alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Final - November 19, 2021

Dr. Grace Lee (ACIP Chair)

Dr. Melinda Wharton (ACIP Executive Secretary, CDC)

12:15 Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccines

Introduction

Efficacy and safey of BNT 162b2 booster dose

Update from Moderna

Dr. Matthew Daley (ACIP, WG Chair)

Dr. John Perez (Pfizer)

Dr. Rituparna Das (Moderna)

12:50 Break

1:00 Public Comment

1:20 Break

1:30 COVID-19 vaccine booster dose safety 

VaST summary

Updates to the EtR Framework: Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID19 vaccine booster doses 

Discussion

Dr. Tom Shimabukuro (CDC/NCEZID)

Dr. Keipp Talbot (VaST Chair)

Dr. Sara Oliver (CDC/NCIRD)

2:45 VOTE 

COVID-19 vaccine booster doses Dr. Sara Oliver (CDC/NCIRD)

3:00 Adjourn

Acronyms

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

CMS Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 

COVID-19 Coronavirus disease 2019

EtR Evidence to Recommendations Framework

FDA Food and Drug Administration

GRADE Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation

HRSA Health Resources and Services Administration

IHS Indian Health Service

NCHHSTP National Center for HIV, Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention [of CDC/OID] 

NCIRD National Center for Immunization & Respiratory Diseases [of CDC/OID] 

NCEZID National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Diseases [of CDC/OID]

NIAID National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

OIDP Office of Infectious Disease and HIV/AIDS Policy

RZV Recombinant Zoster Vaccine

SARS-CoV-2 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2

WG Work Group

WHO World Health Organization

VE Vaccine Effectiveness

MEETING OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON IMMUNIZATION PRACTICES (ACIP)

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Atlanta, Georgia 30329 

November 19, 2021

Friday, November 19, 2021

12:00 Welcome & Introductions
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

§

IN RE: No. 08-18-00122-CV

§

SOUTHWEST REGION 

CONFERENCE ASSOCIATION OF 

SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS, 

NICHOLAS HERRERA, CALVIN 

WATKINS, STEPHEN BROOKS, 

PHILIP PALMER, SAMUEL GREEN, 

TERRELL MCCOY, AND NANCY 

JONES,

RELATORS

§

§

§

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Relators’ petition for writ of mandamus against 

the Honorable Sergio H. Enriquez, Judge of the 448th District Court of El Paso, Texas, and 

concludes that Relators’ writ of mandamus should be denied. We therefore deny the petition for 

writ of mandamus, in accordance with the opinion of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
No. 09-10900.

#### Michael Jackson, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

562 U.S. 1195, 131 S. Ct. 1038,

178 L. Ed. 2d 857,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 623.

January 18, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 855, 131 S. Ct. 118, 178 L. Ed. 2d 73, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 6375.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6475

JOSE FAUSTO GUZMAN-SOTO,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District 

Judge. (1:09-cv-00388-LO-JFA)

Submitted: June 17, 2010 Decided: June 28, 2010

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jose Fausto Guzman-Soto, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge 

Jeffrey, III, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jose Fausto Guzman-Soto seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(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 denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Guzman-Soto has not made the requisite 

showing. Accordingly, we 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 
3

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Exhibit 99

To The United States Securities and Exchange Commission:

Arthur Andersen LLP has represented to Titan that Arthur Andersen's audit of our consolidated balance
sheets as of December 31, 2001 and 2000 and the related consolidated statement of operations, stockholders'
equity and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2001, was subject to their
quality control system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice, which provides reasonable assurance that the engagement
 was conducted in compliance with professional standards, that there was appropriate
continuity of Arthur Andersen personnel working on the audit and availability of national
office consultation. Availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of Arthur Andersen was
 not relevant to the audit.

|                     |  | THE TITAN CORPORATION
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------
|Date: March 29, 2002 |  | By:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JUSTIN BLAIR ALFORD,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-30136

D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00009-TSZ

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Thomas S. Zilly, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 14, 2013** 

Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Justin Blair Alford appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Alford contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction based on

FILED

MAY 21 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-30136

Amendment 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether the

district court had jurisdiction to modify a defendant’s sentence under section

3582(c)(2). See United States v. Austin, 676 F.3d 924, 926 (9th Cir. 2012). Alford

is not eligible for a sentence reduction because his sentence was based on the

parties’ stipulation in a binding plea agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal

Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), and not on a sentencing range that has been subsequently

lowered by the Sentencing Commission, as required by section 3582(c)(2). See

Freeman v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2685, 2695-96 (2011) (Sotomayor, J.,

concurring). The plea agreement does not call for Alford to be sentenced within a

particular Guidelines sentencing range, nor is any such Guidelines range expressly

used in the agreement or evident from the agreement itself. See id. at 2697-98. 

