alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Executive Order 13458

# Implementation of the Protocol Additional to the Agreement Between the United States and the International Atomic Energy Agency for the Application of Safeguards in the United States of America

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the United States Additional Protocol Implementation Act (the “Act”)(Public Law 109-401) and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and in order to facilitate implementation of the Act and the Protocol Additional to the Agreement between the United States and the International Atomic Energy Agency for the Application of Safeguards in the United States of America (the “Additional Protocol”), it is hereby ordered as follows: 

**Section 1.**                         The Secretaries of State, Defense, Commerce, and Energy, the Attorney General, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and heads of such other agencies as appropriate, each shall issue, amend, or revise, and enforce such regulations, orders, directives, instructions, or procedures as are necessary to implement the Act and United States obligations under the Additional Protocol.                     

**Sec. 2.**                         The Secretary of Commerce, with the assistance, as necessary, of the Attorney General, is authorized to obtain and to execute warrants pursuant to section 223 of the Act for the purpose of gaining complementary access to locations subject to regulations issued by the Department of Commerce pursuant to section 1 of this order.                     

**Sec. 3.**                         The Secretaries of State, Defense, Commerce, and Energy, the Attorney General, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and heads of such other departments and agencies as appropriate, are authorized to carry out, consistent with the Act and in accordance with subsequent directives, appropriate functions that are not otherwise assigned in the Act and are necessary to implement the Act and United States obligations under the Additional Protocol. The Secretary of State shall perform the function of providing notifications or information to the Congress when required by the Act.                     

**Sec. 4.**                         This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.                     

**Sec. 5.**                         This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.                    

[FR Doc. 08-568

Billing code 3195-01-P
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 11-2774

___________ Collin Myrlie, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Countrywide Bank; Countrywide Home * Loans, a subsidiary of Bank of America * [UNPUBLISHED] (f/k/a Countrywide Financial * Corporation) Headquarters in Calabasas * CA, USA, a New York Corporation, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: March 22, 2012 Filed: March 27, 2012

___________ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Collin Myrlie appeals from the order of the District Court 1 denying his motion filed under Rule 60(b) of th e Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking relief from the adverse grant of summary judgment on his complaint against the mortgage company and bank involved in the foreclosure sale of his home. Following careful review, we

1 The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United St ates District Judge for the District of Minnesota.see no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s conclusion that Myrlie did not present newly discovered evidence or excep tional circumstances warranting relief. SeeArnold v. Wood , 238 F.3d 992, 998 (8th Cir.) (standa rd of review), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 975 (2001); see also Harley v. Zoesch , 413 F.3d 866, 871 (8th Cir. 2005) (“Relief is available under Rule 60(b)(6) only where exceptional circumstances have denied the moving party a full and fair opportunity to litigate his claim and have prevented the moving party from receiving ad equate redress.”); Alpern v. UtiliCorp United, Inc. , 84 F.3d 1525, 1536–37 (8th Cir. 1996) (noting that where Rule 60(b)(2) relief was sought based on evidence di scovered after a hearing on a summary judgment motion but before the court granted the motion, a party must have a justifiable excuse for not timely opposing the motion for summary judgment and must show that the evidence probably would have produced a different result). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

-2-
ex-10.2

 Jason McLaughlin, B.Sc. (Geology)
 51-2565 Whiteley Court
 North Vancouver B.C., V7J 2R5
 

 

 May 16, 2014
 

 

 Mr. Misael Velasco Aguirre
 NRC Exploration LLC
 c/o Nogales Resources Corp.
 50 West Liberty Street Suite 880
 Reno, Nevada, 89501
 

 

 Dear Mr. Aguirre
 

 

 Re: Geological Consultant Engagement Letter
 

 

 The purpose of this letter is to outline the terms of my engagement as a Geological Consultant to NRC Exploration LLC (‘the Corporation”).  Upon your acceptance of this Engagement Letter, I shall act as a consultant to the Corporation on geological matters, and assist the Corporation in locating and acquiring mineral exploration properties located in western Canada.  I shall also provide you with a technical report on a suitable property which shall include a recommended exploration work program, and I shall conduct the work program described below, as may be requested by the Corporation.
 

 The cost of my investigations to locate a suitable property on your behalf will be $500 US which shall become payable upon your acceptance of this Engagement Letter.  The cost of preparing a technical report shall be approximately $1,500 US which shall be come payable upon the completion of my technical report.
 

 Kindly advise should you require additional information.
 

