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.                  

###### Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board

# DATES:

August 24, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.

# ADDRESSES:

                        Telephonic. Dial-in (listen only) information: Number: 1-415-527-5035, Code: 199 981 0184; or via web:                         *https://tspmeet.webex.com/​tspmeet/​onstage/​g.php?​MTID=​ec2075faccae9511e93ed59f66aef58ec.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kimberly Weaver, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Board Meeting Agenda

### Open Session

1. Approval of the July 27, 2021 Board Meeting Minutes

2. Monthly Reports

(a) Participant Activity Report

(b) Investment Report

(c) Legislative Report

                    3. Quarterly Reports                          ( print page 46254)    

(d) Metrics

4. FY22 Budget Review and Approval

5. Participant Survey Report

### Closed Session

6. Information covered under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) and 552b(c)(10).

*Authority:*5 U.S.C. 552b (e)(1).                

Dated: August 12, 2021.

Dharmesh Vashee,

General Counsel, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.

[FR Doc. 2021-17680 Filed 8-17-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
**Exhibit 32.1**





**Certification
      of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
      adopted**


**pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**





In
      connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Eclipsys Corporation
      (the
“Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, R.
      Andrew Eckert, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
      certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.





Dated:
      August 9, 2006





/s/
      R.
      Andrew Eckert


R.
      Andrew
      Eckert


President
      and Chief Executive Officer
#### COMMONWEALTH v. CLEARFIELD COAL CO.

APPEAL BY THE DEPENDANT PROM THE COURT OP COMMON PLEAS OP DAUPHIN COUNTY.

Argued June 6, 1889

Decided October 7, 1889.

Commonwealth v. Lehigh Y. R. Co., ante, 429, followed.

Before Sterrett, Clark, Williams, McCollum and Mitchell, JJ.

*462No. 42 May Term 1889, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 264 March Term 1889, C. P.

On June 28, 1888, upon report made, the auditor general and state treasurer stated and entered a settlement of account for taxes against the Clearfield Bituminous Coal Corporation, of three mills upon the nominal value of scrip, bonds, and certificates of indebtedness owned by residents of Pennsylvania, per § 4, act of June 80,1885, P. L. 193, for the year ending first Monday November, 1887. Prom this settlement the defendant company appealed. The cause was submitted to the decision of the court, without a jury, under the provisions of the act of April 22, 1874, P. L. 109. The specifications of objection to the settlement, the decision of the'court below, Simonton, P. J., the exceptions filed thereto by the defendant, the order of the court below disposing of the exceptions, and the final judgment, raised essentially the same questions raised in Commonwealth v. Lehigh Y. R. Co., ante, 429.

Judgment having been entered in favor of the commonwealth for the tax on $615,000 of bonds “ owned by natural persons residing in Pennsylvania,” with attorney general’s commissions and interest, total, $2,075.62, the defendant company took this appeal, the assignments of error raising essentially the same questions with those filed in the case referred to.

*Mr. M. E.*Olmsted, for the appellant.

*Mr. William S.*Kirkpatrick, Attorney General, and *Mr. John E.*Sanderson, Deputy Attorney General, for the commonwealth.

Opinion,

Mr. Justice Clark:

This case is,ruled by Lehigh V. R. Co.’s Appeal in the case of Commonwealth v. Lehigh V. R. Co., decided at this term and not yet reported [ante, 454.]

Judgment affirmed.
731 A.2d 133

#### SIERRA CLUB, the Commission on Economic Opportunity of Luzerne County, and Eric Joseph Epstein, Appellants, v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Nov. 18, 1998.

Decided June 24, 1999.

John F. Povilaitis, Chief Counsel, Bohdan R. Pankiew, 1st Dep. Chief Counsel, Kevin J. Moody, Asst. Counsel, Ramona C. Cataldi, Harrisburg, for Public Utility Com’n.

Alan J. Barak, Harrisburg, for Sierra Club, et al.

Before FLAHERTY, C.J., and ZAPPALA, CAPPY, CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN and SAYLOR, JJ.

*12
      *ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

The order of the Commonwealth Court is hereby affirmed on the basis of Judge Leadbetter’s opinion.
#### In the Matter of Chase L., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[945 NYS2d 557]

— Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Allen G. Alpert, J.), entered on or about June 28, 2011, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of assault in the third degree, attempted assault in the third degree, menacing in the second and third degrees, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and placed him with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility, and the evidence supported each element of the offenses at issue. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz, Acosta and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

LNG DEVELOPMENT, LLC, formerly 3:14-cv-01239-AC

known as SKIPANON NATURAL GAS, 

LLC, ORDER

Plaintiff, 

v. 

