alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006123EN.01000201.xml

| 24.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/2

---

Commission opinion of 23 May 2006 concerning the modified plan for the disposal of radioactive waste from the Comurhex plant located in Pierrelatte in France, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty

(2006/C 123/02)

(Only the French text is authentic)

On 8 November 2005, the European Commission received from the Government of France, in accordance with Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, General Data relating to the modified plan for the disposal of radioactive waste from the Comurhex plant.

On the basis of the General Data and following consultation with the Group of Experts, the Commission has drawn up the following opinion:

| 1. | The distance between the plant and the nearest point on the territory of another Member State, in this case Italy, is approximately 170 km. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The distance between the plant and the nearest point on the territory of another Member State, in this case Italy, is approximately 170 km.

| 2. | The modification envisaged will result in an overall increase of the limits for airborne and liquid effluent discharges in order to allow for tritium and carbon 14. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The modification envisaged will result in an overall increase of the limits for airborne and liquid effluent discharges in order to allow for tritium and carbon 14.

| 3. | Under normal operation, the modification envisaged will not cause an exposure that is significant from the point of view of health for the population of another Member State. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Under normal operation, the modification envisaged will not cause an exposure that is significant from the point of view of health for the population of another Member State.

| 4. | In the event of unplanned releases of radioactive effluents resulting from an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, the planned modification will not give rise to any significant effect from the point of view of health on the population of another Member State. |
| --- | --- |

4.

In the event of unplanned releases of radioactive effluents resulting from an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, the planned modification will not give rise to any significant effect from the point of view of health on the population of another Member State.

In conclusion, the Commission is of the opinion that the implementation of the modified plan for the disposal of radioactive waste in whatever form from the Comurhex plant in Pierrelatte in France, both in normal operation and in the event of an accident of the type and magnitude considered in the General Data, is not liable to result in radioactive contamination, significant from the point of view of health, of the water, soil or airspace of another Member State.

---
(16 Misc. Rep. 537.)

#### MAHRO v. GREENWICH SAV. BANK.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

April, 1896.)

Savings Banks—Conflicting Claims to Deposit—Interpleader.

An application under Laws 1892, c. 689, § 115, providing that in all actions against any savings bank to recover moneys on deposit, if any per. sons not parties to the action claim the same fund the court may, on petition of the bank, make such claimants parties defendant, is not an application for an interpleader.

Appeal from city court of Eew York, general term.

Action by Amelia Mahro, by guardian, against the Greenwich Savings Bank, to recover the amount of a deposit made in plaintiff’s name. From an order of the city court (38 N. Y. Supp. 126) affirming an order denying a motion to interplead another party, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued before DALY, P. J., and McADAM and BISCHOFF, JJ.

G. W. Wickersham and Joseph H. Gray, for appellant.

A. B. Osgoodsby, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We must reverse the order‘appealed from, and grant the defendant’s motion for leave to bring in the party named in the petition. The order of the general term and special term are reversed. It appears from the record that this application was disposed of by the general term, and by the special term of the city court, on the theory that it was an application for interpleader; whereas, it was a motion under chapter 689 of the Laws of 1892, providing (section 115) that in all actions against any savings bank to recover for moneys on deposit therewith, if there be any person *30or persons, not parties to the action, who claim the same fund, the court m which the action is pending may, on the petition of such savings bank, make an order amending the proceedings in the action by making such claimants parties defendant thereto. It appears that the person named in the petition of the bank claimed the fund in suit, and the motion should be granted, with $10 costs and disbursements of this appeal.

Order reversed, and motion granted, with $10 costs and disbursements.
EXHIBIT 10.1[COMPANY LETTERHEAD]                    , 2007                                                                                                                                                                                         Dear                                         :     Reference is made to that certain Change of Control Benefits Agreement (the “Change of ControlAgreement”), dated as of                     , by and between you and SanDisk Corporation, a Delawarecorporation (the “Company”). This letter sets forth our agreement to further amend the Change ofControl Agreement as described below.     Section 5.01(b) of the Change of Control Agreement is hereby amended and restated, effectiveimmediately, to read in its entirety as follows:     “(b) Any stock options or other stock awards (which term includes withoutlimitation stock appreciation rights, restricted stock, performance shares, andrestricted stock units, whether payable in cash or stock for purposes of thisAgreement) granted to the Executive by the Company that are outstanding immediatelyprior to but have not vested as of the date of the Change of Control Termination shallbecome 100% vested as of the date of the Change of Control Termination and any optionor similar award may be exercised by the Executive for one (1) year (notwithstandingany term of the option providing for exercise within a shorter period aftertermination) following the Date of Termination (subject to the maximum term of theoption (generally ten years from the date of grant of the option) and further subjectto any right that the Company may have to terminate the options in connection with theChange of Control).”     This letter agreement, the Change of Control Agreement, and the letter agreement with youdated [                    , 2005] which previously amended the Change of Control Agreement, together,constitute the entire agreement between the Company and you concerning the subject matter of theChange of Control Agreement. Such documents, together, supersede all other agreements, whetherwritten or oral, with respect to such subject matter. Such documents, together, constitute anintegrated agreement.     Please acknowledge your agreement with the foregoing by signing the enclosed copy of thisletter agreement where indicated below and returning the executed copy to the Company.       Sincerely,       SanDisk Corporation  a Delaware corporation       By:         Name:         Its:            Acknowledged and Agreed:  **[Name]**       By:       [Name]
1 – OPINION AND ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