 Yours truly
 

 

 

 /s/ Jason McLaughlin
 Jason McLaughlin
 

 

 

 

 


 
 AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED, at Reno in the State of Nevada, this 16 day of May, 2014.
 NRC Exploration LLC
 

 

 per: /s/ Misael Velasco Aguirre
         Misael Velasco Aguirre
NO. 07-09-0365-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL C

	NOVEMBER 20, 2009

	______________________________

	CHARLES EDWARD SIMS, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 108TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

	NO. 55,097-E; HONORABLE DOUGLAS R. WOODBURN, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Following a plea of not guilty, Appellant, Charles Edward Sims, was convicted by a jury of aggravated sexual assault of a child.  Sentence was imposed at forty years confinement.  We dismiss this purported appeal for want of jurisdiction.  

	A timely and proper notice of appeal invokes this Court’s jurisdiction.  State v. Riewe, 13 S.W.3d 408, 410 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000).  When no motion for new trial is filed, a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the date sentence is imposed.  Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1).  The deadline may be extended if, within fifteen days, the party files the notice with the trial court clerk and a motion for extension of time in this Court.  Tex. R. App. P. 26.3.  This Court has no authority to invoke Rule 2 to enlarge the time in which to file a notice of appeal.  Tex. R. App. P. 2; Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998).

	The limited documents filed to date reflect that Appellant was sentenced on August 25, 2009.  No motion for new trial was filed making the deadline in which to file the notice of appeal September 25, 2009.  With the fifteen day extension provided by Rule 26.3, the deadline was extended to October 10, 2009.1  Appellant, however, did not file his notice of appeal until November 6, 2009.  Appellant’s failure to timely file his notice of appeal prevents this Court from having jurisdiction to entertain his appeal.2

	Consequently, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

							Patrick A. Pirtle

							      Justice

Do not publish.
AGENDA

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health – Meeting 92

Shilo Inn

780 Lindsay Blvd., Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402

Phone: 208–523–0088; Fax: 208–522–7420. 

Teleconference Phone: 866-659-0537, Participant Code: 9933701#

LiveMeeting: https://www.livemeeting.com/cc/cdc/join?id=MZS2ZW&role=attend& pw=ABRWH

Meeting ID: MZS2ZW; Entry Code: ABRWH

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

NOTE: All times in Mountain Time

8:15 a.m. – 8:30 a.m. Welcome and Introduction Dr. James Melius, Chair

8:30 a.m. – 8:55 a.m. NIOSH Program Update Mr. Stuart Hinnefeld, NIOSH

8:55 a.m. – 9:20 a.m. DOL Program Update Mr. Chris (Frank) Crawford,

DOL

9:20 a.m. – 9:45 a.m. DOE Program Update Mr. Greg Lewis, DOE

9:45 a.m. – 10:15 a.m. “Sufficient Accuracy” 

Discussion

Dr. James Melius, SEC WG

Chair

Dr. James Neton, NIOSH

10:15 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. Break

10:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Co-worker Dose Modeling Dr. James Neton, NIOSH

Dr. Arjun Makhijani, SC&A

12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m. Lunch

1:30 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. Rocky Flats SEC Petition Mr. LaVon Rutherford, NIOSH

Mr. Mark Griffon, WG Chair

Petitioner(s): 

2:30 p.m. – 2:45 p.m. SEC Petitions Status Update Mr. LaVon Rutherford, NIOSH

2:45 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. Break

3:00 p.m. – 4:30 p.m. Board Work Session Dr. James Melius, Chair 

4:30 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. INL Site Profile Revision Update Mr. LaVon Rutherford, NIOSH

5:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.* Public Comment

6:00 p.m. Adjourn

*Note: The public comment period may end before 6:00 p.m., following the last call for comments.
AGENDA

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health – Meeting 92

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Note: All times in Mountain Time

8:15 a.m. – 8:30 a.m. Welcome Dr. James Melius, Chair

8:30 a.m. – 9:15 a.m. Baker Brothers SEC petition (Toledo, 

OH; 1945-1996) 

Dr. Paul Ziemer, TBD 6000 WG 

Chair

Mr. Bill Thurber, SC&A

Petitioner(s): 

9:15 a.m. – 10:15 a.m. Procedure Reviews

TIB 0010: “Best Estimate of External 

Dose Reconstruction for Glovebox 

Workers”

OTIB 0023: “Assignment of Missed 

Neutron Doses Based on Dosimetry 

Records”

Ms. Wanda Munn, Procedures 

Review Subcommittee Chair

Mr. Steve Marschke, SC&A

10:15 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. Break

10:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Pantex SEC Petition (1951-1957; 

1984-1990 – uranium & thorium; 1991

thorium) 

Mr. Joe Fitzgerald, SC&A

Mr. Brad Clawson, WG Chair

Petitioner(s):

12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m. Lunch

1:30 p.m. – 2:15 p.m. Brookhaven National Laboratory Site 

Profile Review 

Ms. Josie Beach, WG Chair

2:15 p.m. – 3:45 p.m. Feeds Materials Production Center 

SEC Petition (Fernald, OH; 1951—

1983 – subcontactors; 1953-1967 --

thorium) 

Mr. John Stiver, SC&A

Mr. Brad Clawson, WG Chair,

Petitioner(s):

3:45 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. Break

4:00 p.m. – 5:30 p.m. Board Work Session Dr. James Melius, Chair

5:30 p.m. Adjourn
Miller, Diane M.

