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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Strategic Plan Workgroup organized by the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC).

This workgroup meeting will be closed to the public with attendance limited to invited participants. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss and prioritize proposed research initiatives that will be used in the development of the IACC strategic plan for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) research. The next meeting of the IACC, which will be open to the public and at which research priorities will be discussed, is March 14, 2008.

*Name of Committee:*                         Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC).                     

*Type of Meeting:*                         Strategic Plan Workgroup.                    

*Date:*                         February 21, 2008.                    

*Time:*                         9 a.m. to 3 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         Discussion of proposed research initiatives developed by Strategic Plan Workshops for development of the IACC strategic plan for Autism Spectrum Disorders research; prioritization and possible modification of the initiatives.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 9000 Rockville Pike, Building 31—Room 4A52, Bethesda, MD 20892.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Tanya Pryor, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, 6001 Executive Boulevard, NSC, Room 6198, Bethesda, MD 20892-9669, 301-443-7153.                    

                        Information about the IACC is available on the Web site:                         *http://www.nimh.nih.gov/​research-funding/​scientific-meetings/​recurring-meetings/​iacc/​index.shtml*.                    

Dated: February 5, 2008.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 08-600 Filed 2-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
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 Report of Credex Corporation (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the
capacities and on the date indicated below, 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 his knowledge:

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

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

Date: February 18, 2011

By: /s/ Steven G. Salmond
    _______________________
    Steven G. Salmond
    Secretary / Treasurer (CFO)


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Credex Corporation and
will be retained by Credex Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
   In connection with this Quarterly Report of Energy and Technology, Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,  George M. Sfeir, Chief Executive Officer and Amer T. Salhi, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  1.
Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2011, 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the year ending June 30, 2011, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Energy and Technology, Corp.
  By: /s/George M. Sfeir,
 George M. Sfeir
 President, Chief Executive Officer, Director
 
 By:/s/Amer T. Salhi
 Amer T. Salhi,
 Chief Financial Officer,
  August 15, 2011
Exhibit 99.1
 
 News Release





Media Contacts :


Rajeev LalwaniJim BurkeInvestor RelationsMedia RelationsRajeev.Lalwani@L3Harris.comJim.Burke@L3Harris.com321-727-9383321-727-9131








L3Harris Releases Second Quarter 2022 Financial Results








MELBOURNE, Fla., July 28, 2022 — L3Harris Technologies (NYSE:LHX) today announced its second quarter fiscal year 2022 results in an Investor Letter , which was posted to the Investor Relations section of the company’s website.


As previously announced, the company will host an approximately 45 minute call on July 29, 2022 at 8:30 a.m. ET focused on questions and answers. The dial-in numbers for the teleconference are (U.S.) 877-407-6184 and (International) 201-389-0877 , and participants will be directed to an operator. Please allow at least 10 minutes before the scheduled start time to connect to the teleconference. Participants can also listen via webcast at L3Harris.com.


A recording of the call will be available on L3Harris.com beginning at approximately 12 p.m. ET on July 29.


About L3Harris Technologies L3Harris Technologies is an agile global aerospace and defense technology innovator, delivering end-to-end solutions that meet customers’ mission-critical needs. The company provides advanced defense and commercial technologies across space, air, land, sea and cyber domains. L3Harris has more than $17 billion in annual revenue and 47,000 employees, with customers in more than 100 countries. L3Harris.com.


# # #
FILED

December 7, 1998

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT, NASHVILLE

EDMUND GEORGE ZAGORSKI, )

)

Appellant, ) ROBERTSON CIRCUIT 

) NO. 6052 Below

V. )

) NO. 01S01-9711-CC-00240

STATE OF TENNESSEE, )

) Court of Criminal Appeals

Appellee. ) Affirmed

)

)

JUDGMENT

This case was heard on the record on appeal from the Court of Criminal

Appeals, application for permission to appeal having heretofore been granted, briefs

and argument of counsel; and upon consideration thereof, this Court is of the opinion

that the appellant was afforded both effective and competent assistance in the guilt

and sentencing phases of trial.

