, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
#### Oscar MORALES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony HEDGPETH, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-16537

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 11, 2017 * San Francisco, California

Filed November 6, 2017

Heather E. Williams, Federal Public Defender, FPDCA—Federal Public Defender’s Office (Sacramento), Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant

Galen Neale Farris, Clara Maben Levers, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and REINHARDT and O’MALLEY,** Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Kathleen M. O'Malley, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

1. The California Court of Appeal’s decision regarding the trial court’s exclusion of hearsay statements made by a 911 caller was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of *Davis v. Washington,*547 U.S. 813, 126 S.Ct. 2266, 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006). *Davis*held: “Statements are non-testimonial [for the purposes of the Confrontation Clause] when made in the course of police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency.” *Id.*at 822, 126 S.Ct. 2266. Here, the defense sought to introduce the 911 call, and thus there was no Confrontation Clause issue. *Davis*is inapposite.

2. The state court did not unreasonably determine the facts. For the reasons stated above, the state court did not need to *762make findings regarding an “ongoing emergency” because the testimonial/non-testimonial distinction is only relevant to a Confrontation Clause analysis. Moreover, the state court did not need to determine the identity of the 911 caller to conclude that the caller’s statements were inadmissible hearsay.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Daniel BRADSHAW, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1612

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 30, 2017

Decided: November 28, 2017

*267Bruce K. Billman, Fredericksburg, Virginia, for Appellant. Nora Koch, Regional Chief Counsel, Stephen Giacchino, Supervisory Attorney, Jordana Cooper, Assistant Regional Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, R. Trent McCotter, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Daniel Bradshaw appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, granting the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, and upholding the Commissioner’s decision denying Bradshaw’s application for disability insurance benefits. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Bradshaw v. Berryhill,*No. 1:16-cv-00969-LO-JFA, 2017 WL 958105 (E.D. Va. Mar. 9, 2017). 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*
*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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-31140

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MILCIADES MINA-CUERO,

also known as Minea Miliades,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Louisiana

(96-CR-116-L)

September 5, 1997

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, HIGGINBOTHAM and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Convicted on a guilty plea of unlawful reentry after deportation, 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(1), Milciades Mina-Cuero appeals his sentence, challenging the use of

a prior conviction in Texas state court. Mina-Cuero claims that his inability to
1 United States v. Garza, _____ F.3d _____ (5thCir.July 16, 1997, No. 95-21094) 1997

WL 400812 at *4.

2 United States v. Howard, 991 F.2d 195 (5th Cir. 1993).

2

understand English rendered his state court conviction of a drug violation invalid

and he contends that it should not have been used in the calculation of his

sentence. Our review of the record and briefs persuades that the district court’s

finding and conclusion that the testimony of Mina-Cuero lacked credibility is not

clearly erroneous1 and that the trial court did not err in considering the prior state

felony conviction in determining the sentence imposed.2

The judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.