alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Board Public Calendar 1 

Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

123456

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 2021 22 23 24 25 26 2728 29 30

April 2024

April 2024

Mar 31 Apr 1 2 3 4 5 

Board: DOE: NNSA 

Briefing on Device Assembly Facility DSARewrite Project

7 8 9 10 11 12 

Board: DOE: DOE Order 

251.1 Path forward

Board: DOE: Nuclear 

Criticality Safety Metrics Annual Briefing

14 15 16 17 18 19 

Board Member travel to Pantex

21 22 23 24 25 26 28 29 30 May 1 2 3 

SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY 
Board Public Calendar 2 

Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

1234

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 1819 20 21 22 23 24 2526 27 28 29 30 31

May 2024

May 2024

Apr 28 29 30 May 1 2 3 

Board: DOE: NA

Periodic Brie

5 6 7 8 9 10 

Board Member travel to Emergency Management Symposium, Atlanta

Board Member travel to DOE Safety and Security Enforcement Workshop, Las Vegas

12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 

FEDERAL HOLIDAY: 

Memorial Day

SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY
# Features

Joomla! - the dynamic portal engine and content management system

- 53 HPSCI Transcripts The United States Intelligence Community (IC), at the bipartisan request of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), reviewed 53 transcripts for classification. The IC made appropriate redactions, lowering the classification level of all 53 transcripts to UNCLASSIFIED.
- Private Sector Engagement &nbsp;Private Sector EngagementIntelligence Community engagement with the private sector is a priority focus area for the ODNI. This feature is organized to help private sector partners navigate the ODNI.&nbsp;	 Read more ...
- National Strategy for Counterterrorism &nbsp;Today's terrorist landscape is more fluid and complex than ever. For this reason, counterterrorism remains a top priority for this Administration.&nbsp;
- Statistical Transparency Report Regarding Use of National Security Authorities for Calendar Year 2016 &nbsp;In June 2014, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) began releasing statistics relating to the use of critical national security authorities, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), in an annual report called the Statistical Transparency Report Regarding Use of National Security Authorities (hereafter the Annual Statistical Transparency Report). Subsequent Annual Statistical Transparency Reports were released in 2015 and 2016.&nbsp;View the CY2016 Statistical Transparency Report&nbsp;&nbsp;
- 2017 IC Women's Summit Attendees of the Fifth Annual Intelligence Community Women’s Summit at the National Security Agency at Fort Meade, Maryland, March 28 probably left with one standout word stuck in their minds: ally. Whether seeking out mentors to help with career progression, or being cognizant of the challenges both women and men face in the workplace, speakers from the beginning to the end of the day-long event reinforced the importance of being and having allies.&nbsp;&nbsp;
- NIC Releases Global Trends - Paradox of Progress &nbsp;We are living in paradox - industrial and information age achievements are shaping a world both more dangerous and richer with opportunity. Human choices will determine whether promise or peril prevails. Global Trends is the Intelligence Community’s major assessment of the forces - and choices - shaping the world over the next two decades.&nbsp;
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION
ACCOMPANYING PERIODIC REPORT


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Donald
J. Percenti, President and Chief Executive Officer of ACC Group Holding Corp.
and American Achievement Corporation (the “Companies”), hereby certify
that:





(1) The
Quarterly Report of the Companies on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended February
28, 2009 (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 Companies as of the
dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.





Date:
April 14, 2009





/s/
      DONALD J. PERCENTIName:
            
            Donald
      J. PercentiTitle:
            
            President
      and Chief Executive Officer(principal
      executive officer)
STATE v. Matthew Garret MCMAHAN

238P19-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 24, 2019

Charlotte G. Blake, Attorney at Law, Boone, for McMahan, Matthew Garret.

Kathryn H. Shields, Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney Generals, Todd Williams, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st of June 2019 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of June 2019."
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN H. THOMPSON; MELANIE

SALYERS THOMPSON,

Petitioners

- Appellants,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE,

Respondent

- Appellee. No. 16

- 72537

Tax Ct. No. 4628

- 15

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from a Decision of the

United States Tax Court

Submitted August 9, 2017 **

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

John H. Thompson and Melanie Sa ly ers Thompson appeal pro se from the

Tax Court’ s decision, following a bench trial, upholding the C ommissioner of

Internal Revenue’ s determination of deficiencies

. We have jurisdic tion under 26

U.S.C. § 7482(a) (1)

. We review de novo the Tax Court ’ s legal conclusions and for

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

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

# FILED

AUG 14 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 72537

clear er ror its fact

ual determinations. Kelley v. Comm’ r , 45 F.3d 348, 350 (9th Cir.