Accordingly, the district court lacked jurisdiction to modify Alford’s sentence

under section 3582(c)(2). See Austin, 676 F.3d at 930.

Alford urges us to reconsider our decision in Austin. We are bound by that

decision. See United States v. Gonzalez-Zotelo, 556 F.3d 736, 740 (9th Cir. 2009).

Alford finally contends that Dorsey v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2321 (2012),

supports remand. This contention fails both because the district court lacked

jurisdiction to modify the sentence and because Alford was sentenced before the

Fair Sentencing Act took effect. See Dorsey, 132 S. Ct. at 2335; United States v.

Augustine, No. 12-50061, 2013 WL 1317037, at *5 (9th Cir. Apr. 3, 2013).

AFFIRMED.
# Employees surprise Troop Support leaders with award 

/ Published Dec. 5, 2015
PHILADELPHIA, 

Two leaders at Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support were pleasantly caught off guard by the actions of their employees Nov. 19.Air Force Col. Glenn Chadwick, Industrial Hardware director, and Yvonne Poplawski, a Medical supply chain division chief, earned positive leadership awards after being nominated by their employees.DLA Troop Support Commander Army Brig. Gen. Charles Hamilton recognized both during separate presentations in front of colleagues and the employees who recommended them for the awards.Below are the positive leadership awardees and thoughts from some of the employees who nominated them. 

**Col. Glenn Chadwick, Industrial Hardware director**We are very fortunate to have a smart leader who understands the IH business but also takes the time to appreciate the efforts of our personnel. He is a man of strong character who builds consensus by listening to all opinions, even if the differ from his. 

**Yvonne Poplawski, Medical Supply Support division chief**She is always willing to help her staff and others outside our division with any challenges that come along and will not quit until there is a satisfactory resolution for all involved. Yvonne is fair to all other employees and sets realistic goals for us. She treats us with respect.The Positive Leadership Award is designed as a way for employees to recognize supervisors who are positive role models.For more information or to nominate someone, go to DLA Troop Support’s eWorkplace. Scroll down to the bottom left hand column under Awards and click on Positive Leadership Award.
# C_2017283EN.01000201.xml

| 28.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 June 2017 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-482/14) (1)

1

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Development of the Community’s railways - Directive 91/440/EEC - Article 6(1) - Deutsche Bahn group - Profit transfer agreement - Prohibition of the transfer of public aid earmarked for the management of railway infrastructure to rail transport services - Accounting obligations - Directive 91/440/EEC - Article 9(4) - Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 - Article 6(1) - Point 5 of the annex - Accounting obligations - Presentation contract by contract of public aid paid for activities relating to the provision of passenger transport services in respect of public service remits))

(2017/C 283/02)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and T. Maxian Rusche and by J. Hottiaux, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, Agents, and by R. Van der Hout, advocaat)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, and by S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato), Republic of Latvia (represented by: I. Kucina and by J. Treijs-Gigulis and I. Kalniņš, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Holds that, by failing to take all measures necessary to ensure that the detailed rules on account-keeping make it possible to monitor the prohibition of transferring public funds earmarked for the management of railway infrastructure to transport services, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(1) of Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community’s railways, as amended by Directive 2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Holds that, by failing to take all measures necessary to ensure that the detailed rules on account-keeping make it possible to monitor the prohibition of transferring public funds earmarked for the management of railway infrastructure to transport services, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(1) of Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community’s railways, as amended by Directive 2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Italian Republic and the Republic of Latvia to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Italian Republic and the Republic of Latvia to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 16, 19.6.2015.

1

---
Exhibit 31.2

RULE 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS

I, Lawrence Safarek, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of First Niles Financial, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3. Based on my
knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material aspects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this 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)) 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 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; and

c) Disclosed in this report any changes in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent 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 registrants board
of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) 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

Date: November 14, 2006



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/ Lawrence Safarek         
|Lawrence Safarek             
|Vice President and Treasurer 
|(Principal Financial Officer)



22
بیرون ملک اپنے دوستوں اور اہل خاندان

سے مالقات کرنے جا رہے ہیں؟

خود کو ٹائیفائیڈ بخار سے بچائیں!

