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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [File No. 500-1] 

It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of China Expert Technology, Inc. (“China Expert”) because of questions regarding the adequacy and accuracy of publicly-disseminated information concerning, among other things, China Expert's: (1) Financial performance and business prospects and (2) current financial condition. 

The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company. 

Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT, October 1, 2007 through 11:59 p.m. EDT, on October 12, 2007. 

By the Commission. 

Nancy M. Morris, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 07-4915 Filed 10-1-07; 11:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

- 1

- 

### S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

ESTATE OF LINDA HORN, by JOELYNN T. STOKES, Personal Representative,

Plaintiff

- Appell ant
, FOR P UBLI CATION October 22, 2020

v No. 349522 Oakland Circuit Court MICHAEL J. SWOFFORD, D.O., and SOUTHFIELD RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, PLLC, LC No. 2018

- 164148

- NH

Defendants

- Appell ees

.

Before: B OONSTRA , P .J., and M ARKEY and H OOD , JJ.

B OONSTRA , P. J. ( concurring ).

I concur in the majority opinion. I write separately simply to encourage our Supreme Court, in this or another appropriate case, to clarify the law in this area. I note that while this case turns largely on the Supreme Court’s decision in Woodard v Custe r , 476 Mich 545, 557 ; 719 NW2d 842 (2006) , by which we are bound, that decision featured no less than four opinions, including two concurring opinions (one of which was authored by the author of the four

- Justice majority opinion) and a three

- Justice dissen t that maintained that it actually was the majority opinion (by virtue of the second concurrence). Moreover, this Court’s unpublished decision in Higgins v Traill , unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued July 30, 2019 (Docket No. 34 3664), featured a separate concurring opinion by Judge G LEICHER in which she maintained that Woodard ’s analysis was faulty in certain respects and should be reconsidered. Although the Supreme Court subsequently denied leave to appeal in Higgins , it did so on an evenly

- split 3

- 3 vote, with one Justice not participating. And there remains disagreement

— which the Supreme Court could put to rest, one way or another

— about whether its order in Estate of Jilek v Stockson , 490 Mich 961 (2011), implicitl y overruled Reeves v Carson City Hosp (On Remand)

, 274 Mich App 622; 736 NW2d 284 (2007).

For these reasons, I concur in the majority opinion, but encourage our Supreme Court to provide much

- needed clarity in this complex area of law.

/s/ Mark T. Boonstra
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION

(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
20-F/A for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013 of Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited (the Company) as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the Commission) on the date hereof (the
Report) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Graham Briggs, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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 24, 2014



|                        |  |                  
|----------------------- |  | -----------------
|By:                     |  | /s/ Graham Briggs
|Graham Briggs          
|Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The undersigned, Jeremy Glenn Driver, the Chief Executive Officer of Strategic American Oil Corporation, and Johnathan Lindsay, the Chief Financial Officer of Strategic American Oil Corporation, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Strategic American Oil Corporation, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Strategic American Oil Corporation.





Date:     January 7, 2011


/s/ "Jeremy Glenn Driver"





Jeremy Glenn Driver


Chief Executive Officer







/s/ "Johnathan Lindsay"





Johnathan Lindsay


Chief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Strategic American Oil Corporation and will be retained by Strategic American Oil Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 60378

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

RICHARD BEN,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 4:16

- CV

- 1

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: *

Richard Ben pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) for using a

firearm during a crime of violence. Ben argues his conviction should be vacated

because the predicate crime of robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 211 1, is no longer “ a crime

of violence ” under § 924(c)(1). In United States v. Brewer , we held that robbery

by intimidation under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) is “ a crime of violence

. ” 848 F.3d

711, 716 (5th Cir. 2017)

. The definition s of robbery under both § 2113(a) and §

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4

. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED
November 6, 2019
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-60378 Document: 00515188383 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/06/2019No. 18

- 60378

2 211 1 are the same . Ben’s counsel conceded that Brewer controls in this case during oral argument. Ben cannot prevail because Brewer forecloses the

argument that robbery under § 211 1 is not a predicate “crime of violence .”