In accordance with the opinion filed herein, it is, therefore, ordered and

adjudged that the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed, and the case

is remanded to the Circuit Court of Robertson County for the execution of the

judgment of this Court and the collection of costs accrued below.

Unless stayed by this Court or other appropriate authority, the sentence of

death shall be carried out as provided by law on the 15th day of April, 1999. The

previous order directing the sentence of death to be carried out on February 28, 1999,

is hereby vacated.

It appearing that the appellant is indigent, costs of appeal will be paid by the

State of Tennessee.

12/07/98
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
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
 (2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.
 By:
    
    /s/ FREDDIE M. KOTEKName:
    
    Freddie M. KotekTitle:
    
    Chairman of the Board of Directors,Chief Executive Officer and President of the Managing General PartnerDate: August 16, 2010
NIOSH Program Update

Stuart Hinnefeld

Director

Division of Compensation Analysis and Support

July 29, 2014

Idaho Falls, ID
Program News

 Budget

 Travel costs

 Personnel

 Additional work with Department of Labor
Overall Initial Claim Information

(as of July 21, 2014)

 41,793 cases have been referred to NIOSH for Dose 

Reconstruction (DR)

 39,902 cases have been returned to Department of 

Labor (DOL)

• Cases submitted with a DR report 35,198

• Cases currently pulled from DR by DOL 1,360

• Cases pulled for Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) 

 3,344

 1,201 cases remained at NIOSH for DR

 690 cases were administratively closed
Overview of Active Cases

(as of July 21, 2014)

 Of the 1,201 cases remaining at NIOSH for DR

• 259 cases in DR process

• 257 initial draft DR reports with claimants, NIOSH is 

awaiting the return of the OCAS-1 form

• 685 cases in development for DR
Probability of Causation (PoC)

Summary for Completed DRs

(as of July 21, 2014)

 Of the 35,198 DRs sent back to DOL for final 

adjudication:

• 9,938 cases had a PoC ≥ 50%

• 25,260 cases had a PoC < 50%
Submittals vs. Production

(as of June 30, 2014)

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

2400

Q1-2002Q1-2003Q1-2004Q1-2005Q1-2006Q1-2007Q1-2008Q1-2009Q1-2010Q1-2011Q1-2012Q1-2013Q1-2014

Cases Received from

DOL

Draft DR Reports to

Claimants

Final DR Reports to

DOL
Status of First 5,000 Claims

(as of July 21, 2014) 

 4,889 claims at DOL

• 264 pulled for DOL issues

• 392 pulled for SEC

• 4,233 submitted with DR

 92 claims at NIOSH

• 82 administratively closed

• 3 DRs with claimants (DOL reworks/reinstated within past 

year)

• 7 DRs in process (DOL reworks/reinstated within past year)

 19 claim numbers deleted
Status of First 10,000 Claims

(as of July 21, 2014) 

 9,799 claims at DOL

• 440 pulled for DOL issues

• 1,026 pulled for SEC

• 8,333 submitted with DR

 171 claims at NIOSH

• 141 administratively closed

• 7 DRs with claimants (1 initial; 6 DOL reworks within past year)

• 23 DRs in process (1 initial; 22 DOL reworks within past year)

 30 claim numbers deleted
DOE Response to Requests 

for Exposure Records

(as of July 21, 2014) 

 Number of outstanding requests 206

 Outstanding requests > 60 days 23
SEC Summary Table

(July 21, 2014)

 Petitions received 219

 Petitions in qualification process 3 

 Petitions qualified for evaluation 131

• NIOSH evaluation in progress 0

• NIOSH evaluation completed 130

– SEC Evaluation Reports 

 with the Advisory Board 

 for recommendation 11 

 Petitions not qualifying for evaluation 85

Note: Petitions not qualifying include five petitions received prior to the rule 

becoming final and Petition SEC-00034, which the site was de-listed. 
SEC Summary

(July 21, 2014)

