alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 Pursuant to § 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on May 14, 2010, Chattem Chemicals Inc., 3801 St. Elmo Avenue, Building 18, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37409, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedules I and II: Drug
Schedule4-Methoxyamphetamine (7411)
IDihydromorphine (9145)
IAmphetamine (1100)
IIMethamphetamine (1105)
IILisdexamfetamine (1205)
IIMethylphenidate (1724)
IIPentobarbital (2270)
IICodeine (9050)
IIDihydrocodeine (9120)
IIOxycodone (9143)
IIHydromorphone (9150)
IIHydrocodone (9193)
IIMeperidine (9230)
IIMethadone (9250)
IIMethadone intermediate (9254)
IIMorphine (9300)
IIOripavine (9330)
IIThebaine (9333)
IIOxymorphone (9652)
IINoroxymorphone (9668)
IIAlfentanil (9737)
IIRemifentanil (9739)
IISufentanil (9740)
IIFentanyl (9801)
II
 The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk for distribution to its customers. Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such substances, may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a). Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no later than November 1, 2010. Dated: August 2, 2010. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. 2010-21773 Filed 8-31-10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
News United States Air Force
 Coordinated response: Coalition forces conduct first joint crash exercisePublished May 22, 2017
                        
                        By Staff Sgt. Marjorie A. Bowlden
                        
                        
                        380th Air Expeditionary Wing Public Affairs
                **SOUTHWEST ASIA (AFNS)  --**
                Members of the U.S., French, Australian and other coalition air forces recently participated in a joint crash response exercise at an undisclosed location in Southwest Asia, May 16, 2017.
The purpose of the exercise was to test how effectively different coalition service components could work together in the event of an aircraft crash.
This was the first exercise of its kind at this location, said a wing safety officer with the French air force, or l’Armée de l’air. 
“It was the first time everyone [all coalition partners] participated with multiple services, including medical teams, explosive ordnance disposal and security,” said the French wing safety officer. “This permits us to improve little by little by observing the entire chain of first responders.”
Personnel from the 380th Air Expeditionary Wing answered the simulated call with medical and EOD teams to multiple sites. These teams worked hand-in-hand with coalition partners to control the situation.
The exercise was mainly organized by l’Armée de l’air, said Lt. Col. David, the 380th AEW chief of safety. However, this kind of training is key for the coalition. 
“This is developing relationships,” said David. “We try to deal as often as we can with coalition partners. We share the airfield, we share the mission, so we want to work as closely with them as we can.”
Staff Sgt. Brad, a team leader with the 380th Expeditionary Civil Engineer Squadron EOD flight, said he had not worked with French military members before. The training was a challenge, especially because of language barriers, but it was also a valuable experience for him and his Airmen.
“There’s a lot of workings that go into it, and I think practice is the main thing,” said Brad. “We train all the time so we don’t have to actually...get into that situation without knowing what to do. If it ever happens in the future, at least we have a general idea of how everything is going to happen.”
Though the final report is not yet complete, and despite a few communication shortfalls, the exercise went well overall, said David. The training opened avenues to pursue further training between coalition partners to strengthen joint capability.
“We saw a bit of the different processes between what we do, what the Americans do, and how all of it could blend together on the day of an accident,” said the French wing safety officer. “The most important thing is communication and, above all, that we train together regularly.”
[Names of 380th AEW and French personnel have been partially or completely removed for security purposes.]exercise 



medical 



southwest asia 



380th AEW 



coalition 



joint operations 



Australian Air Force 



French air force 



crash response 



AFCENT
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 20, 2021. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, October 20, 2021 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A22I0050. JOHN ARTHUR GULD et al. v. GAIL RUSS VICKERS, AS SURVIVING SPOUSE OF IRA WENDELL VICKERS, DECEASED.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2019CV036
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant
to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Reebok International Ltd. (the "Company"), does hereby certify that to the undersigned's knowledge:



|                         |  | /s/KENNETH WATCHMAKERKenneth Watchmaker
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|------------------------ |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 14, 2003 |  |                                                                                             

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Reebok International Ltd. and will be retained by Reebok
International Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---

QuickLinks
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: Jan. 4Published Jan. 4, 2017
                        
                        By Airman 1st Class Cory Kuttler
                        
                        
                        Air Force TV
                
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)** On this look around the Air Force, Airmen march in the Rose Parade, coalition forces conduct more than 70 airstrikes in Syria and Iraq since the New Year, and an Air Force amputee is attempting to resume his career in Pararescue. Hosted by Airman 1st Class Cory KuttlerFor previous episodes, clickhere.ATAF 



