alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dear XXX, 

Pursuant to the 2021 CHRI MOU Section V.B.131

, TGRA NAME notifies the National Indian Gaming 

Commission (NIGC) of the following information associated with the dissemination of Criminal History 

Record Information (CHRI) for a fingerprinted applicant that will not result in a submission of a Notice of 

Results (NOR): 

Name of person fingerprinted Reason for fingerprint 

submission

If the submission was in error, steps 

take to correct process

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

TGRA NAME agrees CHRI shall be destroyed as soon as practicable, in accordance with the CJIS Security 

Policy §§ 4.2.4 and 5.8.4, 2021 CHRI MOU, Article V(B)(14) and the TGRA’s media sanitization and 

destruction policy.

Signed,

TGRA Name/ LASO

 1 “Notify the NIGC, on a monthly basis, of the following licensing information associated with the dissemination of 

CHRI for a fingerprinted applicant that does not result in a submission of a NOR: a) the reason for the fingerprint 

submission and b) if the submission was in error, the steps taken to correct the process that created the error.”
# Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to the Situation in or in Relation to the Democratic Republic of the Congo 

On October 27, 2006, by Executive Order 13413, the President declared a national emergency with respect to the situation in or in relation to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706), ordered related measures blocking the property of certain persons contributing to the conflict in that country. The President took this action to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States constituted by the situation in or in relation to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which has been marked by widespread violence and atrocities that continue to threaten regional stability.

Because this situation continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States, the national emergency declared on October 27, 2006, and the measures adopted on that date to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond October 27, 2009. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13413.

                        This notice shall be published in the                         *Federal Register*                         and transmitted to the Congress.                    

[FR Doc. E9-25640

Billing code 3195-W9-P
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 of eTotalSource (the "Company") on Form
      10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Frank J. Orlando,
      Chief Restructuring Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





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




August
        20, 2007
 Frank
                  J. Orlando
                Chief
                    Restructuring Officer and Chief Financial
                  Officer
**Individual Development Plan (IDP) Template**

**Instructions**

Complete the Individual Development Plan following these steps:

**1.  Employee**Developmental and Career Goals:**

The employee and supervisor should work together to complete the goals for successful performance in the employee’s current position and the employee’s short- and long-term career goals.

**Developmental Objectives:**

In this section describe what the employee needs to do this year to work towards his/her goals.  Objectives describe what the employee needs to learn or achieve in order to reach his/her goal.  

**2.Determine a method of training and a training time frame.**

Determine what type of training or activity is needed to accomplish the employee’s developmental goals.  It could be On the Job Training (OJT), a detail, or an actual training course or a combination of methods.  Identify the proposed dates for the training or activity in the *Proposed Dates* column.  Enter the actual or estimated cost of the activity in the *Estimated Costs*column.  This column can be used in preparing your station’s annual budget.  Once the training is completed, write the date in the *Date Completed* column.  

**Methods of training:**

**OJT**:  On the job training.  This can include coaching by a skilled individual or details into positions that will give the employee the skills and knowledge needed.

**Details**: Temporary assignments to another location and/or position to gain specific knowledge and/or experience.

**Courses**: www.nifc.gov/training_quals/IFPM/ifpm.htm

**3.  Discuss the Development Plan with your Employee**

Discuss the IDP with the employee and make any necessary modifications.  The supervisor and employee should sign and date the plan.  This plan should be completed within 60 days from the beginning of the performance year.

**4.     Review and Modifications**

This plan should be reviewed and modified as needed every 6 months during the mid-year and final performance review.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2950 Considered and Passed Senate (CPS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2950

  To extend the pilot program for volunteer groups to obtain criminal 
                       history background checks.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 25, 2010

Mr. Schumer (for himself and Mr. Hatch) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the pilot program for volunteer groups to obtain criminal 
                       history background checks.

    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 ``Criminal History Background Checks 
Pilot Extension Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PILOT PROGRAM.

