alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 61 (Wednesday, March 30, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17658-17659]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7499]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meetings

    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 
meetings.
    The meetings 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 Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; ``Mouse Resource''.
    Date: April 20, 2011.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20817, (Telephone Conference Call)
    Contact Person: Gregory P. Jarosik, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Scientific

[[Page 17659]]

Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National 
Institutes of Health/NIAID, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-0695, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#65020f04170a160c0e250b0c040c014b0b0c0d4b020a13"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f3949992819c809a98b39d9a929a97dd9d9a9bdd949c85">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Immune Regulation and Tolerance.
    Date: May 9-10, 2011.
    Time: 11 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20817, (Telephone Conference Call)
    Contact Person: Lakshmi Ramachandra, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Program, DEA/NIAID/NIH/DHHS, 6700-B 
Rockledge Drive, MSC-7616, Room 3264, Bethesda, MD 20892-7616, 301-
496-2550, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3d6f5c505c5e555c53594f5c517d53545c545913535455135a524b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9ac8fbf7fbf9f2fbf4fee8fbf6daf4f3fbf3feb4f4f3f2b4fdf5ec">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: March 24, 2011.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-7499 Filed 3-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### §831h–2. Repealed. Pub. L. 86–137, §1, Aug. 6, 1959, 73 Stat. 280

Section, act July 30, 1947, ch. 358, title II, §201, 61 Stat. 574, placed a limitation on use of power revenues of the Tennessee Valley Authority. See section 831n–4 of this title.
Exhibit 31.2(b)



CERTIFICATIONS





I, Stephen J. Schoepfer, certify that:



| | 1. | I
have reviewed this Amendment No. 2 to theperiodic report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2012 of
Carbonics Capital Corporation; and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Date: June 29, 2012





|By: | /s/ Stephen J. Schoepfer | 
|--- | ------------------------ | 
|    |                          | 
|    |                          | 
|    | Stephen J. Schoepfer     | 
|    | Chief Financial Officer  |
#### In re Patrick W. REILLY and Betty Ann D. Reilly, Debtors. Anthony S. Novak, Trustee, Patrick W. Reilly, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. James W. Sherman, DefendantAppellant.

Docket No. 01-5072.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 14, 2002.

James W. Sherman, Somers, CT, pro se.

Patrick W. Boatman, Boatman, Boscarino, Grasso & Twachtman, Glastonbury, CT, for Appellees.

Present FEINBERG, KEARSE, and B.D. PARKER, Jr., Circuit Judges.

*21
      *SUMMARY ORDER*

This cause came on to be heard on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, and was argued by appellant *pro se*and by counsel for appellees.

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the order of said District Court dated July 17, 2001, be and it hereby is affirmed.

Defendant James W. Sherman appeals from a July 17, 2001 Ruling on Motion for Reconsideration (“July 17 order”) of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, Gerard L. Goettel, *Judge,*dismissing his appeal from a ruling of the bankruptcy court as untimely. The district court’s July 17 order retracted its Ruling on Motions To Dismiss dated June 11, 2001 (“June 11 decision”), which had exercised leniency in excusing Sherman’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal. The July 17 order was entered after the bankruptcy trustee called to the court’s attention that Sherman is an attorney, and the court concluded that although the late filing of the notice of appeal would be excusable for a person who was not represented by counsel, it was not excusable for an attorney. On appeal, Sherman contends that the court had no basis for reversing its June 11 decision because that decision was not based on “the *pro se*policy of leniency.” (Sherman brief on appeal at 2.) That contention is squarely contradicted by the record.

In the penultimate paragraph of the June 11 decision, the court noted “the admonition of the Second Circuit regarding the leniency to be afforded *pro se*litigants,” and, in finding that Sherman’s failure “was the result of excusable neglect,” it stated that “[w]ere Sherman not *pro se,*the Court might not be as lenient.” June 11 decision at 3. The court noted that it had been unaware at the time of its June 11 decision that Sherman is an attorney and that nothing in the records alerted the court to that fact. *See*July 17 order at 1. It was well within the bounds of the court’s discretion to determine that because Sherman is an attorney his neglect was not excusable and to retract the leniency it had mistakenly conferred.

We have considered all of Sherman’s contentions on this appeal and have found them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 89521 / August 11, 2020

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-19266

In the Matter of

FOUNDATIONS ASSET 

MANAGEMENT, LLC, 

MICHAEL W. SHAMBURGER, 

and ROB E. WEDEL 

Respondents.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

ORDER APPOINTING 

TAX ADMINISTRATOR

By order dated February 22, 2019, the Commission issued the “Omnibus Order 

Directing the Appointment of Tax Administrator in Administrative Proceedings that 

Establish Distribution Funds” (“Omnibus Order”),1authorizing the Secretary to issue 

orders for calendar years 2019-2021 appointing, upon request by the Commission staff, 

Miller Kaplan Arase LLP (“Miller Kaplan”), a certified public accounting firm, with one 

of their offices located in San Fransciso, California, as tax administrator (“Tax 

Administrator”) in administrative proceedings where the distribution fund may incur 

tax-related obligations as a Qualified Settlement Fund (“QSF”) under the Department of 

the Treasury Regulation § 1.468B-1(c). 