 

UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF 

ENGINEERS,

 Defendant,

BROWN, Judge.

Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and

Recommendation (#44) on July 28, 2015, in which he recommends

this Court grant the United States Army Corps of Engineers’

Motion (#20) to Dismiss. The matter is now before this Court

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 72(b).

Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and

 - 1 ORDER

Case 3:14-cv-01239-AC Document 52 Filed 08/31/15 Page 1 of 2
Recommendation were timely filed, this Court is relieved of its

obligation to review the record de novo. See Dawson v. Marshall,

561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). See also United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc). 

Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, the Court does not

find any error. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings and

Recommendation (#44). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s

Motion (#20) to Dismiss.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 31st day of August, 2015.

/s/ Anna J. Brown

 

ANNA J. BROWN

United States District Judge

 - 2 ORDER

Case 3:14-cv-01239-AC Document 52 Filed 08/31/15 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the interim
financial statements of the Company for the nine months ended September 30, 1998
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such interim financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           3,517
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,765
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     12,154
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                34,212
<PP&E>                                          41,469
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 123,524
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,634
<BONDS>                                         20,769
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        28,421
<OTHER-SE>                                         738
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   123,524
<SALES>                                         56,455
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                56,455
<CGS>                                           41,805
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   41,805
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,572
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,594
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,527
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,373
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,115
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,115
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .29
        

</TABLE>
#### Kevin McKEOWN, Plaintiff-Counter Claimant-Appellant, v. The State of NEW YORK, The Office of Court Administration of the Unified Court System, Thomas J. Cahill, in his official and individual capacity, Nancy J. Barry, in his official and individual capacity, Sherry M. Cohen, in his official and individual capacity, Joseph M. Accetta, in his official and individual capacity, Robert M. DiBella, in his official and individual capacity, McQuade & McQuade, Esqs., Joseph F. McQuade, individually and as a partner of McQuade & McQuade, John Does, 1-20, Jane Does, 1-20, Defendants-Counter Defendants-Appellees, The N.Y. State Commission on Judicial Conduct, The N.Y.S. 1st Dept. Departmental Disciplinary Committee, The N.Y.S. Grievance Committee, 9th Judicial District, Gary L. Casella, in his official and individual capacity, Fran*509cis A. Nicolai, in his official and individual capacity, Anthony A. Scarpino, Esq., in his official and individual capacity, Robert A. Korren, Jeffrey A. McNamara, Patricia Bave-Planett, Giulini & Giulini, Esqs., Charles A. Giulini, individually and as a partner of Giulini and Giulini, Christine Giulini, individually and as a partner of Giulini and Giulini, Catherine M. Miklitsch, Michael D. McQuade, individually and as partner of McQuade & McQuade, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-4561-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 3, 2012.

Kevin McKeown, pro se, New York, NY, for Appellant.

Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General; Michael S. Belohavek, Senior Counsel; Patrick J. Walsh, Assistant Solicitor General (of counsel), on behalf of Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York, for Appellees.

PRESENT: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, and RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

Appellant Kevin McKeown, proceeding *pro se,*appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to reopen brought pursuant to Rule 60(b). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history of the case, and issues on appeal.

“We review a district court’s decision on a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion.” *Johnson v. Univ. of Rochester Med. Ctr.,*642 F.3d 121, 125 (2d Cir.2011) (per curiam). Relief under Rule 60(b) is “generally not favored and is properly granted only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances.” *United States v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters,*247 F.3d 370, 391 (2d Cir.2001). To the extent that McKeown’s motion, filed more than two years after the district court’s dismissal of his complaint, was based on mistake, new evidence, or fraud under Rule 60(b)(1), (2) or (3), the motion was untimely as it was filed well beyond the one-year deadline set forth in the rule. *See*Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c)(1). In any event, upon consideration of McKeown’s arguments on appeal, we conclude that the district court acted well within its discretion in concluding that McKeown was not entitled to Rule 60(b) relief.