DEMARCUS ROGERS,

No. 3:15-cv-02122-PK

Plaintiff, 

OPINION AND ORDER

v. 

CAROLYN W. COVLIN, 

Commissioner of Social Security

 Defendant. 

MOSMAN, J., 

On December 9, 2016, Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued his Findings and 

Recommendation (“F&R”) [21], recommending that the Commissioner’s decision should be 

REVERSED and REMANDED for immediate payment of benefits. Neither Defendant nor 

Plaintiff objected.

DISCUSSION

The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may 

file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, 

but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to 

make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or 

recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court 

is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of 

Case 3:15-cv-02122-PK Document 23 Filed 01/25/17 Page 1 of 2
2 – OPINION AND ORDER

the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 

(9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R 

depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, 

or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

Upon careful review, I agree with Judge Papak’s recommendations and I ADOPT the 

F&R [21] as my own. The Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED and REMANDED for 

immediate payment of benefits. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 25th day of January, 2017. 

/s/ Michael W. Mosman_________ 

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-02122-PK Document 23 Filed 01/25/17 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit** **32.1**

 

**ANTARES PHARMA, INC.**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

 

The undersigned, Dr. Paul K. Wotton, the Chief Executive Officer of Antares Pharma, Inc. (the “Company”), has executed this Certification in connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 (the “Report”).

 

The undersigned hereby certifies that:

 

|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certification as of the 24th day of March, 2009.

 

|   |   |   |   | /s/ Paul K. Wotton                                        |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   |   | Dr. Paul K. Wotton