From: Tom H.Foulds [tomfoulds@attbi.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 7:02 PM
To: NIOCINDOCKET@CDC.GOV
Subject: Comments on proposed 42 CFR 82

al

NIOSH-IREPcomme ATT34588.bt

nts
212112002

Attention: NIOSH Docket Officer,
Please find attached my comments in WP-8 format. | can be reached at (206)

285-8390 for any questions.
Tom H. Foulds


Law Offices of
Tom H. Foulds and Associated Counsel

703 Sixth Avenue North Telephone: (206) 285-8390
Seattle, Washington 98109 Facsimile: (206) 285-8494
e-mail <tomfoulds@home.com> Toll Free: (800) 628-3147

February 21", 2002
COMMENTS ON 42 CFR 82- Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction,
published October 5", 2001

These comments have been prepared by Tom H. Foulds, attorney at law and
one of the lead counsel in the Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation. The basis
of these comments are the writer’s experience in researching evidence concerning
Hanford operations and releases. Consequently these comments are limited to the
subject of the amount of radiation exposure, which must be addressed in any dose
reconstruction, rather than any comments concerning the scientific validity of
methodologies to be utilized under 42 CFR 82 to calculate the dose resulting from
a given amount of exposure.

The computer software program created for NIOSH named the Interactive
Radio Epidemiological Program (NIOSH-IREP) is to be used to apply NCI risk
models directly to data on individual employees, so as to calculate probability of
causation.

These comments concern section 4 of the NIOSH-IREP program’s
Operating Guide (draft, October 15, 2001) on page 11 entitled “Entering
Dosimetry Information (non-radon)”. On pgs.11&12 is described an electronic
input file “intended for the Department of Labor to use in processing claims”.

But under subsection c. “ Dose input using input file” on pages 13 & 14 is
stated: “This feature is not yet available in NIOSH-IREP.”

The writer understands that as of this date, this so-called “input file” is not
yet developed. That when it is developed it may include various input values that
would be common to site conditions at particular locations and time periods. For
example, the value for the estimated particle air concentration in the 200 east area
for 1952, or the values for estimated ingestion factors. Since dose is linear to
source term exposure, independent of the methodologies used to calculate the
resulting dose, to properly assess the adequacy of the NIOSH-IREP model it will
be necessary to know the radiological activity sources and amounts used for the
input data (such as air concentrations, particle ground concentrations, food
ingestion) that will be incorporated as standard values into this input file.

Tom H. Foulds

Toon Vf onl
KEITH M. SHANKLIN,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-3659

Opinion filed October 7, 2016.

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus -- Original Jurisdiction.

Keith M. Shanklin, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed as unauthorized. See Baker 

v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004).

B.L. THOMAS, RAY, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit 32.1 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three-month period ending September 30, 2008 of Secure Window Blinds, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), I, Anthony Pizzacalla, Chairman, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1. The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  2. The information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.   /s/ Anthony Pizzacalla ---------------------------------- Anthony Pizzacalla  President, Secretary Treasurer, Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Director   Date: October 27, 2008
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of
Realbiz Media Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2013 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Adam Friedman, Chief Financial 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 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/ Adam Friedman      
| | -----------------------
| | Adam Friedman          
| | Chief Financial Officer
| | March 25, 2013
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 quarterly report of One eCommerce Corporation (the Company) on form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Harry Nass, certify to my knowledge and in my capacity as an officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.

Date:   November 9, 2009

| |  |                                       
| |  | --------------------------------------
| |  |                                       
| |  | /s/ HARRY NASS                        
| |  | Harry Nass
Principal Financial Officer

A certification furnished pursuant to this Item will not be deemed filed for purposes of section 18 of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78r), or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the small business issuer specifically incorporates it by reference.
AGENDA

