alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 7 (Thursday, January 11, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 1342]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-49]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of a Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act and the Clean 
Water Act

    Notice is hereby given that on December 20, 2006 a proposed Consent 
Decree ``Consent Decree'' in United States v. EnTire Recycling, Inc., 
Civil Action No. 8:06-CV-766 was lodged with the United States District 
Court for the District of Nebraska.
    In this action the United States sought recovery of costs incurred 
by the National Pollution Funds Center and the Environmental Protection 
Agency in responding to the release, discharge and threat of release of 
oil and hazardous substances at a tire recycling facility owned and 
operated by Defendants EnTire Recycling, Inc., Brock Grain Company, 
Inc. and James D. Gerking in Nebraska City, Nebraska. Under the Consent 
Decree, the Defendants will reimburse the United States $201,000.00.
    The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent 
Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, 
Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 
Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to 
United States v. EnTire Recycling, Inc. D.J. Ref. 90-5-1-1-08431. The 
Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States 
Attorney, District of Nebraska, 1620 Dodge Street, Suite 1400, Omaha, 
Nebraska 68102 and at U.S. EPA Region VII, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas 
City, Kansas 66025. During the public comment period, the Consent 
Decree may also be examined on the following Department of Justice Web 
site, to http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the 
Consent Decree may also be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree 
Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 
20044-7611 or by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia Fleetwood 
(<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9de9f2f3f4fcb3fbf1f8f8e9eaf2f2f9dde8eef9f2f7b3faf2eb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a6d2c9c8cfc788c0cac3c3d2d1c9c9c2e6d3d5c2c9cc88c1c9d0">[email protected]</span></a>), fax no. (202) 514-0097, phone confirmation 
number (202) 514-1547. In requesting a copy from the Consent Decree 
Library, please enclose a check in the amount of $5.00 (25 cents per 
page reproduction cost) payable to the U.S. Treasury or, if by e-mail 
or fax, forward a check in that amount to the Consent Decree Library at 
the stated address.

Robert E. Maher, Jr.,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment 
and Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 07-49 Filed 1-10-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Haul Trucks Can Kill!

Over a 20-year period, 152 miner 

deaths involved haul trucks*

24% 

76% were 

truck drivers

were 

nearby 

workers

What can you do to stay safe?

Maintain control

42% died from losing control of the 

truck—speeding, hitting berms, 

failing to navigate a turn, backing 

over a drop-off, overloading, or 

being drowsy.

Keep alert for nearby workers 

11% died from being hit by a haul truck.

Pay attention to berms

11% died when the berm failed or was insufficient.

Stay in the cab

11% died when they jumped from or were thrown from 

a runaway truck.

Wear your seat belt

At least 35% died while not wearing a seat belt.

Use brakes properly

8% died from misusing or not setting brakes when 

leaving the cab.

* Data based on an analysis by NIOSH researchers of 152 fatal events

 investigated by MSHA between 1995 and 2014 involving haul trucks.

Photos by NIOSH Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention

National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health October 2020

Disclaimer: Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by the 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
- Text129: 
    - Text130: 
    - Text131: 
    - Text132: 
    - Text133: 
    - Text134: 
    - Text135: 
    - Text136: 
    - Text137: 
    - Text138: 
    - Text139: 
    - Text140: 
    - Text141: 
    - Text142: 
    - Text143: 
    - Text144: 
    - Text145: 
    - Text146:
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2129 

To require the Secretary of Transportation to develop best practices for 

incorporating resilience into emergency relief projects, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 16, 2019 

Ms. BALDWIN (for herself, Mr. BRAUN, and Mr. CARDIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Transportation to develop best 

practices for incorporating resilience into emergency relief projects, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. EMERGENCY RELIEF PROGRAM. 

4 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this Act: 

5 (1) EMERGENCY RELIEF PROJECT.—The term 

6 ‘‘emergency relief project’’ means a project carried 

7 out under the emergency relief program under sec8 tion 125 of title 23, United States Code. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 2129 IS

1 (2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

2 the Secretary of Transportation. 

3 (b) IMPROVING THE EMERGENCY RELIEF PRO4 GRAM.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enact5 ment of this Act, the Secretary shall— 

6 (1) revise the emergency relief manual of the 

7 Federal Highway Administration— 

8 (A) to include and reflect a definition of 

9 the term ‘‘resilience’’; 

10 (B) to identify procedures that States may 

11 use to incorporate resilience into emergency re12 lief projects; and 

13 (C) to encourage the use of Complete 

14 Streets design principles and consideration of 

15 access for moderate- and low-income families 

16 impacted by a declared disaster; 

17 (2) develop best practices for improving the use 

18 of resilience in— 

19 (A) the emergency relief program under 

20 section 125 of title 23, United States Code; and 

21 (B) emergency relief efforts; 