President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   |   |   |                                                      |
```

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 167 (Wednesday, September 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49040-49041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18812]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

Submission for OMB Review; 30-Day Comment Request Electronic 
Individual Development Plan (eIDP) (National Eye Institute); Correction

AGENCY: National Institutes of Health, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Human Services, National 
Institutes of Health published a Notice in the Federal Register on 
August 26, 2021. That Notice requires a correction in the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed 
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of 
this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular 
information collection by selecting

[[Page 49041]]

``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using 
the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To obtain a copy of the data 
collection plans and instruments, submit comments in writing, or 
request more information on the proposed project, contact: Dr. Cesar E. 
Perez-Gonzalez, Training Director, Office of the Scientific Director, 
National Eye Institute, NIH, Building 31, Room 6A22, MSC 0250, 
Bethesda, Maryland 20892 or call non-toll-free number (301) 451- 6763 
or Email your request, including your address to: [email protected]. 
Formal requests for additional plans and instruments must be requested 
in writing.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In the Federal Register of August 26, 2021, in FR Doc. 2021-
18393, on page 47652, as found within the Supplementary Information 
section, within the Estimated Annualized Burden Hours table for the 
Number of Responses per Respondent column total currently reads 
``150'' and is corrected to read: ``450''.

Daniel R. Hernandez,
NIH Federal Register Certifying Official, National Institutes of 
Health.
[FR Doc. 2021-18812 Filed 8-31-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
Kanab Ambersnail Updat

Glen Knowles Glen KnowlesTWG Meeting TWG MeetingPhoenix, Arizon

Phoenix, Arizon

September 24, 2

September 24, 2
KeyHole 

Spring

Vaseys 

Paradise Lower 

Deer 

Creek

Upper 

Elves 

Chasm

Grand Canyon Ambersnail

Populations

Map modified from Scientific American

Indian 

Gardens 

(NAS)

-9 Mile 

(NAS)
Effects of the continuing 

drought at Vasey’s Paradi

1999 2004
Upper Elves Chasm

z AZGFD translocate

in September 1998 a1999

z 20 additional KAS t

in July 2000 for gene

z Monitored since Ocz Continual recruitme

population

z Occupation of new z Currently classified 

“successful”

z Unaffected by drou
Key Hole Springs

z Release area 5 m sz Total potential habit

square

z AZGFD translocated 

in September 1998 a1999

z Monitored since Ocz Since 2000 the pop

steadily declined to ze

z Continuously drier w

survey due to drough

z Currently classified 

“unsuccessful”

Release area
Lower Deer Creek z Total potential habit

square

z 150 snails transloca

September 1998 and 1999

z 10 additional KAS tr

in July 2000 for genet

z Monitored since Ocz Since 2000 the pop

steadily declined to ze

z Currently classified 

“unsuccessful”

z Size of potential hab

it difficult to detect if sactually absent or not

Release area
#### Blohm *v.*Bamber.

*(City Court of Brooklyn, General Term.*

May 26, 1890.)

1. Appeal—Review—Matters not Apparent on the Record.

Where the case on appeal contains no order denying a motion for anew trial, the general term cannot review the questions whether the verdict was against the weight of evidence, and whether it was excessive.

2. Libel and *Slander—Evidence—Offer*to Apologize.

In an action for slander, testimony that defendant offered to apologize to plaintiff is admissible in mitigation of damages.

8. Same—Instructions—Nominal- Verdict.

A request, in an action for slander, that a verdict for nominal damages is a vin dication is rightly refused. Following *Sandersonv. Caldwell,*45 N. Y. 398.

Appeal from trial term.

Action by Charles A. Blohm against Isaac Bamber. There was a verdict for plaintiff, and from the judgment entered thereon defendant appeals.

Argued before Clement, C. J., and Osborne, J.

*George V. Brower,*for appellant. *Hurd & Grim,*for respondent.

Clement, G. J.

This action was brought to recover damages for slander* and at the trial term, a verdict was rendered for plaintiff for the sum of $1,-750. Ho appeal was taken from an order denying a motion for a new trial on the minutes, and no such order appears in the case. There is only a statement, in the record that the court denied the motion. It'follows, therefore, that we can review only questions of law, (Code, §§ 999, 1346;) and it also folllows that the questions whether the verdict was against the weight of evidence, and whether it was excessive, are not before us for consideration.

It is claimed that it was error not to allow the defendant to prove that he had offered to make an apology to plaintiff. Such testimony was only competent in mitigation, and any fact which might tend to mitigate damages should have been pleaded. When the plaintiff rested, and again at the close of the case, the defendant moved to dismiss, which motions were denied,'and we think properly.

The request to charge that a verdict for nominal damages was a vindication is in conflict with the law as decided by the court of appeals. *Sanderson*v. *Caldwell,*45 N. Y. 398, 406. The judgment appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.
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
 Manhattan, Kansas (NBAF)
 close




            Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Manhattan, Kansas (NBAF) People & Locations







Amanda  Bradley
                        Manhattan, Kansas (NBAF)

                        




                        
                        Microbiologist
                        Phone: (785) 712-3867
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


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
Order filed January 15, 2015

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 14

- 00594

- CV

____________ MOHAMED ALOUI D/B/A FSD FLOORS & REMODEL ING , Appellant

V. LINDA HOSFORD, Appellee

On Appeal from the Co Civil Ct at Law No 4

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1036796



### O R D E R
Appellant’ s brief was due January 2, 2015

. No brief or motion for extension
of time has been filed.
Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or before February 17,
2015 , the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHARLES GREGORY REECE,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. TERRY DICKENSON, et al.,

Defendant s - Appellee s . No. 13

- 16333 D.C. No. 2:09

- cv - 01350

- TLN

- CMK

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 17, 2015 ** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Cir c uit Judges

. California state prisoner Charles G regory Reece appeals pro se from the district court’ s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging access - to

- courts and due process violations

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Doe v. Abbott Labs. , 571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir. 2009), and we

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is no t precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

FEB 26 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Reece’s due process claim as barred by Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because Reece challenged disciplinary proceedings and the resulting loss of good time credits. See Wilkinson v. Dotson , 544 U.S. 74, 81

- 82 (200 5) (inmate’ s § 1983 action is barred if “ success in that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its
duration ” ); Edwards v. Balisok , 520 U. S. 641, 645

- 48 (1997) (challenge to loss of good

- time credits not cognizable under § 1983)

. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Reece’s

access - to

- court s claim against Dickenson because Reece failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he suffered an actual injury as a result of Dickenson’s alleged misconduct in processing his prison appeal

. See Lewis v. Casey , 518 U.S. 343, 34 9

- 53 (1996) ( setting forth actual injury requirement ); see also Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc. , 637 F.3d 1047, 1061 (9th
Cir. 2011) (“To survive summary judgment, a plaintiff must set forth

non - speculative evidence of specific facts, not sweeping conclusory allegations.”).
AFFIRMED.
---



Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the Annual Report of mPhase Technologies, Inc., a New Jersey corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10K/A for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Martin S. Smiley, Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to his knowledge:

1.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







/s/ Martin S. Smiley



Martin S. Smiley

Chief Financial Officer



October 7, 2005





---