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

Subcommittee for Procedure Reviews (SPR) Meeting 

November 16, 2023 

Teleconference Phone: +1 866-659-0537 

Participant Code: 9933701 

11:00 a.m. (Eastern Time) Start

Welcome and Roll Call 

1. Carry-over items from June 21, 2023, SPR Meeting

a. SC&A’s follow-up review of PER-049 (Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant)

internal dose assessment using hypothetical intakes versus bioassay data

b. SC&A’s Peek Street memo on the review of two additional cases provided by

NIOSH

2. Newly-issued SC&A reviews

a. DCAS-PER-040 “Mallinckrodt TBD Revisions”

b. DCAS-PER-051 “Weldon Spring Plant”

c. DCAS-PER-083 “Weldon Spring Plant TBD Revision”

d. DCAS-PER-067 “Allegheny Ludlum Appendix Q Revisions”

e. ORAUT-RPRT-0097 “Breathing Zone to General Area Air Concentration Ratios

in Small Workrooms”

3. Preparation for December 2023 Full ABRWH Meeting: Review of SPR

accomplishments and current activities

4. Preparation for April 2024 Full ABRWH Meeting: Review of technical guidance

documents ready for full Board approval

5. Newly-Issued Guidance and Supplemental Topics

4:30 p.m. (Eastern Time) Adjourn
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5792 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

90 North 4th Avenue in Brighton, Colorado, as the ‘‘Deputy Sheriff 

Heath McDonald Gumm Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 15, 2018 

Mr. COFFMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 90 North 4th Avenue in Brighton, Colorado, 

as the ‘‘Deputy Sheriff Heath McDonald Gumm Post 

Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DEPUTY SHERIFF HEATH MCDONALD GUMM 

4 POST OFFICE. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 90 North 4th Avenue in Brigh7 ton, Colorado, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Dep8 uty Sheriff Heath McDonald Gumm Post Office’’. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5792 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Deputy Sheriff Heath 

5 McDonald Gumm Post Office’’. 

Æ 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
Enc.

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH

4676 Columbia Parkway, MS: C-46

Cincinnati, Ohio 45226

(513) 533-6825

CHAIRMAN

James M. Melius, M.D., Dr. PH.

 Albany, New York

MEMBERS

Henry Anderson, M.D.

 Madison, Wisconsin

Josie Beach

 Kennewick, Washington 

Bradley P. Clawson

 Rexburg, Idaho

R. William Field, Ph.D. 

 Iowa City, Iowa

Michael H. Gibson

 Franklin, Ohio

Mark A. Griffon

 Salem, New Hampshire

Richard Lemen, Ph.D.

 Canton, Georgia

James E. Lockey, M.D.

 Cincinnati, Ohio

Wanda I. Munn

 Richland, Washington

John W. Poston, Sr., Ph.D.

 College Station, Texas

Robert W. Presley

 Seymour, Tennessee

David B. Richardson, Ph.D.

Chapel Hill, North Carolina

Genevieve S. Roessler, Ph.D.

 Elysian, Minnesota

Phillip Schofield

 Bosque Farm, New Mexico

Paul L. Ziemer, Ph.D.

 Lafayette, Indiana

STAFF

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

Theodore M. Katz, MPA

 Atlanta, Georgia

COMMITTEE MANAGEMENT 

Zaida Burgos

 Atlanta, Georgia

February 24, 2010

Ms. Antoinette Bonsignore

16191 NE 83rd Street

Unit C413

Redmond, WA 98052

Dear Ms. Bonsignore:

This letter is in response to your letter of November 3, 2009, on behalf of the 

Alliance of Nuclear Worker Advocacy Groups (ANWAG) regarding issues 

related to the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH). 

Some of the issues raised in your letter were addressed during your recent 

meeting with Dr. Howard and Dr. Ziemer. I will try to bring you up to date based 

on discussions that occurred at the recent Board meeting.

During our February meeting, the Board discussed the issue of surrogate data. 

The Surrogate Data Work Group presented an updated draft of guidelines on 

the use of surrogate data. Based on further comments received at the Board 

meeting, the Work Group will revise the guidelines it presented. We plan to

finalize these guidelines at the next full Board meeting in May.

The issue of the confidentiality of the documents and correspondence provided 

to the Board’s technical contractor was not discussed at the February Board 

meeting. However, the Board is aware of this issue and will keep ANWAG 

informed. 

Thank you for your continued interest in the Energy Employees Occupational

Illness Compensation Program Act and the activities of this Board.

Sincerely,

[Signature on file]

James M. Melius, M.D., Dr. Ph.

Chairman, ABRWH
AGENDA

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health – Meeting 107

Teleconference Meeting

September 22, 2015

Teleconference Phone: 866-659-0537

Participant Code: 9933701

11:00 a.m. (Eastern Time) Start

• Roll-call – Mr. Katz, DFO

• Welcome – Dr. Melius, Chair

• Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) Petition Status Update – Mr. Rutherford, DCAS

• Updates from Work Groups and Subcommittees (as necessary) – WG/SC Chairs

• Plans for the November 2015 Board Meeting – All Members

• Rescheduling July 2016 Board Meeting

Adjourn