22 (3) provide to division offices of the Federal 

23 Highway Administration and State departments of 

24 transportation information on the best practices de25 veloped under paragraph (2); and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•S 2129 IS

1 (4) develop and implement a process to track— 

2 (A) the consideration of resilience as part 

3 of the emergency relief program under section 

4 125 of title 23, United States Code; and 

5 (B) the costs of emergency relief projects. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 26, 2006 

131019 

CHRISTINE THOMAS,

Plaintiff, 

v 

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION, 

Defendant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 SC: 131019 

 AGC: 3204/05 

Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

On the order of the Court, the complaint for superintending control is considered, 

and relief is DENIED, because the Court is not persuaded that it should grant the 

requested relief. 

p0918 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 26, 2006 

 Clerk
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Principal 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 the Annual Report on Form 10-K of IVAX Diagnostics, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Charles R. Struby, Ph.D., Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 30, 2009



|                            
|----------------------------
|/s/ Charles R. Struby, Ph.D.
|Charles R. Struby, Ph.D.,   
|Principal Executive Officer
---

EXHIBIT 13.1
  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

I, David J. Copeland, Chief Executive Officer of Rockwell
Ventures Inc. (the Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge:

(i)          
the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended 31 May
2006 (the Annual Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii)          
the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Date:  | 14 December 2006        | 
|------ | ----------------------- | 
|       |                         | 
|       | /s/ David J. Copeland   | 
|       |                         | 
|By:    | David J. Copeland       | 
|Title: | Chief Executive Officer | 

This written statement is being furnished to the Securities
  and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Companys Annual Report on
  Form 20-F. A signed original of this statement has been provided to the Company
  and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
  Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form
  20-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
  except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for
  purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
  "Exchange Act"). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
  reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
  Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates
  it by reference.

---







---
Case 1:07-cv-03531-CM-DCF Document 5 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03531-CM-DCF Document 5 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03531-CM-DCF Document 5 Filed 07/06/2007 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 32.1



Statement of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code



Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, Michael J. Hagan, the Chief Executive Officer of NutriSystem, Inc.
(the Company), hereby certifies that based on the undersigneds knowledge:



| | 1) | The Companys Form 10-K Annual Report for the period ended December 31, 2003 (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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: March 23, 2004 |  | /S/ MICHAEL J. HAGAN   
|                     |  | Chief Executive Officer
The Football Association Premier League Limited et al v. Youtube, Inc. et al Doc. 126

Dockets.Justia.com
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 196 (Thursday, October 11, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 57946]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5013]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information 
Technology; American Health Information Community Personalized 
Healthcare Workgroup Meeting

ACTION: Announcement of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the tenth meeting of the American Health 
Information Community Personalized Healthcare Workgroup in accordance 
with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., 
App.).

DATES: November 26, 2007, from 12 p.m. to 3 p.m. [Eastern Time].

ADDRESSES: Mary C. Switzer Building (330 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20201), Conference Room 4090. Please bring photo ID for entry to a 
Federal building.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/ahic/healthcare/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Workgroup will discuss possible common 
data standards to incorporate interoperable, clinically useful genetic/
genomic information and analytical tools into Electronic Health Records 
(EHR) to support clinical decision-making for the clinician and 
consumer.
    The meeting will be available via Web cast. For additional 
information, go to: http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/ahic/healthcare/phc_instruct.html.

    Dated: October 1, 2007.
Judith Sparrow,
Director, American Health Information Community, Office of Programs and 
Coordination, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information 
Technology.
[FR Doc. 07-5013 Filed 10-10-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-24-M
Order entered August 2, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01491-CV

GARY C. EVANS, Appellant

V.

THE FROST NATIONAL BANK, Appellee

On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 09-15818

ORDER

The Court has before it appellant’s July 31, 2013 unopposed motion for extension of time 

to file appellant’s reply brief. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS that any reply 

brief be filed by August 21, 2013.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
# C_2011136EN.01002301.xml

| 6.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 136/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 136/23

---

Corrigendum to authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 76 of 10 March 2011
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 76 of 10 March 2011

2011/C 136/09

On page 4:

for:

‘Reference number of State Aid: SA.32057 (2010/N)’,

read:

‘Reference number of State aid: SA.32057 (2010/NN)’.

---
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 24-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 24-2 Filed 06/12/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### W. R. COMPANY v. PROPERTY TAX COMM.

No. 39 PC

Case below: 48 NC App 245

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 27 January 1981.
#### GUILFORD COUNTY v. BOYAN

No. 36 PC.

Case below: 39 N.C. App. 501.

