alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>



    <ARTICLE> 5
    <LEGEND>
    THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM AUDITED
    FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF TAG-IT PACIFIC, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
    1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
    STATEMENTS.
    </LEGEND>
           
   <S>                                                      <C>
   <PERIOD-TYPE>                                                     12-MOS
   <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                            DEC-31-1998
   <PERIOD-START>                                               JAN-01-1998
   <PERIOD-END>                                                 DEC-31-1998
   <CASH>                                                         2,065,331
   <SECURITIES>                                                           0
   <RECEIVABLES>                                                  4,653,053
   <ALLOWANCES>                                                     271,113
   <INVENTORY>                                                    5,700,196
   <CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              13,262,090
   <PP&E>                                                         2,552,863
   <DEPRECIATION>                                                 1,217,797
   <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                14,643,840
   <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          7,553,980
   <BONDS>                                                                0
   <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                  0
   <PREFERRED>                                                            0
   <COMMON>                                                           6,727
   <OTHER-SE>                                                     7,083,133
   <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  14,643,840
   <SALES>                                                       18,808,067
   <TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              18,808,067
   <CGS>                                                         12,143,143
   <TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 17,983,978
   <OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 298,889
   <LOSS-PROVISION>                                                       0
   <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               298,889
   <INCOME-PRETAX>                                                  525,200
   <INCOME-TAX>                                                     (1,687)
   <INCOME-CONTINUING>                                              526,887
   <DISCONTINUED>                                                         0
   <EXTRAORDINARY>                                                        0
   <CHANGES>                                                              0
   <NET-INCOME>                                                     526,887
   <EPS-PRIMARY>                                                       0.11
   <EPS-DILUTED>                                                       0.11
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Proving the Last Will and Testament of George W. Horton, Deceased.

Motion for reargument denied, with ten dollars costs, upon the ground that the facts stated in the moving papers were not part of the original record and cannot be considered. Present—Burr, Thomas, Rich and Stapleton, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Edward V. Broderick, Appellant, against James G. Wallace, a Judge of the Court of General Sessions, New York County, Respondent.

*817No opinion. Present— Peck, P. J., Dore, Cohn, "Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
#### Mary L. Coen, Appellant, v. Peter H. James, Individually and as Trustee, etc., Respondent.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied, on condition that appellant perfect her appeal, place the case on the next calendar, and be ready for argument when reached; otherwise, motion granted, with costs. Present—Burr, Thomas, Carr, Rich and Stapleton, JJ.
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.                  

###### National Credit Union Administration

# FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:

December 10, 2018 (83 FR 63540).

# TIME AND DATE:

10:00 a.m., Thursday, December 13, 2018.  

# PLACE:

Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.

# STATUS:

Open.

Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in Sunshine Act” notice is hereby given that the NCUA Board gave notice on December 6, 2018 of the open meeting of the NCUA Board scheduled for December 13, 2018. Prior to the meeting, on December 13, 2018, the NCUA Board unanimously determined that agency business required the addition of a fourth item on the agenda with less than seven days' notice to the public, and that no earlier notice of the addition was possible.

# MATTER TO BE ADDED:

4. 2019 Share Insurance Fund Normal Operating Level.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304.

Gerard Poliquin,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2018-27355 Filed 12-13-18; 4:15 pm]

 BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
§ 185.113 Location of hearing. ( a ) The hearing may be held: ( 1 ) In any judicial district of the United States in which the defendant resides or transacts business;
( 2 ) In any judicial district of the United States in which the claim or statement in issue was made; or
( 3 ) In such other place as may be agreed upon by the parties and the ALJ.
( b ) Each party shall have the opportunity to present argument with respect to the location of the hearing.
( c ) The hearing shall be held at the place and at the time ordered by the ALJ.
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 2249

ARKALGUD N. LAKSHMINARASIMHA
,
Plaintiff

- Appellant
,

v.
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS; GE; EPRI; US NAVY; IBM; PUBLIC SERVICE ENTERPRISES; DIRECTOR OF HR AT EPRI; HARRY BERAZIN; SEN. FEINSTEIN; PRATT AND WHITNEY, United Technologies Corp.; PUBLIC SERVICE ENTERPRISE GROUP, INC.; PAUL SINGSHINSUK; RACHEL CAMPBELL; CLERK OF COURT; DR. M. P. BOYCE, The Boyce Consultancy; NC ATTORNEY GENERAL; HELEN OLIVER; GENERAL ELECTRIC; HR, IBM; AIRTRAN; CHITRA MURTHY; CARY TOWN HALL; WAKE COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM; EXTENDED STAY
,
Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
, at Raleigh

. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. ( 5:15

- cv

- 00259

- BR )

Submitted : March 10, 2022 Decided: March 17, 2022

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Arkalgud N. Lakshminarasimha , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Arkalgud N. Lakshminarasimha seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

his post

- judgment motion for reconsideration. We dismi ss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

When the United States or its officer or agency is a party in a civil case, the notice
of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final
judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal
period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civi l case is a jurisdictional
requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The district court entered its order on May 13, 2021. Lakshminarasimha filed the

notice of appeal on October 27, 2021. * Because Lakshminarasimha failed to file a timely
notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the
appeal.
We deny Lakshminarasimha ’s motions for judicial notice, to assign master, to
conduct motion hearing; for judicial notice and eme rgency relief; for judicial notice; to
consolidate cases; for an emergency show cause hearing and to compel; to stay or vacate
prefiling injunction order; for emergency relief from emergency judge; for appropriate

relief and remedy; and for emergency revie w and to answer. We dispense with oral

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date Lakshminarasimha could have delivered the notice to jail officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).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.

