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 Agriculture

###### Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration 

Pursuant to the provisions of section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given of the following committee meeting: 

*Name:*                         Grain Inspection Advisory Committee.                     

*Date:*                         May 8, 2001.                     

*Place:*                         Hilton Kansas City Airport, 8801 NW 112th Street, Kansas City, MO 64153.                     

*Time:*                         7:30 a.m.-5 p.m. on May 8, 2001.                     

*Purpose:*                         To provide advice to the Administrator of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) with respect to the implementation of the U.S. Grain Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 71*et seq.*).                     

The agenda includes a review and discussion of GIPSA's financial status, biotechnology, component end-use testing, information technology initiatives, the status of the official commodity program, and other related issues concerning the delivery of grain inspection and weighing services to American agriculture. 

Public participation will be limited to written statements, unless permission is received from the Committee Chairman to address the Committee orally. Persons, other than members, who wish to address the Committee or submit written statements before or after the meeting, should contact the Administrator, GIPSA, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, STOP 3601, Washington, D.C. 20250-3601, telephone (202) 720-0219 or FAX (202) 205-9237. 

The meeting will be open to the public. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication of program information or related accommodations should contact Marianne Plaus, telephone (202) 690-3460 or FAX (202) 205-9237. 

Dated: April 20, 2001. 

David R. Shipman, 

Acting Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration. 

[FR Doc. 01-10384 Filed 4-25-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410-EN-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Manuel RODRIGUEZ-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-41057

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 21, 2011.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Molly Estelle Odom, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Manuel Rodriguez-Sanchez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Rodriguez-Sanchez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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. R. 47.5.4.
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6012 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions 

AN ACT 

To direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to 

review utilization of diabetes screening benefits and make 

recommendations on outreach programs with respect to 

such benefits, 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, 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 6012 RFS

1 SECTION 1. DIABETES SCREENING EVALUATION AND OUT2 REACH PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS. 

3 Part P of title III of the Public Health Service Act 

4 (42 U.S.C. 280g et seq.) is amended by inserting after 

5 section 399V–3 the following new section: 

6 ‘‘SEC. 399V–3A. DIABETES SCREENING EVALUATION AND 

7 OUTREACH PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS. 

8 ‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—With respect to diabetes 

9 screening tests and for the purposes of reducing the num10 ber of undiagnosed seniors with diabetes or prediabetes, 

11 the Secretary shall— 

12 ‘‘(1) review utilization of diabetes screening 

13 benefits under programs of the Department of 

14 Health and Human Services to identify and address 

15 any existing problems with regard to such utilization 

16 and related data collection mechanisms; and 

17 ‘‘(2) make recommendations (informed by the 

18 review under paragraph (1)) on outreach activities 

19 being carried out by the Secretary as of the date of 

20 the enactment of this section to ensure awareness 

21 among seniors and health care providers of— 

22 ‘‘(A) such diabetes screening benefits; and 

23 ‘‘(B) the advantages of knowing one’s dia24 betic or prediabetic status for the purpose of di25 abetes self management. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 6012 RFS

1 ‘‘(b) CONSULTATION.—The Secretary shall carry out 

2 this section in consultation with— 

3 ‘‘(1) the heads of appropriate health agencies 

4 and offices in the Department of Health and Human 

5 Services; and 

6 ‘‘(2) entities with an interest in diabetes, in7 cluding industry, voluntary health organizations 

8 (such as diabetes advocacy groups and other related 

9 stakeholders), trade associations, and professional 

10 societies. 

11 ‘‘(c) REPORT.—For each of the fiscal years 2011, 

12 2012, and 2013, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 

13 an annual report on the activities carried out under this 

14 section during such respective year. 

15 ‘‘(d) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this section, the 

16 term ‘senior’ means an individual who is at least 65 years 

17 of age.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 28, 

2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
# United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 13-2329 THOMAS STALCUP Plaintiff, Appellant,

v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Defendant, Appellee.
**ERRATA SHEET** The opinion of this Court issued on October 6, 2014 is amended as follows: On page 6, line 14, change "Ambramsom" to "Abramson" On page 17, line 4, change "Serivce" to "Service"
THIS VERSION INCLUDES THE ERRATA DATED 31JAN01 -e

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

No. 96-1373

HAROLD STUCKEY, APPELLANT,

V.

ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI,

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.

Before FARLEY, HOLDAWAY, and IVERS, Judges.

O R D E R

On November 17, 1999, the Court issued an opinion affirming the June 19, 1996, Board of

Veterans' Appeals (Board or BVA) decision that denied as not well grounded claims for service

connection for a back disability and for residuals of a forehead injury. See Stuckey v. West,

13 Vet.App. 163 (1999). On January 28, 2000, the appellant filed an appeal with the United States

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit). 

