alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 84 (Monday, May 3, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 23247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10240]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XV73


International Whaling Commission; 62nd Annual Meeting; 
Nominations

AGENCY:  National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:  Notice; request for nominations.

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

SUMMARY:  This notice is a call for nominees for the U.S. Delegation to 
the June 2010 International Whaling Commission (IWC) annual meeting. 
The non-federal representative(s) selected as a result of this 
nomination process is(are) responsible for providing input and 
recommendations to the U.S. IWC Commissioner representing the positions 
of non-governmental organizations. Generally, only one non-governmental 
position is selected for the U.S. Delegation.

DATES:  The IWC is holding its 62nd annual meeting June 21-25, 2010, in 
Agadir, Morocco. All written nominations for the U.S. Delegation to the 
IWC annual meeting must be received by May 21st, 2010.

ADDRESSES:  All nominations for the U.S. Delegation to the IWC annual 
meeting should be addressed to Ms. Monica Medina, U.S. Commissioner to 
the IWC, and sent via post to: Ryan Wulff, National Marine Fisheries 
Service, Office of International Affairs, 1315 East West Highway, SSMC3 
Room 12620, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Ryan Wulff, 202-482-3689.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Secretary of Commerce is charged with 
the responsibility of discharging the domestic obligations of the 
United States under the International Convention for the Regulation of 
Whaling, 1946. The U.S. IWC Commissioner has responsibility for the 
preparation and negotiation of U.S. positions on international issues 
concerning whaling and for all matters involving the IWC. He is staffed 
by the Department of Commerce and assisted by the Department of State, 
the Department of the Interior, the Marine Mammal Commission, and by 
other agencies. The non-federal representative(s) selected as a result 
of this nomination process is(are) responsible for providing input and 
recommendations to the U.S. IWC Commissioner representing the positions 
of non-governmental organizations. Generally, only one non-governmental 
position is selected for the U.S. Delegation.

    Dated: April 27, 2010.
Rebecca Lent,
Director, Office of International Affairs, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-10240 Filed 4-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
THE STATE OF TEXAS 

### M A N D A T E

TO THE 379TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on September 23, 2015, the cause upon appeal to

revise or reverse your judgment between

Joe A. Gomez, Appellant(s)

V.

The State of Texas, Appellee(s)

No. 04

- 14

- 00610

- CR and Tr. Ct. No. 2013CR4656

was determined, and therein our Court of Appeals made its order in these words:



## In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, the

judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

Witness the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas,

with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on November 23, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7483

MICHAEL LEE BOYD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MICHELLE MITCHELL, Sheriff,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-97-96)

Submitted: April 16, 1998 Decided: April 29, 1998

Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Lee Boyd, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint without prejudice. A dismissal

without prejudice is not reviewable by the court unless the reasons

stated for the dismissal clearly disclose that no amendment to the

complaint could cure its defects. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar

Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). In

the present case, the district court properly found that Appellant

failed to allege all the elements necessary to support a claim that

prison officials were responsible for the injuries suffered at the

hands of other inmates. Thus, it is not clear that no amendment to

the complaint could cure the defect.

Though the court's order dismissed the action without prejudice, it also advises Appellant that he could appeal to this court.

Because the court did not certify the appeal under Fed. R. Civ. P.

54(b) or 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (1994), we conclude this was just an

inadvertent mistake. Because Appellant may amend his complaint to

cure its defects, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
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 GMS Capital Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10–Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George Metrakos, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, 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.





/s/ George MetrakosGeorge Metrakos

Principal Financial and Accounting Officer





Dated:  May 5, 2011
<Page>

Exhibit 23

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Nos. 333-78943, 333-49612, 333-58346 and 333-62810) on Form S-8
and in the Registration Statements (Nos. 333-35936, 333-42526, 333-62888 and
333-87029) on Form S-3 of our report dated February 16, 2001 relating to the
financial statements and financial statement schedule of WorldGate
Communications, Inc., which appear in WorldGate Communications, Inc.'s Annual
Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2000.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
August 16, 2001









                                        46
Dose Reconstructio

Cancer-Related Claim

EEOICPA

James W. Neton, Ph.D., C

Health Science Administra

Office of Compensation Analys

Support
Dose Reconstruction P

Receive Claim

Review Data

Conduct Interview

Conduct Dose Reconstruc

Request Data from DOE

CATI Report 

to Claimant

Draft Dose 

Reconstruction

Report to Claimant

Receive Signed 

OCAS-1

Closeout In
Sources of Informat

Site Profile Data

Individual Dosimetry

& Bioassay Data Data 

Dose R

Dose Reconstruction

Interview

Cancer and Employment

Information from Claimant
Basics of Dose Recons

• Use all available worker and wo

information to reconstruct dose

• Evaluate all doses of record for 

quality shortcomings

• Evaluate potential for undetecte

unmonitored dose

• Use recommendations establis

national and international organ
Dose Reconstruct

(continued)

• Preferentially use individual mo

data if available and of sufficien

• Rely on use of area dosimeters

surveys and air sampling if indinot available

• If no monitoring data, use avail

on source term, etc.
Dose Reconstruct

(continued)

• Annual organ doses will be compu

date of first employment to date o

• When possible, provide an estima

uncertainty 

• Dose output will be compatible wit

probability of causation software (IREP)
Computer Assisted Telephone 

(CATI)

• Uses standard scripts

– Can be viewed on OCAS website

• Approved by the Office of Managem

Budget

• Average interview ~ 1 hour• Range from 20 minutes to >4 hours• Provisions for secure “Q cleared” in• Interview recommended, but not re
Dose Reconstruction 

• Cover Page• Introduction• Dose Reconstruction Overview• Information Used• Personal Background Information• Dose Estimate• Summary• References• IREP Input as an Attachment
The Special Exposure C

(SEC)

• Special Exposure Cohort establishe

EEOICPA.