For the foregoing reasons, the order of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 11238 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,** Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Desmond Deleon Carviel,** Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:20

- CR

- 98

- 4

Before **Davis, Jones,** and **Elrod,** Circuit Judges

. **Per Curiam :**  * Desmond Deleon Carviel appeals the 120

- month, below

- guidelines sentence of imprisonment imposed following his guilty

- plea conviction for conspiracy to commit a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Carviel asserts that he was improperly classified as a career offender b ecause his i nstant

* Pursuan t to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 26, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-11238 Document: 00516070263 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/26/2021No. 20

- 11238

2 conspiracy conviction does not satisfy the definition of a “controlled substance offense” set forth in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b). He concedes that this argument is foreclosed by United States v. Lightbourn , 115 F.3d 291, 29 2

- 9 3 (5th Cir. 1997) , but seeks to preserve the issue for further review. The Government agrees and has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance and , in the alternative, a motion for an extension of time to file a brief. The parties are correct that the sole issue is foreclosed by Lightbourn

. See United States v. Kendrick , 980 F.3d 432, 444 (5th Cir. 2020) , cert. denied , 2021 WL 2637919 (U.S. June 28, 2021) (No. 20

- 7667)

. Thus, summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is **GRANTED** , and the judgment of the district court is **AFFIRMED**

. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is **DENIED AS MOOT**

. Case: 20-11238 Document: 00516070263 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/26/2021
Exhibit 31.1




Sarbanes-Oxley Section 302 Certification




I, Stephen J. Hansbrough, certify that:




1.  I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to annual report on Form 10-K of HearUSA, Inc.; and




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.




Date:  April 20, 2011






/s/ Stephen J. HansbroughStephen J. HansbroughChairman and Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1367 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1367

    To amend the Act that authorized the Canadian River reclamation 
project, Texas, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to allow use of 
 the project distribution system to transport water from sources other 
                           than the project.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 4, 1997

Mrs. Hutchison introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Act that authorized the Canadian River reclamation 
project, Texas, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to allow use of 
 the project distribution system to transport water from sources other 
                           than the project.

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

SECTION 1. USE OF DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM OF CANADIAN RIVER RECLAMATION 
              PROJECT, TEXAS, TO TRANSPORT NONPROJECT WATER.

    The Act of December 29, 1950 (chapter 1183; 43 U.S.C. 600b. 600c), 
authorizing construction, operation, and maintenance of the Canadian 
River reclamation project, Texas, is amended by adding at the end the 
following new section:
    ``Sec. 4. (a) The Secretary of the Interior shall allow use of the 
project distribution system (including all pipelines, aqueducts, 
pumping plants, and related facilities) for transport of water from the 
Canadian River Conjunctive Use Groundwater Project to municipalities 
that are receiving water from the project. Such use shall be subject 
only to such environmental review as is required under the Memorandum 
of Understanding, No. 97-AG-60-09340, between the Bureau of Reclamation 
and the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority, and a review and 
approval of the engineering desing of the interconnection facilities to 
assure the continued integrity of the project. Such environmental 
review shall be completed within 90 days after the date of enactment of 
this section.
    ``(b) The Canadian River Municipal Water Authority shall bear the 
responsibility for all costs of construction, operation, and 
maintenance of the Canadian River Conjunctive Groundwater Project, and 
for costs incurred by the Secretary in conducting the environmental 
review of the project. The Secretary shall not assess any additional 
charges in connection with the Canadian River Conjunctive Use 
Groundwater Project.''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 17, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 46001]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17559]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders 
and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel; Clinical Trials and Comparative 
Effectiveness Studies.
    Date: August 23, 2021.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 
Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Shanta Rajaram, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural 
Activities, NINDS/NIH, NSC, 6001 Executive Blvd., Suite 3208, MSC 
9529, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-6033, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7b091a111a091a16083b161a121755151213551c140d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5022313a3122313d23103d31393c7e3e39387e373f26">[email protected]</span></a>.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, 
Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, 
Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 11, 2021.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-17559 Filed 8-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2016383EN.01001002.xml

| 17.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/10

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2016 — Arrow Group and Arrow Generics v Commission

(Case T-467/13) (1)

1

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for antidepressant medicinal products containing the active pharmaceutical ingredient citalopram - Concept of restriction of competition ‘by object’ - Potential competition - Generic medicinal products - Barriers to market entry resulting from the existence of patents - Agreements concluded between a patent holder and a generic undertaking - Fines - Legal certainty - Principle that penalties must have a proper legal basis - Duration of the Commission’s investigation - Rights of the defence - Single and continuous infringement))

(2016/C 383/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Arrow Group ApS (Roskilde, Denmark) and Arrow Generics Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S.D. Kon, C. Firth and C. Humpe, Solicitors)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras and B. Mongin, acting as Agents, and by G. Peretz, Barrister)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2013) 3803 final of 19 June 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39226 — Lundbeck) and for reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Arrow Group ApS and Arrow Generics Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Arrow Group ApS and Arrow Generics Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.

1

---