For the reasons described , we AFFIRM the district court ’s judgment. Case: 18-60378 Document: 00515188383 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/06/2019
Exhibit 12(c)Entergy Louisiana, LLCComputation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges andRatios of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges and Preferred DistributionsTwelve Months EndedDecember 31,
June 30,2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008Fixed charges, as defined:Total Interest
$76,756
$74,141
$85,418
$92,216
$85,729
$81,945Interest applicable to rentals
6,359
5,595
4,585
4,833
7,074
5,708Total fixed charges, as defined
$83,115
$79,736
$90,003
$97,049
$92,803
87,653Preferred distributions, as defined (a)
-
-
-
10,906
10,998
11,252Combined fixed charges and preferred distributions, as defined
$83,115
$79,736
$90,003
$107,955
$103,801
$98,905Earnings as defined:Net Income
$146,154
$127,495
$128,082
$137,618
$143,337
$144,910Add:Provision for income taxes:Total Taxes
97,408
79,475
96,819
78,338
83,494
89,821Fixed charges as above
83,115
79,736
90,003
97,049
92,803
87,653Total earnings, as defined
$326,677
$286,706
$314,904
$313,005
$319,634
$322,384Ratio of earnings to fixed charges, as defined
3.93
3.60
3.50
3.23
3.44
3.68Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges andpreferred distributions, as defined
-
-
-
2.90
3.08
3.26(a) "Preferred distributions," as defined by SEC regulation S-K, are computed by dividing the preferred distribution
      requirement by one hundred percent (100%) minus the income tax rate.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 7 (Thursday, January 11, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1338-1339]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-77]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), 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 contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special 
Emphasis Panel, Technical Support for Constituency Outreach and 
Research Dissemination.
    Date: February 1, 2007.
    Time: 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

[[Page 1339]]

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6101 Executive Boulevard, 
Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Lyle Furr, Contract Review Specialist, Office of 
Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, 
Room 220, MSC 8401, 6101 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-
8401, (301) 435-1439, lf33c.nih.gov.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.279, Drug 
Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 3, 2007.
Anna M. Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-77 Filed 1-10-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5588 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to seek to enter into an agreement 

with the city of Vallejo, California, for the transfer of Mare Island 

Naval Cemetery in Vallejo, California, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 23, 2018 

Mr. THOMPSON of California (for himself and Mr. BILIRAKIS) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to seek to enter 

into an agreement with the city of Vallejo, California, 

for the transfer of Mare Island Naval Cemetery in 

Vallejo, California, 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. TRANSFER OF MARE ISLAND NAVAL CEMETERY 

4 TO SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS FOR 

5 MAINTENANCE BY NATIONAL CEMETERY AD6 MINISTRATION. 

7 (a) AGREEMENT.—The Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

8 shall seek to enter into an agreement with the city of 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5588 IH

1 Vallejo, California, under which the city of Vallejo shall 

2 transfer to the Secretary all right, title, and interest in 

3 the Mare Island Naval Cemetery in Vallejo, California, at 

4 no cost to the Secretary. 

5 (b) MAINTENANCE BY NCA.— If the Mare Island 

6 Naval Cemetery is transferred to the Secretary of Vet7 erans Affairs pursuant to subsection (a), the National 

8 Cemetery Administration shall maintain the cemetery as 

9 a national shrine. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
# C_2011076EN.01001601.xml

| 10.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 76/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 76/16

---

Initiation of proceedings

(Case COMP/M.6101 — UPM/Myllykoski and Rhein Papier)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 76/09

On 4 March 2011, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the above-mentioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.

In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301 / 2967244) or by post, under reference COMP/M.6101 — UPM/Myllykoski and Rhein Papier, to the following address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| J-70 |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

LATEEF JAIYESIMI,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 4:11cv159-MP/WCS

ERIC H. HOLDER, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner initiated this case on March 28, 2011, doc. 1, with the filing of a petition

for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Respondents' answer was filed

on June 15, 2011, doc. 20, and by August 5, 2011, when Petitioner had not responded

to the answer, an order was entered providing Petitioner an opportunity to file a

response to the answer no later than August 31, 2011. Doc. 21. Petitioner's copy of

that order was returned to the clerk as undeliverable and stamped by the Wakulla

County Jail: "return to sender - no longer here." Doc. 22. I entered a subsequent order

on August 18, 2011, directing Respondents to advise the Court as to Petitioner's status

and, specifically, if Petitioner had been released or removed. Doc. 24.

Case 4:11-cv-00159-MP-WCS Document 25 Filed 08/25/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Respondents filed a response on August 24, 2011. Doc. 24. Respondents

advise that Petitioner was "removed from the United States to the country of Nigeria on

June 23, 2011, and, thus, this case is moot." Id. Attached to the response is an exhibit

which demonstrates that Petitioner was removed on June 23, 2011, on a flight from

Atlanta. Doc. 24-1. Because no further relief is possible, and Petitioner is no longer in

detention, this case should be dismissed as moot.

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the petition for

writ of habeas corpus filed by Petitioner LATEEF JAIYESIMI, doc. 1, be DISMISSED as

moot because Petitioner has been removed from the United States and is no longer in

detention and no further relief is available.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on August 25, 2011.

