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

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Coast Guard

          - 33 CFR Part 165
          - [Docket No. USCG-2021-0454]

# AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notification of non-enforcement of regulation.

# SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard will not enforce the safety zone for the Fleet Week Maritime Festival on waters adjacent to Pier 66 in Elliott Bay, Seattle, WA in July or August 2021. The Captain of the Port Sector Puget Sound has determined that enforcement of this       ( print page 34961)    regulation is not necessary because the event is cancelled.

# DATES:

The Coast Guard does not plan to enforce regulations in 33 CFR 165.1330 from July 1, 2021 through August 31, 2021.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions about this notification of non-enforcement, call or email Robert A.K. Nakama, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Puget Sound Waterways Management Division; telephone 206-217-6089, email *Robert.Nakama@uscg.mil.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Coast Guard normally enforces the safety zone in 33 CFR 165.1330 for the Fleet Week Maritime Festival on waters adjacent to Pier 66 in Elliott Bay, Seattle, WA. This event is held annually during the parade of ships on the last week of July or first week of August. This year, the event organizers cancelled Fleet Week. Therefore, the Coast Guard does not plan to enforce the safety zone in 33 CFR 165.1330, for July or August 2021.

In addition to this notification of non-enforcement in the **Federal Register**, if the situation changes and the Captain of the Port Sector Puget Sound (COTP) determines that the regulated area needs to be enforced, the COTP will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners and provide actual notice of enforcement to any persons in the regulated area.

Dated: June 21, 2021.

P.M. Hilbert,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Sector Puget Sound.

[FR Doc. 2021-13723 Filed 6-30-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
Watts, Griffis and McOuat

Consulting Geologists and Engineers

CONSENT



To:
        Olympus Pacific Minerals Inc.And to:
        Berns & Berns, Counselors at LawAnd to:
        U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission(the Securities Regulator)


Gentlemen:

RE: TECHNICAL REPORTS - BONG MIEU AND PHUOC SON GOLD PROJECTS

Reference is made to the technical reports (the Technical Reports) entitled A Technical Review of the Phuoc Son Gold Project in Quang Nam Province, Vietnam for Olympus Pacific Minerals Inc.dated January 30, 2004, andA Technical Review of the Bong Mieu Gold Project in Quang Nam Province, Vietnam for Olympus Pacific Minerals Inc. dated September 17, 2004, by WGM which we prepared for Olympus Pacific Minerals Inc.(the Company or Olympus).

We hereby consent to the filing of the Technical Report with the Securities Regulator, and to the written disclosure of the Technical Reports and the inclusion of extracts therefrom or a summary thereof in the amended annual Form 20-F. We further agree to being named as an expert in the amended annual statement (Form 20-F).

Dated this 20th day of December, 2007.



Sincerely,WATTS, GRIFFIS AND McOUAT LIMITED/s/ Joe HinzerPer:
        
        Joe Hinzer, M.Sc., P.Geo.President


WATTS, GRIFFIS AND McOUAT LIMITEDSuite 4008 King Street EastTorontoCanadaM5C 1B5

Tel: (416) 364-6244Fax: (416) 864-1675Email: wgm@wgm.on.caWeb: www.wgm.on.ca





---
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Northeast Area
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        
                Northeast Area Cities

                    Washington, D.C.
                            Newark, Delaware
                            Boston, Massachusetts
                            Beltsville, Maryland (BHNRC)
                            Beltsville, Maryland (BARC)
                            Frederick, Maryland
                            Orono, Maine
                            Geneva, New York
                            Ithaca, New York
                            University Park, Pennsylvania
                            Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania
                            Kearneysville, West Virginia
                            Leetown, West Virginia
                            Burlington, Vermont


                    Civil Rights & EEO Policy StatementsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Docs Spatial Workshop





- ARS News & Events
- AgResearch Magazine
- Image Gallery
- News

Spatial Workshop Contactsheadline bar  **Spatial Workshop Group**Spatial@ba.ars.usda.gov **USDA/ARS**     Biometrical Consulting Services    tel: (301) 504.8121Bryan Vinyard vinyardb@ba.ars.usda.govMary Camp campm@ba.ars.usda.govMatt Kramer kramerm@ba.ars.usda.gov**DOI/USGS**Andy Royle aroyle@usgs.gov**DOI/USFWS**Mark Otto Mark_Otto@fws.gov


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

ADDENDUM TO 
 SHARE
REPURCHASE AGREEMENT 
 This ADDENDUM (the “Addendum”), dated as of March 4, 2015, is made between ING
Groep N.V., a public limited liability company formed under the laws of the Netherlands (“ING Group”) and Voya Financial, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”). 