• Congress included certain employee

facilities/sites.

• Compensation can be awarded for 2

(“specified”) cancers, under limited c

• For Cohort members, the Departme

does not have to determine whethe

cancer was likely to have been causradiation.
Special Exposure Co

(continued)

• Congress recognized that other gro

nuclear weapons employees might added to the Cohort.

• EEOICPA allowed the President to 

classes of employees to the Cohorrequired procedures for doing this.

• The President assigned these resp

to the Secretary of HHS.
What requirements does E

set for adding to the Co

HHS can add a class of employees 

if :

• NIOSH cannot estimate radiatio

the employees with sufficient ac

and

• It is reasonably likely that the rad

endangered the health of the em
SEC Procedures Sta

• Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

the Federal Register on June 25

• Comment period closed on Augu• Content of proposed 42 CFR 83

all public comments contained owebsite

• NIOSH currently addressing com
Additional Informat

• Contact the NIOSH Office of 

Compensation Analysis and Su(OCAS) at 800-356-4674 or 51

• Visit our website at:

www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas

• E-mail us at ocas@cdc.gov
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 15, 2021

No. 04

- 20

- 00546

- CV

Richard Louis FLEMING , III,

Appellant

v.

NASA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION

,

Appellee

From the County Court

, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020

- CV

- 0167

Honorable Bill Squires , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting : Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Lori I. Vale n zuela, Justice

On April 14, 2021, appellant filed a “Notice to Proceed in Equity

. ” Appellant moved this

court to (1) “proceed with a hearing ex parte, in camera, and in chambers”; (2) “ correct the

record and ca

ption to reflect the proper name of i [sic] as Richard Louis Fleming, III”; and

( 3 ) pro vide a response and “full disclaimer under penalty of perjury” to be “received within three

(3) days as well if i [sic] am wrong about the caption using the misnomer or mistake” that “must

list the laws they used for the improper style of the caption.”

The motion is DENIED.

It is so ORDE RED April 15, 2021

. PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

______ ____________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, CLERK OF COURT
# Instructions

# Table 1

# Table 2

# Table 3

# Table 4

# Table 5
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                                            6023
<SECURITIES>                                     35339
<RECEIVABLES>                                   143053
<ALLOWANCES>                                      2393
<INVENTORY>                                      43949
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                262504
<PP&E>                                          258639
<DEPRECIATION>                                   99478
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  473138
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           149867
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         92258
<OTHER-SE>                                       63327
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    473138
<SALES>                                         251216
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                251216
<CGS>                                           220218
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   239141
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (390)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2769
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   9696
<INCOME-TAX>                                      3394
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               6302
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      6302
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .54
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-10493

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

STACY ONKEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

No. 10-10575

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PATRICK A. CALLAWAY,

Defendant-Appellant.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 2, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

2

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

No. 4:09-CR-152-1

No. 4:09-CR-171-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In this consolidated appeal, Stacy Onken and Patrick Callaway appeal

their sentences for receipt of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 2252(a)(2) and (b)(1). They contend that the district court erroneously applied

the five-level enhancement in U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) for distributing child

pornography for the receipt, or expectation of receipt, of a thing of value but not

for pecuniary gain.

Onken and Callaway were sophisticated users of computers and the filesharing program who knowingly made their child pornography files available to

others and obtained child pornography files from the file-sharing network. Their

knowing contribution to the exchange of images of child pornography shows that

they had an interestin facilitating access to child pornography so thatthey could

obtain more of it from the file-sharing network. The district court did not err in

finding thatthey distributed child pornography with the expectation of receiving

child pornography. See United States v. Roman, 393 F. App’x 149, 149-50 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 964 (2010); United States v. Moore, 328 F. App’x

308, 309 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Sistrunk, No. 01-30974, 2002 WL

971623, at *1 (5th Cir. May 3, 2002) (unpublished).

The judgments are AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 21.0

NEOMAGIC CORPORATION
SUBSIDIARIES(All 100% Owned)

|Name                                      |  | Jurisdiction
of Incorporation
|----------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|NeoMagic International                    |  | Cayman Islands               
|NeoMagic Japan K.K.                       |  | Japan                        
|NeoMagic Israel Ltd.                      |  | Israel                       
|NeoMagic U.K. Ltd.                        |  | England                      
|NeoMagic Semiconductor India Private Ltd. |  | India                        
|NeoMagic International (Hong Kong) Ltd.   |  | Hong Kong                    

52

---
Exhibit 32.2

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350

 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

In connection with the annual report of Premier Holding Corporation(the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission(the “Report”), the undersigned principal executive and financial officer of Premier, hereby certifies pursuant to18 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 Section13(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 Premier.