On January 9, 2001, the Federal Circuit granted the Secretary's motion for remand and

remanded the case back to this Court for further proceedings consistent with the Veterans Claims

Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA), Pub. L. No. 106-475, 114 Stat. 2096 (Nov. 9, 2000). The VCAA,

inter alia, amended 38 U.S.C. § 5107 to eliminate the well-grounded claim requirement. Pursuant

to section 7(a)(2) of the VCAA, that amendment to section 5107 is applicable to "any claim . . . filed

before the date of the enactment of [the VCAA] and not final as of that date." Accordingly, because

the Board denied the appellant's claim as not well grounded, a remand is required in order to provide

the BVA with an opportunity to readjudicate the appellant's claims. See Luyster v. Gober,

14 Vet.App. 186 (2000). 

On remand, the appellant is free to submit additional evidence and argument necessary to the

resolution of his claim. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet.App. 369, 372 (1999). The Board shall

proceed expeditiously. See Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 302, 108

Stat. 4645, 4658 (1994) (found at 38 U.S.C. § 5101 note) (requiring Secretary to provide for

"expeditious treatment" of claims remanded by Board or Court); Drosky v. Brown, 10 Vet.App. 251,

257 (1997). Moreover, if the circumstances warrant, the Board is authorized and obligated to

remand the claim to the regional office for further development. See 38 C.F.R. § 19.9(a) (1999);

Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1990). 

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is
2

ORDERED that the Court's November 17, 1999, opinion is withdrawn. It is further

ORDERED that the June 19, 1996, BVA decision is VACATED and the matter is

REMANDED to the Board for adjudication on the merits.

DATED: January 24, 2001 PER CURIAM.
**Exhibit 12.2**CERTIFICATIONI, Naftali Idan, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F/A of Ceragon Networks Ltd.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in the Exchange Act rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) andinternal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and have: (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to thecompany, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or causedsuch internal control over financial reporting to be designed underour supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding thereliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financialstatements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles;  (c) evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (d) disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the period covered bythe annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the company’s auditors and the 
 

 
   audit committee of thecompany’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the company’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.Date: October 26, 2007**CERAGON NETWORKS LTD.**
Exhibit 23.1  Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm  We have issued our
reports dated March 12, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and internal control over financial reporting (which internal
control report expressed an adverse opinion) included in the Annual Report of
Broadwind Energy, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2009.  We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statement of
Broadwind Energy, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-160039,
effective June 17, 2009).  /s/ Grant Thornton LLPMilwaukee, WisconsinMarch 12,
  2010
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael James MONTGOMERY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-14607

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

June 1, 2011.

Peggy Morris Ronca, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Daniel W. Eckhart, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Rick L. Jancha, Nejame, Lafay, Jancha, et ah, Orlando, FL, Robert E. O’Neill, David Paul Rhodes, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Tracy N. DaCruz, Rosemary T. Cakmis, Donna Lee Elm, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Orlando, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before HULL, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Tracy N. DaCruz, appointed counsel for Michael James Montgomery in this 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) proceeding, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s order denying Montgomery a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) is AFFIRMED.
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Yearly Report On Form 10-KSB of Bytewatch
Technologies, Inc. for the Year Ended December 31, 2003, I, Richard Plotnikoff,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Bytewatch Technologies,
Inc. hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, that:

     1.   Such Yearly Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December
          31, 2003, 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 such Yearly Report on Form 10-KSB for
          the year ended December 31, 2003, fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
          Bytewatch Technologies, Inc.

Dated:  March 24, 2004

BYTEWATCH TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


By: /s/ Richard Plotnikoff
-------------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
#### State of Nebraska ex rel. Counsel for Discipline of the Nebraska Supreme Court, relator, v. Brien P. O’Brien, respondent.

652 N.W.2d 97

Filed October 18, 2002.

No. S-02-1094.

Hendry, C.J., Wright, Connolly, Gerrard, Stephan, McCormack, and Miller-Lerman, JJ.

Per Curiam.

Brien P. O’Brien, respondent, was admitted to the practice of law in the State of Nebraska on March 4, 1991. On April 25, 2002, a grievance was filed with the Office of the Counsel for Discipline against respondent. Respondent’s alleged misconduct involved mishandling of client funds.

On September 25, 2002, respondent filed with this court a voluntary surrender of his license to practice law in the State of Nebraska. In his voluntary surrender of license, respondent admitted the essential facts of the grievance and that he had violated Canon 1, DR 1-102(A)(1) and (4), and Canon 9, DR 9402(A) and (B)(4), of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his oath of office. Respondent “freely, voluntarily and knowingly” *800waived his right to notice, appearance, or hearing prior to the entry of an order.

Neb. Ct. R. of Discipline 15 (rev. 2001) provides:

> (A) Once a Grievance, a Complaint, or a Formal Charge has been filed, suggested, or indicated against a member, the member may voluntarily surrender his or her license.