On August 10, 2020, the Commission staff requested, pursuant to the Omnibus 

Order, the appointment of Miller Kaplan as the Tax Administrator for the QSF in the 

above-referenced proceeding. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Miller Kaplan, pursuant to and in accordance 

with the Omnibus Order, is appointed the Tax Administrator for the QSF in the abovereferenced proceeding. 

For the Commission, by its Secretary, pursuant to delegated authority.

Vanessa A. Countryman

Secretary

 

1

 Exchange Act Rel. No. 85174 (Feb. 22, 2019).
### §831bb. Reservation of right to amend or repeal

The right to alter, amend, or repeal this chapter is expressly declared and reserved, but no such amendment or repeal shall operate to impair the obligation of any contract made by said Corporation under any power conferred by this chapter.

(May 18, 1933, ch. 32, §29, 48 Stat. 72.)
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 DAC TECHNOLOGIES GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of DAC Technologies
Group International, Inc. . (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), David A. Collins Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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. /s/ David A. CollinsDavid A. Collins, Chief Executive Officer Date: August 13, 2004
Case 19-11536-KHK Doc 1 Filed 05/09/19 Entered 05/09/19 18:08:08 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2
Case 19-11536-KHK Doc 1 Filed 05/09/19 Entered 05/09/19 18:08:08 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2
§ 234.1 Definitions. ( a ) *Scheduled Airline.* This term means any individual, partnership, corporation, or association engaged in air transportation upon regular schedules to, over, or away from the United States, or from one place to another in the United States, and holding a Foreign Air Carrier permit or a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity issued pursuant to the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 731).
( b ) *International Airport.* An international airport is one designated by the Commissioner for the entry of aliens with the prior approval of the Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
( c ) *Landing Rights Airport.* An airport, although not designated as international, at which permission to land has been granted to aircraft operated by scheduled airlines by the Commissioner of Customs.
[49 FR 50018, Dec. 26, 1984]
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 Dental Patient Care America,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Michael Silva, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.

/s/ Michael Silva
------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
August 12, 2005
<PAGE>   1
                               TRIDEX CORPORATION

                 EXHIBIT 21.1 SUBSIDIARIES OF TRIDEX CORPORATION

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                        Jurisdiction of                    Percentage
Name                                     Incorporation         Owner         Owned
----                                     -------------         -----         -----
<S>                                      <C>                <C>            <C> 
Allu Realty Trust *                      Massachusetts        Tridex          100%

Cash Bases Incorporated                  Delaware             Tridex          100%

Cash Bases GB, Ltd.                      United Kingdom       Tridex          100%

    Cash Bases (Deutschland) GmbH        Germany            Cash Bases        100%

    Cash Bases Iberica, S.A.             Spain              Cash Bases        80%

Digital Matrix Corporation*              Connecticut          Tridex          100%

Hi-G Canada, Ltd.*                       Canada               Tridex          100%

Hi-G Relais Vertriebs GmbH*              West Germany         Tridex          100%

Hi-G S.A.R.L.*                           France               Tridex          100%

Ithaca Peripherals Incorporated          Delaware             Tridex          100%

    Ithaca Peripherals Limited           United Kingdom       Ithaca          100%

Magnetec Corporation                     Connecticut          Tridex          100%

RIL Corporation*                         Connecticut          Tridex          100%

TDX Corp.*                               Connecticut          Tridex          100%

Transcom Incorporated*                   Maryland             Tridex          100%

Tritel Corporation*                      California           Tridex          100%

Ultimate Technology Corporation          New York             Tridex          100%
</TABLE>

*Inactive

                                       83
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23(b)
 
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement
of NorAm Energy Corp. on Form S-3 (File No. 333-41017), of our report dated
March 25, 1997, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedule of NorAm Energy Corp. and Subsidiaries as of
December 31, 1996, and for the years ended December 31, 1996 and 1995, which
report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
 
                                          COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
 
Houston, Texas
March 23, 1998
#### Michael J. Drummond, Commissioner of Public Charities of the City of New York, on Complaint of Annie Slesok, Respondent, *v.*Charles Siano, Appellant.

First Department,

November 28, 1913.

Appeal from Court of Special Sessions—correction of record — facts happening subsequent to appeal.

Where a return on an appeal from a decision of the Court of Special Sessions in bastardy proceedings has been filed in the Appellate Division, it is for the latter court to correct the record if it be improper, and an order of the Court of Special Sessions assuming to correct the record is ineffective for any purpose.

The appeal must be heard on the record as it exists at the time the appeal was taken, and if subsequent to the appeal a fact appears which may be a ground for dismissal, the plaintiff must submit an affidavit to the Appellate Division setting forth that fact.

Motion to return record to Court of Special Sessions for correction.

*Herman Stiefel,*for the motion.

*Achille J. Oishei,*opposed.