WHEREAS, on March 2, 2015, ING Group and the Company entered into that certain Share Repurchase Agreement (the “Share
Repurchase Agreement”) pursuant to which the Company is repurchasing from ING Group shares of the Company’s common stock (the “Repurchased Shares”, and each, a “Repurchased Share”); 

WHEREAS, the Underwriting Agreement (as defined in the Share Repurchase Agreement) will reflect a price per-share to be paid by
underwriters in the Secondary Offering (as defined in the Share Repurchase Agreement) of $44.20 (such price, the “Final Underwriting Price”); 

WHEREAS, ING Group and the Company wish to modify the Share Repurchase Agreement so as to maintain a per-share repurchase price for the
Repurchased Shares equal to the initial price per share bid by the underwriters in the Secondary Offering, which price is less than the Final Underwriting Price; 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of
which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
  

	 	1.	Notwithstanding Section 1.1 of the Share Repurchase Agreement, ING Group and the Company agree that (i) the price for each Repurchased Share shall be equal to $44.12 (which is calculated by subtracting $0.08
from the Final Underwriting Price); and (ii) the number of Repurchased Shares shall be equal to 13,599,274 (which is calculated by dividing $600 million by $44.12). 


[signature page follows] 







 In witness whereof, the parties hereto have cause this Addendum to be executed and delivered as
of the date first above written. 
  

			
	ING GROEP N.V.
		
	By:		 /s/ C. BLOKBERGEN

	Name:		C. Blokbergen
	Title:		Head of Corporate Legal Department
		
	By:		 /s/ PRADIPTO DAS

	Name:		Pradipto Das
	Title:		Authorized Representative
	
	VOYA FINANCIAL, INC.
		
	By:		 /s/ BRIDGET M. HEALY

	Name:		Bridget M. Healy
	Title:		Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer
		
	By:		 /s/ EWOUT L. STEENBERGEN

	Name:		Ewout L. Steenbergen
	Title:		Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


 [signature page to share repurchase agreement addendum]
EX-10.16



 Exhibit 10.16 
  

 
 



 
 September 7, 2011 
 Tom
Dubensky 
 [PRIVATE ADDRESS] 
 Dear Tom, 

Aduro BioTech, Inc. is pleased to extend a full time offer of employment to you as Chief Scientific Officer, reporting to Stephen T. Isaacs. Your compensation
will be a monthly salary of $25,000.00. This is an exempt position. Your anticipated start date will be Monday, September 19, 2011. Should you accept this position, you will be expected to sign the standard Aduro Employee Agreement and the
Proprietary Inventions and Disclosure Agreement. 
 In addition to your salary you will be granted stock options equal to 1.8% of the outstanding shares on
a fully diluted basis but subject to the Aduro BioTech Inc. Option Plan (65% time-based and 35% milestone-based). 
 A 2011 Bonus will be put in place (to
be determined) for not less than 25% of your full time salary, normalized to your start date and subject to the Aduro Bonus Plan (milestone-based). 

Moving Expenses will be reimbursed with the appropriate documentation and not to exceed $19,000.00. 

You will be eligible to participate in the benefits available to full-time Aduro employees, including bonuses, participation in the Company’s 401(K),
Aduro medical/dental programs, life insurance, short-term disability, long-term disability and vacation accrual, all in accordance with Company policy. 

Please understand that nothing contained in this offer letter nor any other communication by a management representative is intended to create a contract of
continued employment or the providing of benefits. Rather, it should be understood that Aduro BioTech, Inc. and the employee each have a right to terminate employment for any reason at any time, and this status cannot be modified in any manner. In
addition, please understand that changes in compensation, benefits or other working conditions may occur during your employment and that such changes will not affect your at-will employment status. 

ADURO BIOTECH 626 Bancroft Way, 3C, Berkeley, CA 94710-2224 

PHONE 510 848 4400 FAX 510 848 5614 WEB www.adurobiotech.com 







 In compliance with federal laws contained in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, all offers of
employment are contingent upon an applicant’s ability to satisfy federal requirements regarding proof of identity and the lawful right to be employed in the United States. Please be sure to bring with you the following identification (e.g.
driver’s license and Social Security card or passport) on your first day of employment. 
 We look forward to a mutually beneficial relationship and
believe that working with our Company we will both personally and professionally rewarding for you. We look forward to welcoming you to Aduro. 
 Please do
not hesitate to contact me if you have questions about this offer or about Aduro BioTech, Inc. 
  

	
	Best Regards,
	
	/s/ Stephen T. Isaacs
	
	Stephen T. Isaacs
	Chairman & CEO

 I hereby accept the terms of employment as stated above. 

 

					
	 /s/ Tom Dubensky
	 		 	 09 - 10 - 2011

	Signature	 		 	Date
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

8
KA 10-02420

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, LINDLEY, AND GORSKI, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HOWARD B. WASHINGTON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES ECKERT OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (Frank P. Geraci, Jr., J.), entered October 29, 2010. The order determined that defendant is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level two risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 et seq. ). Contrary to defendant’s contention, County Court’s determination that he established a relationship with the victim for the purpose of victimization is supported by the requisite clear and convincing evidence ( see § 168-n [3]). “The guidelines assess 20 points if the offender’s crime . . . was directed at . . . a person with whom a relationship had been established . . . for the primary purpose of victimization” (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, at 12 [2006]). Here,the record establishes that defendant invited the victim, a 13-yearold girl who had run away from home and with whom he had no prior relationship, into his home and then had sexual intercourse with her several times in the ensuing two days. Thus, the record supports the determination of the court that defendant’s primary purpose in establishing the relationship with the 13-year-old girl was for the purpose of victimizing her ( see generally People v Carlton , 307 AD2d 763).