 108 classes added since May 2005

• 63 (58%) 83.13 process

• 45 (42%) 83.14 process

 Represents classes of workers from 74 sites 23 classes denied 

since May 2005

 4 petitions under HHS administrative review

(Pantex Plant, General Steel Industries, Hooker Electrochemical, Weldon 

Spring Plant)
AGENDA

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

Meeting of the

Linde Work Group

August 15, 2011 

Cincinnati Airport Marriott 

2395 Progress Dr. 

Hebron, KY 41048 

859-586-0166

Conference Call Number: 1-866-659-0537

Participant Pass Code: 9933701

9:00 a.m. Eastern Time Welcome and roll-call/introductions 

Work Group Discussion 

• NIOSH Summary of the SEC Petition #154 (1947-1953) ER 

• S&A Review of Petition and NIOSH ER 

• Petitioner Questions/Comments

• Issues Resolution 

• Action Items/Plans

Adjourn
Exhibit
13.1







PRINCIPAL
EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with this Annual Report of Knightsbridge Tankers Limited (the
"Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on or about the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Ola Lorentzon, the Principal Executive 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
      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.





A
signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon
request.





Date:
June 30, 2009




/s/
Ola Lorentzon


Ola
Lorentzon


Principal
Executive Officer
In cases appealed from a municipal court of record to a county court at law, “[t]he appellant 1

has the right to appeal to the court of appeals if the fine assessed against the defendant exceeds $100

and if the judgment is affirmed by the appellate court.” Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 30.00027(a) (West

2004). This statute does not authorize the instant appeals. The State asserts that the appeals are

authorized by article 44.01(a)(1) and rule 25.2(a)(1). Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.01(a)(1)

(West Supp. 2004-05); Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(1).

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-05-00473-CR

NO. 03-05-00474-CR

NO. 03-05-00475-CR

The State of Texas, Appellant

v.

Lawrence Seward, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NOS. 699355, 699356 & 699357, HONORABLE J. DAVID PHILLIPS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

After the municipal court of record dismissed three criminal complaints filed against

appellee Lawrence Seward, the State appealed to the county court at law. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann.

§ 30.00014(a) (West 2004); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.01(a)(1) (West Supp. 2004-05). The

appellate court affirmed the dismissals, and the State now seeks to appeal to this Court.1

The county court at law’s judgment in these causes was rendered on June 22, 2005.

The deadline for the State to perfect an appeal to this Court pursuant to article 44.01 was therefore

July 7, 2005. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.01(d); Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(b). The State
Under rule 25.2(c)(1), an appeal is perfected by filing a written notice of appeal “with the trial 2

court clerk.” Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(c)(1). To perfect an appeal to this Court from the county court

at law sitting as an appellate court, we assume that the State was required to file its notice of appeal

with the county clerk, not the municipal clerk.

The county clerk has filed supplemental records containing copies of the notices of appeal 3

bearing new file marks dated July 19, 2005.

2

mistakenly attempted to file its notices of appeal in this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(c)(1). The 2

notices were received by this Court on July 7, but they were not filed by the county clerk until July

9, 2005.3

In civil cases, a notice of appeal that is mistakenly filed with the court of appeals is

deemed filed on the same day with the trial court clerk. Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(a). There is no

comparable rule in criminal cases. See Douglas v. State, 987 S.W.2d 605, 605 n.2 (Tex.

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.). There is no indication that the notices of appeal were

mailed to the county clerk on or before July 7. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.2(b). Under the circumstances,

we lack jurisdiction to dispose of the purported appeals in any manner other than by dismissing them

for want of jurisdiction. See State v. Muller, 829 S.W.2d 805, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).

The appeals are dismissed.

__________________________________________

W. Kenneth Law, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Puryear

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: August 31, 2005

Do Not Publish
The Honorable William G. Cambridge, Chief Judge, United States District

1

Court for the District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-2305

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * District of Nebraska.