 S/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days

after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the

scope of review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case No. 4:11cv159-MP/WCS

Case 4:11-cv-00159-MP-WCS Document 25 Filed 08/25/11 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 35 (Thursday, February 22, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 8082]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-784]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Advisory Committee on Former Prisoners of War; Notice of Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs gives notice under Public Law 
92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Advisory Committee on 
Former Prisoners of War (FPOW) has scheduled a meeting for April 16-18, 
2007, at the Department of Veterans Affairs Central Office, 810 Vermont 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The meeting will be held in room 630 on 
April 16 and room 830 on April 17-18, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. each day. 
The meeting is open to the public.
    The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs on the administration of benefits under title 38, United States 
Code, for veterans who are former prisoners of war, and to make 
recommendations on the needs of such veterans for compensation, health 
care, and rehabilitation.
    The agenda for April 16 will begin with an introduction of 
Committee members, remarks from dignitaries, a review of Committee 
reports, an update of activities since the last meeting, and a period 
for FPOW veterans and/or the public to address the Committee. On April 
17, the Committee will hear reports from the Veterans Health 
Administration and Veterans Benefits Administration. The Committee will 
also hear an update on Robert E. Mitchell Center for Prisoners of War 
studies. On April 18, the Committee's medical and administrative work 
groups will meet to discuss their activities and report back to the 
Committee. Additionally, the Committee will review and analyze comments 
presented during the meeting to compile a report to be sent to the 
Secretary.
    Members of the public may direct questions or submit written 
statements for review by the Committee in advance of the meeting to Mr. 
Bradley G. Mayes, Director, Compensation and Pension Service (21), 
Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20420. Submitted materials must be received by April 1, 2007.

    Dated: February 14, 2007.

    By Direction of the Secretary.
E. Philip Riggin,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 07-784 Filed 2-21-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
Miller, Diane M.

From: Sheryl Burrows [SAB2@nrc.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 5:19 PM

To: NIOCINDOCKET@CDC.GOV

Subject: Attached are comments on proposed 42 CFR Part 81.

WordPerfect 6.1
Attached are comments on proposed 42 CFR Part 81.



Comments on DoHHS proposed 42 CFR Part 81, Oct 5 ‘01

p50971: In the first paragraph under H, it says that the NIOSH-IREP will be reviewed by the
Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health. Vince notes in the margin, “No. NAS.” If
he means to suggest that the NAS too review the IREP, fine. But the Board, under the
E.O., is to review the guidelines on probable cause, and that would seem to include the
IREP.

Also on the same page, Vince does some editing of the rule text, §81.0 and 81.4(a). Seems
to me, based on the law, that the proposed texts, not the edits, are right. He also edits
81.4(b), and to this layman, the edits don’t seem right. But you'll know best what to do with
81.4(b).

p50968: “HHS note that EEOICPA does not authorize the establishment of new radiation
protection standards through the promulgation of these guidelines, and these proposed
guidelines would not constitute such new standards.”

p50970 -- on effects of low doses:

[Low doses compared to high:] “NIOSH will modify IREP to eliminate an assumption
for non-leukemia cancers that low-level acute radiation doses ... cause less risk, per
unit of dose, than higher level acute doses. A recent study of the Japanese atomic
bomb survivors supports this change.”

[A sum of low doses delivered over time, in comparison the sum delivered one
time:] “... [T]he IREP risk models do not account for a possible inverse dose rate
effect for high-LET radiation exposures. This effect means at any particular dose
level, especially higher dose levels, a dose of high LET radiation incurred gradually
over time is more likely to cause cancer than the same total dose incurred quickly or
at once. A substantial body of research supports this finding ...”

p50969 -- on the meaning of 99 percent confidence: “This means when DVA determines
whether the cancer of a veteran was more likely than not caused by radiation, they use the
estimate that is 99 percent certain to be greater than the probability that would be calculated
if the information on dose and the risk model were perfectly accurate ... This will help
minimize the possibility of denying compensation to claimants under EEOICPA for those
employees with cancers likely to have been caused by occupational radiation exposures.”

p.50970, second column, paragraph 3 -- Will including x-rays resulting from routine medical
screening in the overall dose assessment result in an over-compensation/overstated higher
probability of causation?

p.50969, first column, last paragraph-- in the second sentence, “credibility limit” should be
changed to “confidence limit”.

p.50969, first column, comment on last sentence -this may overcompensate workers who
shouldn't receive benefits.

P.50970, second column, first paragraph-- How does this compare with BEIR VI?