DISMISSED
§ 2430.9 Answer to application; reply to answer; comments by other parties; extensions of time to file documents. ( a ) Within 30 days after service of an application, the General Counsel may file an answer to the application. The filing of a motion to dismiss the application shall stay the time for filing an answer to a date thirty (30) days after issuance of any order denying the motion.
( b ) If the General Counsel and the applicant believe that the issues in the fee application can be settled, they may jointly file a statement of their intent to negotiate toward a settlement. The filing of such a statement shall extend the time for filing an answer for an additional 30 days.
( c ) The answer shall explain in detail any objections to the award requested, and identify the facts relied on in support of the General Counsel's position. If the answer is based on alleged facts not already in the record of the proceeding, supporting affidavits shall be provided or a request made for further proceedings under § 2430.11.
( d ) Within fifteen (15) days after service of an answer, the applicant may file a reply. If the reply is based on alleged facts not already in the record of the proceeding, supporting affidavits shall be provided or a request made for further proceedings under § 2430.11.
( e ) Any party to a proceeding other than the applicant and the General Counsel may file comments on an application within 30 days after it is served, or on an answer within 15 days after it is served. A commenting party may not participate further in the proceeding on the application unless the Administrative Law Judge determines that such participation is required in order to permit full exploration of matters raised in the comments.
( f ) Motions for extensions of time to file documents permitted by this section or § 2430.11 shall be filed with the Administrative Law Judge not less than five (5) days before the due date of the document.
#### Stark LIGON, Executive Director, Committee on Professional Conduct *v.*Sam WHITFIELD, Jr., Arkansas Bar ID #82056

03-768

146 S.W.3d 894

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered February 12, 2004

*Stark Ligón,*Executive Director, for petitioner Committee on Professional Conduct.

*Sam Whitfield, Jr.,*respondent, *pro se.*

Per Curiam.

Respondent Sam Whitfield, Jr., was served with a petition for disbarment on July 3, 2003, while he was incarcerated in the Phillips County Jail. Mr. Whitfield filed for an extension of time to respond to the petition, and, on December 11, 2003, he was granted thirty days additional time, until January 10, 2004. Mr. Whitfield has not responded, and various attempts by the Committee on Professional Conduct to locate Mr. Whitfield have failed. The Committee is seeking a default judgment on the facts in their original petition, which contains evidence of serious misconduct on the part of Mr. Whitfield. The Committee prays that this court enter a default judgment, that the allegations of the petition for *122disbarment be deemed admitted, and that Mr. Whitfield be disbarred. In the alternative, the Committee is asking that a show-cause hearing be held, at which Mr. Whitfield shall appear and show cause why summary judgment should not be granted and why he should not be disbarred.

Given the circumstances of the case, we hereby appoint a special master, Judge John Jennings, to hear this matter and provide the court with findings of facts. Upon receipt of the master’s findings, we will render a decision in the matter.
### **CHAPTER 28—POLLUTION CASUALTIES ON THE HIGH SEAS: UNITED STATES INTERVENTION**

Sec.
1471.
Definitions.
1472.
Grave and imminent danger from oil pollution casualties to coastline or related interests of United States; Federal nonliability for Federal preventive measures on the high seas.
1473.
Consultations and determinations respecting creation of hazards to human health, etc.; criteria for determinations respecting grave and imminent dangers of major harmful consequences to United States coastline or related interests.
1474.
Federal intervention actions.
1475.
Consultation procedure.
1476.
Emergencies.
1477.
Reasonable measures; considerations.
1478.
Personal, flag state, and foreign state considerations.
1479.
Federal liability for unreasonable damages.
1480.
Notification by Secretary of State.
1481.
Violations; penalties.
1482.
Consultation for nomination and nomination of experts, negotiators, etc.; proposal of amendments to list of substances other than convention oil; Presidential acceptance of amendments.
1483.
Foreign government ships; immunity.
1484.
Interpretation and administration; other right, duty, privilege, or immunity and other remedy unaffected.
1485.
Rules and regulations.
1486.
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
1487.
Effective date.
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION BY PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER


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 EntreMed, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Sara B. Capitelli, as Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, hereby 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 my 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 for the dates and periods covered by the Report.





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.