    Section 108(a)(3)(A) of the PROTECT Act (42 U.S.C. 5119a note) is 
amended by striking ``a 78-month'' and inserting ``a 92-month''.
                                 <all>
```
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,

Appellant

v.

FEDEX CORPORATION,

Appellee

UNITED STATES,

Intervenor

______________________

2018-2373

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2017-

00787.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

KEVIN KENT MCNISH, Desmarais LLP, New York, NY, 

argued for appellant. Also represented by ALAN KELLMAN. 

 DANIEL C. TUCKER, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, 

Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Reston, VA, argued for appellee. 

Also represented by JEFFREY A. BERKOWITZ, MICHAEL 

VINCENT YOUNG, SR., JOSEPH MICHAEL SCHAFFNER. 
 DENNIS FAN, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, United 

States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for 

intervenor. Also represented by SCOTT R. MCINTOSH,

JOSEPH H. HUNT; THOMAS W. KRAUSE, FARHEENA YASMEEN 

RASHEED, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA. 

 ______________________

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (LOURIE, REYNA, and HUGHES, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

December 10, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6057

WALLACE WILSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

PARKER EVATT, Commissioner of the Department

of Corrections; T. TRAVIS MEDLOCK, Attorney

General of the State of South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(CA-94-3238-18BD)

Submitted: April 16, 1996 Decided: June 6, 1996

Before WIDENER and HALL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wallace Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief

Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Wilson

v. Evatt, No. CA-94-3238-18BD (D.S.C. Nov. 27, 1995). 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
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 7370

ROOSEVELT SABB, JR. , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. WARDEN OF BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Orangeburg

. Bruce H. Hendricks , District Judge. ( 5:21

- cv - 02603

- BHH )

Submitted : October 24, 2023 Decided: November 7, 2023

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Roosevelt Sabb, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7370 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/07/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Roosevelt Sabb, Jr ., seeks to appeal the district court’s order s accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Sabb’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition , and denying reconsideration . The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court deni es relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis , 580 U.S. 100, 115

- 17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzales v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134 , 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sabb has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 22-7370 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/07/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
#### Adrianna Hatzis, Individually and as Executor of Peter Hatzis, Deceased, Appellant, v Mitchell I. Buchbinder et al., Respondents.

[978 NYS2d 298]

In an action to recover damages for negligence and medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated December 1, 2011, which, upon a jury verdict, and upon the denial her motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence and for a new trial, is in favor of the defendants and against her dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

There is no merit to the plaintiff’s contention that the Supreme Court committed reversible error when, in response to the jury’s request to reiterate the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, it issued a truncated version of the pattern jury instruction. The record reflects that the court’s charge, as a whole, adequately conveyed the proper legal principles to the jury *(see Vaccarino v Mad Den, Inc.,*100 AD3d 867 [2012]; *Winderman v Brooklyn/McDonald Ave. Shoprite Assoc., Inc.,*85 AD3d 1018 [2011]).

*891A jury verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached the verdict by any fair interpretation of the evidence *(see Grassi v Ulrich,*87 NY2d 954, 956 [1996]; *Lolik v Big V Supermarkets,*86 NY2d 744, 746 [1995]; *Jean-Louis v City of New York,*86 AD3d 628, 628 [2011]). The jury’s assessment of credibility of experts who provided conflicting testimony at trial “is entitled to great weight, as it is the jury that had the opportunity to observe and hear the experts” *(Saccone v Gross,*84 AD3d 1208, 1208-1209 [2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]). “Where, as here, conflicting expert testimony is presented, the jury is entitled to accept one expert’s opinion and reject that of another expert” *(Ferreira v Wyckoff Hgts. Med. Ctr.,*81 AD3d 587, 588 [2011]; *see Bailey v Brookdale Univ. Hosp. & Med. Ctr.,*98 AD3d 545 [2012]; *Lolly v Brookdale Univ. Hosp. & Med. Ctr.,*90 AD3d 862 [2011]). Here, the jury was free to credit the testimony of the defendants’ expert witnesses over that of the plaintiff’s experts. Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we conclude that, contrary to the plaintiffs contention, there is no basis to disturb the jury’s determination with respect to the defendant David Katz.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.E, Rivera, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.
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

      ( print page 26714)    
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Cancer Prevention Research Small Grant Program.                    

*Date:*                         June 15-16, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Renaissance M Street Hotel, 1143 New Hampshire Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20037.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Irina Gordienko, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review and Logistics Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 6116 Executive Blvd., Rm. 7073, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-1566,                         *gordienkoiv@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control; 93.701, ARRA Related Biomedical Research and Research Support Awards, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: May 26, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-12879 Filed 6-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
# Skill #7

&"Times New Roman,Bold"Pump Check & Flow Test		&"Times New Roman,Bold"Skill #7

&P	

&P	
https://doimspp.sharepoint.com/sites/blm-fa/fire-operations/Shared%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx?id=%2Fsites%2Fblm%2Dfa%2Ffire%2Doperations%2FShared%20Documents%2Fnfep%2FFEMPR%2FAdditional%20FEMPR%2FFlow%20Tester%20Options%20and%20Guide%202022%2Epdf&parent=%2Fsites%2Fblm%2Dfa%2Ffire%2Doperations%2FShared%20Documents%2Fnfep%2FFEMPR%2FAdditional%20FEMPRhttps://doimspp.sharepoint.com/sites/blm-fa/fire-operations/Shared%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx?id=%2Fsites%2Fblm%2Dfa%2Ffire%2Doperations%2FShared%20Documents%2Fnfep%2FFEMPR%2FAdditional%20FEMPR%2FFlow%20Tester%20Options%20and%20Guide%202022%2Epdf&parent=%2Fsites%2Fblm%2Dfa%2Ffire%2Doperations%2FShared%20Documents%2Fnfep%2FFEMPR%2FAdditional%20FEMPR

# Code Page

# image1.png
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>





Exhibit 27.  Financial Data Schedule
                                   ZOOM TELEPHONICS, INC.
                                      September 30, 2000
</LEGEND>
           <MULTIPLIER>                                         1
            <CURRENCY>                                         USD


<S>                                                    <C>

            <PERIOD-TYPE>                                     Year
            <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
            <PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-2000
            <PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
            <EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
            <CASH>                                       3,099,459
            <SECURITIES>                                 2,057,143
            <RECEIVABLES>                               10,231,940
            <ALLOWANCES>                                 3,572,336
            <INVENTORY>                                 16,556,630
            <CURRENT-ASSETS>                            37,836,783
            <PP&E>                                       4,576,538
            <DEPRECIATION>                               4,895,368
            <TOTAL-ASSETS>                              45,875,835
            <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,780,440
            <BONDS>                                              0
            <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
            <PREFERRED>                                          0
            <COMMON>                                    28,087,266
            <OTHER-SE>                                   9,610,949
            <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                45,875,835
            <SALES>                                     51,131,263
            <TOTAL-REVENUES>                            43,416,919
            <CGS>                                       28,265,439
            <TOTAL-COSTS>                               18,397,380
            <OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (419,250)
            <LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
            <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
            <INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,826,650)
            <INCOME-TAX>                                 (898,412)
            <INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,928,238)
            <DISCONTINUED>                                       0
            <EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
            <CHANGES>                                            0
            <NET-INCOME>                               (1,928,238)
            <EPS-BASIC>                                    (.25)
            <EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.25)



</TABLE>