ٹائیفائیڈ بخار ایک ن،یسنگ جان لیوا مرض ہے

یہ مشرقی اور جنوبی ایشیا (خاص طور پر پاکستان، ہندوستان، اور بنگلہ دیش)،

افریقہ، کیریبیئن، مرکزی اور جنوبی امریکہ، اور مشرق وسطی میں سب سے زیادہ

عام ہے۔

ان عالقوں کا سفر کرنے والے ٹائیفائیڈ بخار کے اعلی ترین خطرے میں ہوتے ہیں۔

ٹائیفائیڈ بخار اکثروبیشتر غیر محفوظ غذا اور پانی سے پھیلتا ہے۔

درج ذیل مفید مشوروں پر عمل کرکے محفوظ رہیں :

اپنے سفر سے قبل

ٹائیفائیڈ بخار کا ٹیکہ لگوائیں۔

» اپنی ٹیکہ کاری کے اختیارات پر گفتگو کے لیے سفر سے کم از کم 2 ہفتے قبل

اپنے ڈاکٹر سے مالقات کریں۔

اپنے سفر کے راندو

اپنے ہاتھوں کو اکثر صابن اور پانی سے دھوئیں۔

کھانے اور پینے کی محفوظ عادات پر عمل کریں۔

»

»

»

»

کھانے سے قبل غذا کو ابال لیں، پکا لیں، یا چھیل لیں۔

صرف وہی پانی پیئیں جو بوتل بند ہو یا 1 منٹ

 (6,500 ِفٹ سے زیادہ کی اونچائی پر 3 منٹ ) تک اباال گیا ہو۔

برف والے مشروبات سے گریز کریں۔

بیمار یا حال ہی میں بیمار رہے شخص کے ذریعہ تیار کردہ غذا نہ کھائیں۔

html.prevention/fever-typhoid/gov.cdc.www

F315761- CS












[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 130 (Wednesday, July 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 36880]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17978]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


Environmental Technologies Trade Advisory Committee (ETTAC)

AGENCY: International Trade Administration, US Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Open Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Technologies Trade Advisory Committee will 
hold a plenary meeting from noon to 3:00 PM on July 21, 1998. The ETTAC 
was created on May 31, 1994, to advise the U.S. government on policies 
and programs to expand U.S. exports of environmental products and 
services.

DATE and PLACE: July 21, 1998. The meeting will take place in Room 1863 
of the Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230.
    The plenary meeting will review the objectives and agendas of its 
five subcommittee working groups: Market Access, Trade Impediments, 
Government Resources, Finance, and Outreach. There will also be an 
update on the APEC trade liberalization process.
    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Sage Chandler, Department of Commerce, Office of 
Environmental Technologies Exports. Phone: 202-482-1500.

    Dated: July 1, 1998.
Carlos Montoulieu,
Director, Office of Environmental Technologies Exports.
[FR Doc. 98-17978 Filed 7-7-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.99 MB)

Tags:historypage_director

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
Whistleblower Protection Laws

This information is provided to new employees to ensure adherence to specific employee information requirements 

set forth under the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2018 (Section 1097)

What is a Whistleblower?

The dictionary defines “whistleblower” as “a person who informs on a person or organization engaged in 

an illicit activity.”

What is the Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017?

The Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017 became law on October 26, 2017. The law 

mandates protections for federal employees who are retaliated against for disclosing fraud, waste, and 

abuse in their workplace and requires agencies to take disciplinary action against supervisors who 

retaliate against whistleblowers. Dr. Kirkpatrick was a clinical psychologist at a U.S. Department of 

Veterans Affairs Medical Center who blew the whistle on unsafe patient practices. He took his own life 

after he was retaliated against.

What is management’s responsibility?

An agency official shall not retaliate against an employee for whistleblowing. 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8).

What are a federal employee’s whistleblower protection rights?

It is a prohibited personnel practice for agency officials to take, fail to take, or threaten to take a personnel 

action because of an employee’s whistleblowing. To prove whistleblower retaliation, one must show:

1. The employee has disclosed what he or she reasonably believes to be:

o a violation of law, rule, or regulation;

o gross mismanagement;

o gross waste of funds; 

o an abuse of authority; or

o a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.

2. The disclosure is not specifically prohibited by law and such information is not specifically 

required by Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or the conduct of 

foreign affairs.

3. The personnel action in question has been taken (or not taken, such in the case of a promotion), 

threatened, or influenced by an official who knew of the employee’s disclosure.

4. The employee’s disclosure was a contributing factor in the personnel action. 

Where can I learn more?

 Specific information about whistleblower protections is just a click away on the DLA homepage

under “No FEAR Act” in the page footer. A link from there leads to the Office of Special Counsel 

(OSC), where employees can find more information on their rights under the Act and file a 

complaint.

 OSC also created a 12-minute YouTube video on federal whistleblower rights and protections.

Useful Links:

 https://www.dla.mil/

 https://osc.gov/

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzf2pboRaoQ&hl=en%5FUS&version=3&rel=0&wmode=trans

parent