Peteitions by plaintiffs and defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 April 1979.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

TONY CHOY YOUNG and 

SHELLY DAWN CARTER, 

husband and wife,

Plaintiffs,

v. CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00266-SPM-GRJ

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

____________________________ /

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion To Extend Expert

Witness Disclosures. (Doc. 14.) Plaintiffs request an extension of the deadlines for the

parties to provide their respective Rule 26(a)(2) disclosures of expert witness reports. 

Plaintiffs represent that Defendant’s counsel was contacted pursuant to Local Rule

7.1(B) and that Defendant does not object to the requested relief.

Upon due consideration, Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion To Extend Expert Witness

Disclosures (Doc. 14) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall serve their Rule 26(a)(2) expert

witness disclosures by July 20, 2011 and Defendant shall serve its Rule 26(a)(2) expert

witness disclosures by August 5, 2011.

DONE AND ORDERED this 22 day of March, 2011. 

nd

s/ Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge
Exhibit 21.1



|                                           |  |                                   
|------------------------------------------ |  | ----------------------------------
|Corporate Subsidiaries                     |  | State or Province of Incorporation
|                                           | 
|NutriVentures, LLC                         |  | Pennsylvania                      
|                                           | 
|NutriSystem Media, LLC                     |  | Nevada                            
|                                           | 
|Nutri/System IPHC, Inc.                    |  | Delaware                          
|                                           | 
|Slim and Tone, LLC                         |  | Pennsylvania                      
|                                           | 
|NutriSystem International Holdings, Inc.   |  | Delaware                          
|                                           | 
|NSI Domestic Holdings, Inc.                |  | Delaware                          
|                                           | 
|NutriSystem Fresh, Inc.                    |  | Delaware                          
|                                           | 
|NSI Retail, LLC                            |  | Virginia                          
|                                           | 
|Nutrisystem North, Inc.                    |  | Delaware                          
|                                           | 
|Nutrisystem Alliance For Better Living LLC |  | Delaware                          
|                                           | 
|NutriSystem Canada, ULC                    |  | Nova Scotia
Case 1:07-cv-03471-PAC Document 5 Filed 11/08/2007 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 23.2

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We hereby consent the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statements
on  Form  S-8(Nos.  333-92409;   333-92391;   333-38768;  333-38766;  333-38874;
333-59096; 333-71944;  333-101965; and 333-116778) of VA Software Corporation of
our report dated  August 20,  2003,  relating to the  financial  statements  and
financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.


s/PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

San Jose, California

October 31, 2005


                                       78
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1861 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1861

    To provide for the treatment of a pharmacy counter refusal as a 
             coverage determination under Medicare part D.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 13, 2019

Mr. Cardin (for himself and Mr. Cornyn) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To provide for the treatment of a pharmacy counter refusal as a 
             coverage determination under Medicare part D.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Streamlining Part D Appeals Process 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROVIDING FOR THE TREATMENT OF A PHARMACY COUNTER REFUSAL AS A 
              COVERAGE DETERMINATION UNDER MEDICARE PART D.

    Section 1860D-4(g) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
104(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(3) Treatment of pharmacy counter refusal as coverage 
        determination.--For plan years beginning on or after January 1, 
        2020, the refusal by a pharmacy to fill a prescription for a 
        covered part D drug under a prescription drug plan shall be 
        treated as a coverage determination subject to reconsideration 
        and appeal pursuant to this subsection and subsection (h).''.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE v. COX

No. 49 PC

No. 14 (Spring Term)

Case below: 48 N.C. App. 470

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 4 November 1980.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



        <ARTICLE> 5

        <S>                                      <C>
        <PERIOD-TYPE>                                   6-MOS
        <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1999
        <PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-2000
        <CASH>                                         14,925
        <SECURITIES>                                        0
        <RECEIVABLES>                                       0
        <ALLOWANCES>                                        0
        <INVENTORY>                                   204,739
        <CURRENT-ASSETS>                               20,343
        <PP&E>                                      9,536,147
        <DEPRECIATION>                              3,052,186
        <TOTAL-ASSETS>                              6,813,308
        <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       8,086,471
        <BONDS>                                             0
        <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
        <PREFERRED>                                         0
        <COMMON>                                   10,927,063
        <OTHER-SE>                                  8,693,415
        <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                6,813,308
        <SALES>                                             0
        <TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  821
        <CGS>                                               0
        <TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0
        <OTHER-EXPENSES>                              144,811
        <LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
        <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            159,130
        <INCOME-PRETAX>                              (303,120)
        <INCOME-TAX>                                        0
        <INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (303,120)
        <DISCONTINUED>                                      0
        <EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
        <CHANGES>                                           0
        <NET-INCOME>                                 (303,120)
        <EPS-BASIC>                                      (.03)
        <EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)



</TABLE>
#### STATE v. WOODS

No. 192P82.

Case below: 56 N.C. App. 193.

Petition by defendant Moore for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 4 May 1982.