Per Curiam:

The defendant was tried May 8, 1913, before the Court of Special Sessions on the charge of being the father of a bastard child, and was thereupon adjudged to be the father of the child, and ordered and required to pay $2 a week toward the support and maintenance of the said child and to give a bond in the sum of $200, and in default thereof the defend*312ant was committed to the city prison. On May 12, 1913, the defendant appealed to this court from that judgment.

That appeal was made up of the record as it then appeared and certified by the clerk and filed in this court. Subsequently it appeared that defendant or some one in his behalf had deposited $200 to secure the defendant’s liberation, and a motion was made at the Court of Special Sessions to correct the case on appeal by inserting therein that fact. The Court of Special Sessions assumed to correct the record in this court, and directed the return of the original record filed here to have statement of that fact inserted in the record.

After a return is filed in this court it is for this court to correct the record if it is improper, and the order of the Court of Special Sessions assuming to correct the record is ineffective for any purpose.

The question is, whether a fact appearing subsequent to the taking of the appeal shall appear as part of the record on which the case is to be heard in this court. We think the case is to be heard here upon the record as it existed at the time the appeal was taken, and if plaintiff wants to have the appeal dismissed for any reason appearing outside of the record or after the appeal was taken, the proper practice is for him to submit an affidavit setting forth that fact. As the record appears to be a correct record of the trial and the judgment at the time the appeal was taken, it would be impossible to insert in it the statement as to anything that was done after the appeal was taken. This motion must be denied.

Present — Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.

Motion denied. Order to be settled on notice.
#### § 303.18 Include; including.

*Include* or *including* means that the items named are not all of the possible items that are covered, whether like or unlike the ones named.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3)
Summary: Company Improperly Billed Hours to National 

Fish and Wildlife Foundation Grant Overseen by the DOI 

December 1, 2020 Report Number: 20-0431 

The OIG investigated an allegation that a company improperly billed hours in late 2018 and 

early 2019 to a grant it received from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) to 

manage Hurricane Sandy coastal resiliency projects. 

We determined that five employees of the company recorded 561.75 labor hours to the NFWF 

grant when, in fact, they worked on a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

contract. We learned that the company corrected the improper billing and took administrative 

action against four employees before we initiated our investigation. The company did not charge 

the NFWF for the 561.75 labor hours; it, however, also never notified the NFWF of the problem. 

As a result of our investigative efforts, the company conducted a second review of the billing on 

the NFWF grant and determined that additional hours charged by three of its employees to the 

NFWF grant were inappropriate. The company subsequently reimbursed the NFWF $44,332.94. 

On October 14, 2020, the NFWF provided the company with a written notice terminating its 

grant agreement, effective 30 days from the date of the memo. 

This is a summary of an investigative report we issued to the Office of the Assistant Secretary 

for Policy, Management and Budget. 

Office of Investigations | Office of Inspector General | U.S. Department of the Interior | Washington, DC
§ 361.410 What other entities may serve as one-stop partners? ( a ) Other entities that carry out a workforce development program, including Federal, State, or local programs and programs in the private sector, may serve as additional partners in the one-stop delivery system if the Local WDB and chief elected official(s) approve the entity's participation.
( b ) Additional partners may include, but are not limited to: ( 1 ) Employment and training programs administered by the Social Security Administration, including the Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Program established under sec. 1148 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b-19);
( 2 ) Employment and training programs carried out by the Small Business Administration;
( 3 ) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) employment and training programs, authorized under secs. 6(d)(4) and 6(o) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2015(d)(4));
( 4 ) Client Assistance Program authorized under sec. 112 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 732);
( 5 ) Programs authorized under the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12501 *et seq.*); and
( 6 ) Other appropriate Federal, State or local programs, including, but not limited to, employment, education, and training programs provided by public libraries or in the private sector.
#### Pearlene J. HAMLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ann VENEMAN, Secretary of Agriculture; Samuel L. White, P.C.; Media General, Incorporated; John Ashcroft, United States Attorney General; John Potter, Postmaster General, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-1209.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 16, 2002.

Decided May 22, 2002.

*949Pearlene J. Hamler, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Pearlene J. Hamler appeals from the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice her complaint in which she asserted a number of claims with respect to real property that was owned by her now-deceased parents. The district court’s dismissal without prejudice is not appealable. *See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,*10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.1993).

A dismissal without prejudice is a final order only if “ ‘no amendment [in the complaint] could cure the defects in the plaintiffs case.’ ” *Id.*at 1067 (quoting *Coniston Corp. v. Vill. of Hoffman Estates,*844 F.2d 461, 463 (7th Cir.1988)). In ascertaining whether a dismissal without prejudice is reviewable in this court, the court must determine “whether the plaintiff could save his action by merely amending his complaint.” *Id.*at 1066-67. In this case, Hamler may move in the district court to reopen her case and to file an amended complaint specifically alleging facts sufficient to state a claim. Therefore, the dismissal order is not appealable. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We also deny Hamler’s pending motions for summary judgment, motion for judgment of obstruction of justice, and motion to consolidate. 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.*