> (1) The voluntary surrender of license shall state in writing that the member knowingly admits or knowingly does not challenge or contest the truth of the suggested or indicated Grievance, Complaint, or Formal Charge and waives all proceedings against him or her in connection therewith.

> (2) A voluntary surrender of license shall not terminate such Grievance, Complaint, or Formal Charge unless an appropriate order shall be entered by the Court.

Pursuant to rule 15, this court finds that respondent has voluntarily surrendered his license to practice law, admitted in writing that he has engaged in the conduct that violated his oath of office as well as DR 1-102(A)(1) and (4) and DR 9-102(A) and (B)(4) of the Code of Professional Responsibility, consented to the entry of an order of disbarment, and waived all proceedings against him.

Upon due consideration of the pleadings in this matter, the court finds that respondent’s admission and waiver are knowingly made. The court accepts respondent’s surrender of his license to practice law, finds that respondent should be disbarred, and hereby orders him disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Nebraska, effective immediately. Respondent shall forthwith comply with Neb. Ct. R. of Discipline 16 (rev. 2001), and upon failure to do so, he shall be subject to punishment for contempt of this court. Costs to be taxed against respondent.

Judgment of disbarment.
EXHIBIT 32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certifications


The undersigned officers certify that this report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that
the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Pingchuan
Pharmaceutical, Inc.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Pingchuan Pharmaceutical, Inc. and will be retained by Pingchuan
Pharmaceutical, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.

April 14, 2006                    /s/ Qitai Yao
                                 -----------------------------------
                                  Qitai Yao (Chief Executive Officer)

April 14, 2006                   /s/ Chunman Zhang
                                 --------------------------------------
                                 Chunman Zhang (Chief Financial Officer)
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 

Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the 

Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound

volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 17-BG-84

IN RE: TOLLY A. KENNON, III,

 Respondent. DDN: 296-17

Bar Registration No. 466643

BEFORE: Glickman and Beckwith, Associate Judges, and Farrell, Senior Judge. 

ORDER

(Filed – April 13, 2017)

On consideration of Disciplinary Counsel’s report regarding petitioner’s 

petition for reinstatement wherein Disciplinary Counsel informs the court that Mr. 

Kennon, III, has demonstrated that he is fit to resume the practice of law, and it 

appearing that petitioner is eligible to file the petition for reinstatement, see In re

Kennon, 987 A.2d 1143 (D.C. 2010), it is 

ORDERED that petitioner’s petition for reinstatement is granted. It is 

FURTHER ORDERED that Tolly A. Kennon, III, is hereby reinstated to the 

Bar of the District of Columbia. 

PER CURIAM
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 78 (Friday, April 21, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21404-21405]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9949]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY


Notice of Change in Disposal of Buildings and Land at Closed 
Military Installation; Former Naval Station Puget Sound (Sand Point), 
Seattle, WA

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice provides information on the surplus property at 
the former Naval Station Puget Sound (Sand Point), Seattle, Washington.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1991, Naval Station Puget Sound (Sand 
Point), Seattle, Washington, was designated for closure pursuant to the 
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-510, 
as amended. On September 20, 1995, approximately 126 acres of land and 
facilities, located at Sand Point were determined surplus to the needs 
of the federal Government and available for use by state and local 
governments, representatives of the homeless and other interested 
parties. Approximately 11 acres were designated to be a federal 
transfer to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 
NOAA declined the transfer and subsequently the City of Seattle 
requested the property for park and recreation purposes and submitted 
an application for the property under the Federal Lands-to-Parks 
Program of the National Park Service.

Surplus Property Description

    The following is a listing of the additional land and facilities at 
the former Naval Station Puget Sound (Sand Point), Seattle, Washington, 
that have been declared surplus to the needs of the federal Government:

Land

    Approximately 11 acres of improved and unimproved fee simple land 
at the former Naval Station Puget Sound (Sand Point), Seattle, 
Washington, located in King County, in the northeastern portion of the 
City of Seattle, Washington. Area is immediately available.

Buildings

    The following is a summary of the facilities located on the above 
described land.

-- Warehouse/storage facilities (1 structure). Comments: Approx. 
115,000 square feet.
-- Miscellaneous paved areas.
-- Utility facilities. Comments: Electrical, steam, water, sewage

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard A. Engel, Director, Department 
of the Navy, Real Estate Operations Division, Naval Facilities 
Engineering Command, 1322 Patterson Ave. SE, Suite 1000, Washington 
Navy Yard, DC 20374-5065, telephone (202) 685-9203 or Mike Brady, 
Director, Real Estate, Engineering Field Activity, Northwest, Naval 
Facilities Engineering Command, 19917 7th Avenue NE, Poulsbo, WA 98370-
7570, telephone (360) 396-0908.


[[Page 21405]]


    Dated: April 11, 2000.
J. L. Roth,
Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, 
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-9949 Filed 4-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P