1995). We affirm.

The Tax Court properly concluded that appellants did not meet their burden

of proving they were entitled to a foreign earned income exclusion

. See 26 U.S.C.

§ 911(d)(1) ( definition of “qualified individual”); id. § 911(d)(4) ( requirements for

waiver of period of stay in a foreign country)

. Contrary to appellants’ contentions,

any prior allowance of the exclusion or fail ure to provide a clear explanation as to

any change i n position regarding the exclusion does not provide a basis for relief.

See Dixon v. United States , 381 U.S. 68, 72

- 73 (1965) (“[T]he Commissioner is

empowered retroactively to correct mistakes of law in the application of the tax

laws to particular transactions . . . even where a taxpayer may have relied to his

detriment on the Commissioner’s mistake. ”).

The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellants’ motion for

reconsideration and motion to vacate because the motion s provided no basis to

conclude that the Tax Court’s prior decisions were in error. See Thomas v. Lewis

,

945 F.2d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir. 1991) (standard of review for motion to vacate) ;

Parkinson v. Comm’ r , 647 F.2d 875, 876 (9th Cir. 1981) ( standard of review for

motion for reconsideration).3 16

- 72537

T o the extent appellants challenge the deni al of the motion to dismiss, we

reject the challenge as meritless.

AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Tyree NEWSUAN, Defendant.

No. COA18-683

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 6, 2019

NO ERROR.
No. 09-9636.

#### Ahmad Waller, Petitioner v. Bruce Hauck, Warden, et al.

559 U.S. 1099, 130 S. Ct. 2387,

176 L. Ed. 2d 779,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3502.

April 26, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
August 4, 2010

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Economic Impact Analysis for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operations

FROM: Tom Walton

Economist ABCG (C439-02)

TO: Steve Shedd Engineer CCG (E143-01)

This document addresses the economic impact s of the national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants for 27 Marine Tank Vessel Loading Operation s

.

Both the magnitude of control costs needed to comply with the rule and the distribution of these costs among affected f acilities can have a role in determining how the market will change in response to rule. Total a nnualized costs for the selected option are estimated to be about $14,000,000. The average cost per facility is estimated to be $530,000.

Value of shipments data per f acility is frequently used to assess the magnitude of per facility costs. This was not available on a per facility basis. Frequently, average industry data is used as a estimate for average facilities. In this case, the facilities are associated with many different broad industries so this approach was not usef ul. Because facility sales and production were unavailable, average facility value of sh ipments is estimated based on the minimum barrel per year threshold for this regulation of one million barrels, the cost of gasoline, and the percentage of the cost of production that occurs before distribution. Thus the value of shipments per plant is estimated to be 1,000,000 barrels times 42 gallons per barrel times $2.735 (Aug 2 DOE US price) times .72 (crude oil 52% and 19% refining cost and profit from 2005 - U.S. Department of Energy, Energy

Information Administration. 2006. “A Primer on Ga soline Prices.”). This results in a low estimate of value of shipments of $ 83,000,000 and a cost to sales ratio of 0.64%. If the cost is completely passed on to the consum er the price of gasoline processed by these facilities would increase by $ 0.013. Because the value added from distribution and marketing is only 9% (U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2006. “A Primer on Gasoline Prices.”) this sma ll cost may be large in proportion to the value added for the firm ( 5% of the total distribution and marketi ng cost value added).This is not expected to result in a si gnificant impact on any small entities.

For the selected option, the small costs are not expected to result in a significant market impact whether they are passed on to the purchaser or absorbed.
No. 09-7858.