 

Date: April 22, 2013

 

/s/ Randall M. Letcavage

Randall M. Letcavage, Chief Financial Officer (Principal FinancialOfficer)
Exhibit No.
32.1


Form
10-Q


HPC
Acquisitions, Inc.


File No.
0-53248








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 HPC Acquisitions, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Craig
S. Laughlin, Chief Executive 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
      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:
      November 5, 2008
                  By:  /s/ Craig S. LaughlinCraig
      S. LaughlinChief
      Executive Officerand
      Chief Financial
Officer











A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
HPC Acquisitions, Inc. and will be retained by HPC Acquisitions, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Exhibit 10.81

LOGO

March 3,
2005

Ms. Mary
Lou O'Keefe
13635 Old El Camino Real
San Diego, CA 92130

RE:
Amendment to Executive Employment Agreement

Dear
Mary Lou:

This
letter sets forth the agreement between you and Peregrine Systems, Inc. (the "Company") to amend the terms of the Executive
Employment Agreement between you and the Company, dated as of July 1, 2002 (the "Employment Agreement"), as set forth herein (the
"Amendment").

The
Company and the Executive hereby agree that effective as of February 22, 2005:

1.     The
second sentence of Section 7.2 of the Employment Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:



2.     A
new Section 7.4 shall be added to the Employment Agreement and shall provide the following:



---





3.     Except
as modified by this Amendment, the Employment Agreement shall remain unchanged and shall remain in full force and effect.

|                                                 | Sincerely,                        
|------------------------------------------------ | ----------------------------------
|                                                 | John Mutch
Chief Executive Officer
|Acknowledged and agreed
to as of March    , 2005 |                                   
|Mary Lou O'Keefe                                 |                                   

2

---



QuickLinks
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

WARFA AHMED MOHAMED,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 536 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 18th day of May, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Division of Compensation Analysis and

Support

Program Evaluation Report

Document Number: DCAS-PER-078

Effective Date: 01/04/2018

Revision No. 0

Extrusion Plant Page 1 of 2

Author: Signature on file Date: 01/04/2018 

 Dave Allen, HP Team Leader

Approval: Signature on file Date: 01/04/2018 

 J. W. Neton, Associate Director for Science

Supersedes: none

RECORD OF ISSUE/REVISIONS

ISSUE 

AUTHORIZATION 

DATE

EFFECTIVE

DATE

REV. NO. DESCRIPTION

01/04/2018 01/04/2018 0 New document to determine the effect of 

revision 1 to ORAUT-TKBS-0056

(Extrusion Plant TBD) on previously 

completed claims.

1.0 Description

A Technical Basis Document (TBD) for the Extrusion Plant (ORAUT-TKBS-0056) was 

issued on 4/26/2007. The TBD was revised (revision 1) on 3/7/2017. The effect of this

revision on previously completed claims is the subject of this PER.

2.0 Issue Evaluation

Several changes were made in Revision 1 of the TBD. The changes include the addition 

of recycled uranium components that would increase the dose from uranium intakes if 

they were not previously considered and the addition of environmental doses.

As a result of the revision, claims from any period of operation may be affected. 

Therefore, all previously completed claims with employment at the Extrusion Plant will 

be reevaluated under this Program Evaluation Report (PER).

3.0 Plan for Resolving Corrective Action

A search was conducted for all claims with Extrusion Plant employment in the NIOSH 

claims tracking system (NOCTS). Additionally, a key word search was conducted on 
Division of Compensation Analysis and 

Support

Program Evaluation Report

Document Number: DCAS-PER-078

Effective Date: 01/04/2018 Revision No.: 0 Page 2 of 2

dose reconstruction reports for the word “Extrusion” as well as “TKBS-0056”. The 

search resulted in 348 unique claims being identified.

Of the 348 claims, 125 were identified as having a probability of causation (POC) greater 

than 50% and were eliminated from further review. The remaining claims were 

evaluated to determine if they were included only due to the word “Extrusion” being 

included in the dose reconstruction report. Those were evaluated to determine if the 

word referred to anything other than presence at the Extrusion Plant. That evaluation 

removed an additional 195 claims leaving 28 claims for further evaluation.

The 28 claims were further reviewed to determine if they were presently in process, 

already completed using revision 1 or had been “pulled” from dose reconstruction. 

Claims meeting any of these criteria would be completed using revision 1 prior to DOL 

making any dose reconstruction based final decisions.

The doses for each of the 20 remaining claims were recalculated using revision 1 of the 

Extrusion Plant TBD, as well as the current revision of any other applicable documents. 

All 20 claims resulted in a new POC below 45%. 

NIOSH will provide the Department of Labor with the list of all the claims evaluated 

under this PER. Since none of the claims would now result in a probability of causation 

greater than 50%, NIOSH will not request the return of any of these claims.