Entered: January 31, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 120 (Friday, June 25, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33705-33706]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13491]


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

FEDERAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ADVISORY BOARD


Notice of Request for Comment on a Proposed Interpretation 
Exposure Draft, Debt Cancellation: An Interpretation of Statement of 
Federal Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS) 7, Paragraph 313

AGENCY: Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Federal Accounting Standards 
Advisory Board (FASAB) has issued an exposure draft of a proposed 
Interpretation of Federal Financial Accounting Standards titled Debt 
Cancellation: An Interpretation of SFFAS 7, Paragraph 313.

DATES: Respondents are encouraged to comment on any part of the 
exposure draft. Written comments are requested by July 23, 2021, and 
should be sent to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5f393e2c3e3d1f393e2c3e3d71383029"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7117100210133117100210135f161e07">[email protected]</span></a> or Monica R. Valentine, Executive 
Director, Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board, 441 G Street NW, 
Suite 1155, Washington, DC 20548.

ADDRESSES: The exposure draft is available on the FASAB website at 
https://www.fasab.gov/documents-for-comment/. Copies can be obtained by 
contacting FASAB at (202) 512-7350.

[[Page 33706]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Monica R. Valentine, Executive 
Director, 441 G Street NW, Suite 1155, Washington, DC 20548, or call 
(202) 512-7350.

    Authority: 31 U.S.C. 3511(d), the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), and the FASAB Rules of Procedure, 
as amended in October 2010.

    Dated: June 21, 2021.
Monica R. Valentine,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2021-13491 Filed 6-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-10797 

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DERRICK ARNOLD GRAY;

LARRY WAYNE WALKER,

 Defendants-Appellants.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:95-CR-45

- - - - - - - - - -

July 11, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Government argues that the evidence should be reviewed

for plain error because the appellants did not reurge their

motion for acquittal at the conclusion of the evidence. 

We reject the Government's argument because the record

reflects that the parties and the district court agreed that the

appellants' motion for acquittal made at the close of the 
No. 95-10797

-2-

Government's case would be considered as having been reurged at

the conclusion of all evidence.

Derrick Arnold Gray and Larry Wayne Walker argue that the

evidence was insufficient to support their convictions for

carjacking because the Government failed to prove that the

carjacked vehicle had been transported, shipped, and received in

interstate commerce.

We have reviewed the record, including the trial

transcripts, the district court's rulings, and the briefs of the

parties, and find that the appellants' carjacking convictions

should be affirmed. 

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the

verdict, a rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable

doubt that the carjacked vehicle had been transported in

interstate commerce. See United States v. Johnson, 22 F.3d 106,

108-09 (6th Cir. 1994).

The appellants have abandoned on appeal their argument that

the district court erred in denying their motion to dismiss the

indictment because the Government failed to show that the

offenses committed by the appellants had a direct effect on

interstate commerce. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy

Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32 (ii)**

 

CERTIFICATION SECTION 1350

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Penns Woods Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Sonya E. Scott, ChiefFinancial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  theReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Sonya E.  Scott      |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Sonya E. Scott           |   |
| Chief Financial  Officer |   |
|                     |   |
| November 9,  2004   |   |

 

1

----
#### Vita Anastasia, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Daniel Anastasia, Deceased, Appellant, v Kevin A. Barnes et al., Defendants, and OMC-Lincoln, a Division of Outboard Marine Corporation, et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.)

— In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for wrongful death resulting from an accident involving an allegedly defective motor vehicle, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Isseks, J.), dated October 2, 1984, as granted that branch of defendants’, OMC-Lincoln and Outboard Marine Corporation, motion which sought discovery of the report prepared by plaintiff’s expert upon the latter’s inspection of the subject motor vehicle.

Order modified, by adding a provision to the second decretal paragraph directing that plaintiff need only reveal the factual observations contained in the report prepared by her expert. As so modified, order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. Plaintiff’s time to comply with the order appealed from is extended until 20 days after the service upon her of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry.

We agree with Special Term that, even though the report prepared by plaintiff’s expert concerning the scooter that is the subject of this lawsuit comprises material prepared for litigation, it is discoverable under the facts of this case since the *770movants have shown that it can no longer be duplicated because the scooter was inexplicably “scrapped and sold as junk” by its owner, codefendant New York Racing Association, Inc., and that withholding the report would result in injustice and hardship *(see,*CPLR 3101 [d]; *Terwilliger v Leach Co.,*88 AD2d 910; *cf. Fedorcyzk v New York Univ.,*95 AD2d 822).

However, we are not convinced that there should be full disclosure of the report. Rather, only the factual data contained therein, and not the opinions of plaintiff’s expert, need be revealed, because it is only the former that can no longer be duplicated by reason of the unavailability of the subject vehicle for the movants’ inspection *(see, Terwilliger v Leach Co., supra; see also, Ortung Piano & Organ Co. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.,*75 AD2d 845). The movants are free to obtain their own expert opinion based on the factual data contained in the report of plaintiff’s expert. O’Connor, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.