/s/ Sara B. CapitelliMay 16, 2011

Sara B. CapitelliPrincipal Accounting Officer
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsElectromagnetic levitation coil fabrication technique for MSFC containerless processing facilitiesA technique is described for more reproducible fabrication of electromagnetic levitation coils. A split mandrel was developed upon which the coil is wound. After fabrication the mandrel can be disassembled to remove it from the coil. Previously, a full day was required to fabricate a levitation coil and the success rate for a functional coil was only 50 percent. About eight coils may be completed in one day using the technique developed and 95 percent of them are good levitation coils.Document ID19840010467Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsEthridge, E. C.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, AL, United States)*Theiss, J.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, AL, United States)*Curreri, P. A.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, AL, United States)*Abbaschian, G. J.*(Florida Univ.)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateNovember 1, 1983Subject CategoryElectronics And Electrical EngineeringReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-82565NAS 1.15:82565Accession Number84N18535Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840010467.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
§ 2423.30 General rules. ( a ) *Open hearing.* The hearing shall be open to the public unless otherwise ordered by the Administrative Law Judge.
( b ) *Administrative Procedure Act.* The hearing shall, to the extent practicable, be conducted in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 554-557, and other applicable provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act.
( c ) *Rights of parties.* A party shall have the right to appear at any hearing in person, by counsel, or by other representative; to examine and cross-examine witnesses; to introduce into the record documentary or other relevant evidence; and to submit rebuttal evidence, except that the participation of any party shall be limited to the extent prescribed by the Administrative Law Judge.
( d ) *Objections.* Objections are oral or written complaints concerning the conduct of a hearing. Any objection not raised to the Administrative Law Judge shall be deemed waived.
( e ) *Oral argument.* Any party shall be entitled, upon request, to a reasonable period prior to the close of the hearing for oral argument, which shall be included in the official transcript of the hearing.
( f ) *Official transcript.* An official reporter shall make the only official transcript of such proceedings. Copies of the transcript may be examined in the appropriate Regional Office during normal working hours. Parties desiring a copy of the transcript shall make arrangements for a copy with the official hearing reporter.
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 annual report of Anworth Mortgage Asset Corporation (the Company)
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 12, 2008 (the Report), I, Thad M. Brown, Chief Financial Officer (Principal 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, as amended; and

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



By:

/S/    THAD M.
BROWNThad M. Brown Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)


March 12, 2008
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov 

Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov

 

No. 05-135 October 3, 2005

NRC RELEASES MAJORITY OF MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER PLANT SITE

FOR UNRESTRICTED PUBLIC USE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has amended the operating license of the Maine Yankee

Atomic Power Co. to release the majority of land from the old Maine Yankee power plant site for

unrestricted public use.

The land, approximately 167 acres, meets NRC regulatory requirements of a maximum

radiation dose of 25 millirem per year, as well as the state of Maine’s clean-up standards of 10 millirem

per year from all pathways and 4 millirem per year from groundwater sources of drinking water. (The

average person in the United States receives about 300 millirem from background radiation each year.)

Release of this land for unrestricted use poses no threat to public health and safety. 

Maine Yankee’s amended license will still apply to the site’s dry cask storage facility, where

the spent nuclear fuel from the plant’s 23 years of operation is stored, plus a small parcel of land

adjacent to this facility that was used as a loading area for excavated soil awaiting offsite shipment and

disposal during the decommissioning of the plant and will be used for future cask-handling operations.

The total land remaining under the license is approximately 12 acres. Maine Yankee remains

responsible for the security and protection of this land and the dry cask storage facility, and is required

to maintain a radiation monitoring program at the site.

Maine Yankee received an operating license on June 29, 1973. The plant ceased production on

December 9, 1996, and the company informed the NRC in August 1997 that it intended to

decommission the plant. Decommissioning work began in February 2003 and was completed in June

2005. Transfer of the spent fuel from the spent fuel pool to the dry cask storage facility was completed

in February 2004.

The NRC’s Safety Evaluation of Maine Yankee’s license amendment request will be available

in the agency’s online documents database, ADAMS, at this address:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html , using accession number ML052380284 in the

search field. A notice of the license amendment will be published soon in the Federal Register.

###
§ 2608.205 Processing demands or requests. ( a ) After service of a demand or request to testify, the General Counsel will review the demand or request and, in accordance with the provisions of this subpart, determine whether, or under what conditions, to authorize the employee to testify on matters relating to official information and/or produce official records and information.
( b ) The Office of Government Ethics will process requests in the order in which they are received. Absent exigent or unusual circumstances, OGE will respond within 45 days from the date that we receive it. The time for response will depend upon the scope of the request.
( c ) The General Counsel may grant a waiver of any procedure described by this subpart where a waiver is considered necessary to promote a significant interest of OGE or the United States or for other good cause.
================================================================= This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports.

----------------------------------------------------------------- No. 148 SSM 37 Antonio Garcia, Appellant, v. Government Employees Insurance Company, Respondent.

Submitted by Jonathan A. Dachs, for appellant. Submitted by Richard A. Fogel, for respondent.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules, order affirmed, with costs. There is no ambiguity in the policy as to coverage or divisibility. The parties contracted for $2 million of coverage. Plaintiff's remaining contention lacks merit. Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Stein, Fahey, Garcia, Wilson and Feinman concur.
Decided December 14, 2017