#### Coleen L. Powers, Petitioner v. Mesaba Aviation, Inc., dba Mesaba Airlines, et al.

559 U.S. 1088, 130 S. Ct. 2144,

176 L. Ed. 2d 761,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3143.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 559 U.S. 944, 130 S. Ct. 1512, 176 L. Ed. 2d 122, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 1481.
**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**

The undersigned, Hamish Malkin, Chief Financial Officer of Argentex Mining Corporation (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Argentex Mining Corporation for the interim period ended October 31, 2006 (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 Argentex Mining Corporation

Dated:  December 14, 2006

 

/s/ Hamish Malkin                            

Hamish Malkin

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer and 

Principal Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Argentex Mining Corporation and will be retained by Argentex Mining Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Fourth Amendment to Executive Deferred Compensation Plan



 Exhibit 10.36 
 FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION 
 EXECUTIVE DEFERRED
COMPENSATION PLAN 
 (2003 Amendment and Restatement) 

WHEREAS, The Progressive Corporation Executive Deferred Compensation Plan is currently maintained pursuant to a 2003 Amendment and
Restatement and the First through Third Amendments thereto (“Plan”); and 
 WHEREAS, it is deemed desirable to
amend the Plan further; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended in the respects hereinafter set forth: 

1. Effective September 1, 2005, Section 3.4 of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to
provide as follows: 
  

	 	3.4	Form of Distribution. 


Distributions of Deferrals of Restricted Stock Awards granted in 2005 and later years shall be made in Stock, with any fractional shares
of Stock and any portion of such distribution that is derived from cash dividends on deferred Restricted Stock Awards to be made in cash. All other Plan distributions shall be made in cash. 

2. Effective September 1, 2005, the last sentence in Article 3, Section 3.5 shall be deleted and replaced by the
following provisions: 
 The provisions of Section 3.4 shall apply to all withdrawals under this Section 3.5.

 3. Effective December 1, 2005, the following is hereby added to the Plan as new paragraph (k) of
Section 2.2: 
  

	 	“(k)	Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this Section 2.2 or any other provisions of the Plan, each Eligible Executive who elected to defer any portion of a
Gainsharing Award that became payable or will become payable in 2005 or 2006 or a Restricted Stock Award granted in 2005 may revoke such election. Such revocation shall be in writing on such forms as the Committee shall prescribe and must be
received by the Committee on or before December 30, 2005. 

 4. Except as expressly provided
in this Amendment, the terms and provisions of the Plan shall remain entirely unchanged and continue in full force and effect. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized representative
effective as of the date set forth above. 
  

			
	THE PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	/s/ Charles E. Jarrett
	Title:	 	Vice President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                         187,166
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,933
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               658,758
<PP&E>                                         745,058
<DEPRECIATION>                                  35,876
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,367,940
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,077,145
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,204
<OTHER-SE>                                     285,591
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,367,940
<SALES>                                         10,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,000
<CGS>                                           21,226
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,289,303
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (2,597)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,297,932)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,297,932)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,297,932)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)
        

</TABLE>
No. 09-9641.

#### Anthony Jackson, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1082, 130 S. Ct. 2127,

176 L. Ed. 2d 749,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3166.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
No. 09-907.

#### Jason M. Ransom, Petitioner v. FIA Card Services, N. A., fka MBNA America Bank, N.A.

559 U.S. 1066, 130 S. Ct. 2097,

176 L. Ed. 2d 721,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3359.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted.

Same case below, 577 F.3d 1026.
Methyl Bromide Inventory

16,422 MT

12,994 MT

9,974 MT

7,941 MT

6,458 MT

4,271 MT

3,064 MT

1,803 MT

1,249 MT

627 MT 357 MT

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Methyl Bromide (MT)

End of Year Inventory

Values are for the amount of inventory at the end of that year.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5103 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 

Received 

AN ACT 

To provide for the conveyance of the former Konnarock 

Lutheran Girls School in Smyth County, Virginia, which 

is currently owned by the United States and administered by the Forest Service, to facilitate the restoration 

and reuse of the property, 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, 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

HR 5103 RDS

1 SECTION 1. LAND CONVEYANCE, FORMER KONNAROCK LU2 THERAN GIRLS SCHOOL, JEFFERSON NA3 TIONAL FOREST, SMYTH COUNTY, VIRGINIA. 

4 (a) CONVEYANCE REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Ag5 riculture shall convey, without consideration, to the Evan6 gelical Lutheran Coalition for Mission in Appalachia (in 

7 this section referred to as the ‘‘recipient’’) all right, title, 

8 and interest of the United States in and to a parcel of 

9 real property in the Mount Rogers National Recreation 

10 Area, Smyth County, Virginia, located in the vicinity of 

11 the junction of Virginia Routes 600 and 603, consisting 

12 of not more than six acres, and containing the former 

13 Konnarock Lutheran Girls School and its outbuildings, as 

14 depicted on the map entitled ‘‘Proposed Area for New 

15 Legislation or Sale–Konnarock School–Being a Portion of 

16 USA Tract J–935’’. 

17 (b) CONDITION OF CONVEYANCE.—The conveyance 

18 under subsection (a) shall be subject to the condition that 

19 the recipient accept the real property described in such 

20 subsection in its condition at the time of the conveyance, 

21 commonly known as conveyance ‘‘as is’’. 