Featured Videos 



pararescue 



band 



Rose Bowl 



OIR 



Operation Inherent Resolve Related Links
        Band plays 128th Rose Parade
            
            Operation Inherent Resolve
            
            Pararescue
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         624,524
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,129,598
<PP&E>                                      30,325,821
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,867,056
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,588,363
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       34,564,286
<BONDS>                                     33,043,733
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                (11,975,923)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,588,363
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,190,982
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,714,230
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               212,500
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             694,187
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                242,752
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            242,752
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   242,752
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .54<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.00<F2>
<FN>
<F1>Income per Class A unit
<F2>Income per Class B unit
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           3,101
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,356
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (2,613)
<INVENTORY>                                        463
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,749
<PP&E>                                          45,184
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (38,084)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  37,361
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,133
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       121,875
<OTHER-SE>                                     (99,165)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    37,361
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                40,028
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   39,469
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 772
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (213)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (213)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (213)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.01)


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

No. 114P01

Case below: 142 N.C. App. 698

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 April 2001.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             180
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       28
<ALLOWANCES>                                        28
<INVENTORY>                                        418
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   847
<PP&E>                                           6,611
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,637
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,441
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              615
<BONDS>                                          1,791
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                1
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,258
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,441
<SALES>                                          1,339
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,351
<CGS>                                            1,199
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,275
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    25
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  84<F1>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (34)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        (2)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (32)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (32)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.31)
<FN>
<F1>Net of interest income, $7 million, and capitalized interest, $3 million.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6444

MARK A. WHITE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN ENTZEL,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:18-cv-00092-GMG)

Submitted: June 18, 2020 Decided: June 23, 2020

Before FLOYD, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark A. White, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Mark A. White, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on White’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 

(2018) petition in which he sought to challenge his conviction and sentence by way of the 

savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018). Pursuant to § 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge 

his conviction and sentence in a traditional writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241 if a 

§ 2255 motion would be inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. 

[Section] 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of a sentence

when: (1) at the time of sentencing, settled law of this circuit or the Supreme 

Court established the legality of the sentence; (2) subsequent to the prisoner’s 

direct appeal and first § 2255 motion, the aforementioned settled substantive 

law changed and was deemed to apply retroactively on collateral review; (3) 

the prisoner is unable to meet the gatekeeping provisions of § 2255(h)(2) for 

second or successive motions; and (4) due to this retroactive change, the 

sentence now presents an error sufficiently grave to be deemed a fundamental 

defect.

United States v. Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415, 429 (4th Cir. 2018) (emphasis added). 

[Section] 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of a conviction

when: (1) at the time of conviction, settled law of this circuit or the Supreme 

Court established the legality of the conviction; (2) subsequent to the 

prisoner’s direct appeal and first § 2255 motion, the substantive law changed 

such that the conduct of which the prisoner was convicted is deemed not to 

be criminal; and (3) the prisoner cannot satisfy the gatekeeping provisions of 

§ 2255 because the new rule is not one of constitutional law.

In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000) (emphasis added). 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although 

we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm the district court’s order. White v. 

Entzel, No. 3:18-cv-00092-GMG (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 24, 2020). We dispense with oral 
3

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841*et seq.*) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at *www.ffiec.gov/​nic/​*.

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 1, 2010.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco** (Kenneth Binning, Vice President, Applications and Enforcement) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:

*1. GV Bancorp Employee Stock Ownership Plan, Gunnison, Utah;* to acquire additional voting shares of GV Bancorp and thereby  indirectly acquire shares of Gunnison Valley Bank, all of Gunnison, Utah.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 31, 2010.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2010-22051 Filed 9-1-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2610 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2610

 To direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource 
study to determine the suitability and feasibility of establishing the 
 John P. Parker House in Ripley, Ohio, as a unit of the National Park 
                                System.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 15, 2014

   Mr. Brown introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource 
study to determine the suitability and feasibility of establishing the 
 John P. Parker House in Ripley, Ohio, as a unit of the National Park 
                                System.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``John P. Parker House Study Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
        of the Interior.
            (2) Study area.--The term ``study area'' means the John P. 
        Parker House in Ripley, Ohio, which was recognized as a 
        National Historic Landmark in 1997.

SEC. 3. SPECIAL RESOURCE STUDY OF JOHN P. PARKER HOUSE.

    (a) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a special resource study of 
the study area to determine the suitability and feasibility of 
establishing the John P. Parker House in Ripley, Ohio, as a unit of the 
National Park System.
    (b) Study Requirements.--The Secretary shall conduct the study in 
accordance with section 8 of the National Park System General 
Authorities Act (16 U.S.C. 1a-5).
    (c) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date on which funds 
are made available to carry out this Act, the Secretary shall submit to 
the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report 
that describes--
            (1) the results of the study; and
            (2) any recommendations of the Secretary.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 99.9

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2013 of Novadaq Technologies Inc. [the
Company] of our report dated February 5, 2014 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of the Company as at and for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement on Form S-8 [No. 333-181836] and Registration Statement on Form F-10 [No.
333-191708] of our report dated February 5, 2014 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of the Company as at and for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012.



|                |  |                            
|--------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Toronto, Canada |  | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP      
|March 28, 2014. |  | Chartered Accountants      
|                |  | Licensed Public Accountants