Sergio Hernandez, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: October 28, 1997

 Filed: October 30, 1997

___________

Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After completing an 18-month prison term for a drug-distribution charge to which

he had pleaded guilty, Sergio Hernandez was deported to Mexico. During the threeyear supervised release portion of his drug sentence, Hernandez returned to the United

States where he was arrested for assault and firearm charges. Based upon these events,

Hernandez&s probation officer petitioned the District Court to revoke Hernandez&s

1

supervised release. Following Hernandez&s guilty plea to a separate charge of illegal
-2-

re-entry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (1994), and his admission that the re-entry

violated his supervised release, the Court revoked Hernandez&s supervised release and

sentenced him to two years imprisonment. Hernandez appeals, arguing that the District

Court erred in sentencing him in excess of the Guidelines revocation imprisonment

range. We disagree, and affirm Hernandez&s revocation sentence. 

When a district court finds that a defendant has violated a condition of his

supervised release, the court may revoke supervised release, “and require the defendant

to serve in prison all or part of the term of supervised release authorized by statute for

the offense that resulted in such term of supervised release without credit for time

previously served on postrelease supervision.” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (1994). Upon

our careful review of the record, we conclude the District Court did not abuse its

discretion in departing from the Guidelines range suggested under U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4, p.s. (1995) (range of imprisonment available upon

revocation). See United States v. Carr, 66 F.3d 981, 983 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam)

(Chapter 7 Guidelines are advisory and non-binding; District Court may depart from

revocation imprisonment range when, in its considered discretion, such departure is

warranted); United States v. Grimes, 54 F.3d 489, 492 (8th Cir. 1995) (revocation

sentence reviewed for abuse of discretion). Hernandez&s revocation prison sentence

did not exceed the maximum prison term authorized under section 3583(e)(3), the

District Court specifically stated it had considered the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.

§§ 3553 and 3583 (1994), and the Court&s stated reasons for imposing the two-year

term reflect consideration of those factors.

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 20 (Wednesday, January 30, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 5563]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 08-402]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8522-7]


Local Government Advisory Committee Notice of Charter Renewal

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Charter Renewal.

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

    The Charter for the Environmental Protection Agency's Local 
Government Advisory Committee (LGAC) will be renewed for an additional 
two-year period, as a necessary committee which is in the public 
interest, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2 Section 9(c). The purpose of the 
LGAC is to provide advice and recommendations to EPA's Administrator on 
ways to improve its partnership with Local Governments and provide more 
efficient and effective environmental protection.
    It is determined that the LGAC is in the public interest in 
connection with the performance of duties imposed on the Agency by law.
    Inquiries may be directed to Frances Eargle, Designated Federal 
Officer, LGAC, U.S. EPA (mail code 1301A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC 20460, or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a9ccc8dbcec5cc87cfdbc8c7caccdae9ccd9c887cec6df"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5a3f3b283d363f743c283b34393f291a3f2a3b743d352c">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: January 20, 2008
Christopher P. Bliley,
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental 
Relations.
[FR Doc. 08-402 Filed 1-29-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-60-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 587 

AN ACT 

To amend the Federal Power Act to provide that any inaction by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that 

allows a rate change to go into effect shall be treated 

as an order by the Commission for purposes of rehearing 

and court review. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 587 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fair Ratepayer Ac3 countability, Transparency, and Efficiency Standards 

4 Act’’ or the ‘‘Fair RATES Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL POWER ACT. 

6 Subsection (d) of section 205 of the Federal Power 

7 Act (16 U.S.C. 824d(d)) is amended by adding at the end 

8 the following: ‘‘Any absence of action by the Commission 

9 that allows a change to take effect under this section, in10 cluding the Commission allowing the 60 days’ notice here11 in provided to expire without Commission action, shall be 

12 treated as an order issued by the Commission accepting 

13 such change for purposes of section 313.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives January 23, 

2017. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 587 

AN ACT 

To amend the Federal Power Act to provide that 

view. mission for purposes of rehearing and court reeffect shall be treated as an order by the ComCommission that allows a rate change to go into any inaction by the Federal Energy Regulatory