22 (c) DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY.—Subject to the 

23 acreage limitation specified in subsection (a), the exact 

24 acreage and legal description of the real property to be 

25 conveyed under such subsection shall be determined by a 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
3 

HR 5103 RDS

1 survey satisfactory to the Secretary. The cost of the survey 

2 shall be borne by the recipient. 

3 (d) ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The 

4 Secretary may require such additional terms and condi5 tions in connection with the conveyance under subsection 

6 (a) as the Secretary considers appropriate to protect the 

7 interests of the United States. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 26, 

2006. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 25, 2018

No. 04-18-00176-CR

Steve MENDIOLA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR0624

Honorable Steve Hilbig, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is GRANTED. The 

appellant’s brief is deemed filed.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 25th day of October, 2018.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 23
                       CONSENT OF SAMUEL KLEIN AND COMPANY
                            INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
Valley Forge Scientific Corp. and its subsidiaries on Form S-8 (File No.
333-63637; 333-72296 and 333-72134) of our report dated December 4, 2001 on our
audits of the financial statements of Valley Forge Scientific Corp. and its
subsidiaries as of September 30, 2001 and 2000, and for each of the three years
in the period ended September 30, 2001, which reports are included in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K.


SAMUEL KLEIN & COMPANY

/s/ SAMUEL KLEIN AND COMPANY

Newark, New Jersey
December 20, 2001
In the MATTER OF: K.J.

No. COA18-639

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 18, 2019

Appellate Defender Glenn Gerding, by Assistant Appellate Defender Aaron Thomas Johnson, for respondent-appellant.

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General John Tillery, for the State.

MURPHY, Judge.

Respondent's (K.J.) sole argument on appeal is that the *Affidavit and Petition for Involuntary Commitment* ("Petition") supporting the trial court's involuntary commitment order was insufficient. Respondent failed to challenge the sufficiency of the affidavit during the hearing before the District Court, and our binding precedent mandates that the argument is waived. We dismiss Respondent's appeal.

***BACKGROUND***

This action commenced when Richard Benson II, M.D. ("Dr. Benson"), signed a Petition requesting that Respondent be involuntarily committed. Dr. Benson's Petition alleged Respondent was mentally ill and a danger to herself and others. Dr. Benson stated his conclusion was based upon the following facts: "Aggressive behavior/HI/psychosis [.]" An involuntary commitment hearing *754was held in Granville County District Court, and Respondent was subsequently committed for a period not to exceed 45 days, followed by outpatient commitment for a period not to exceed 45 days. At that hearing, Respondent did not object to the Petition or argue it did not present a valid factual basis to support an involuntary commitment. Respondent now appeals, arguing Dr. Benson's Petition did not state facts sufficient to grant the trial court subject matter jurisdiction over the commitment hearing.

***ANALYSIS***

Respondent's only argument on appeal is that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to order a commitment because Dr. Benson's Petition lacked sufficient facts to show reasonable grounds for involuntary commitment. Indeed, before a trial court may enter a commitment order, there must be an underlying petition that alleges facts sufficient to show reasonable grounds that the person is mentally ill and a danger to himself or others. N.C.G.S. § 122C-261(a) (2017) ; *In re Reed* , 39 N.C. App. 227, 227-29, 249 S.E.2d 864, 865-66 (1978). However, our caselaw requires respondents to "raise issues with the affidavit, petition, or custody order in the first involuntary commitment hearing ...." *In re Moore* , 234 N.C. App. 37, 42, 758 S.E.2d 33, 37 (2014). Otherwise, we must hold that "respondent has waived any challenge to the sufficiency of the affidavit to support the magistrate's original custody order." *Id.* Here, it is undisputed that Respondent did not challenge the sufficiency of the Petition during the initial involuntary commitment hearing. This issue, which is Respondent's only argument on appeal, is deemed waived, and this appeal is dismissed.

***CONCLUSION***

Respondent's only argument on appeal is waived because it was not raised during Respondent's initial involuntary commitment hearing.

DISMISSED.

Judges BRYANT and DIETZ concur.