alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Veterans Affairs

# AGENCY:

Office of Research and Development, VA. 

# ACTION:

Notice of government owned invention available for licensing. 

# SUMMARY:

The invention listed below is owned by the U.S. Government as represented by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and is available for licensing in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207 and 37 CFR part 404 and/or Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADA) Collaboration under 15 U.S.C. 3710a to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally funded research and development. Foreign patents are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for U.S. companies and may also be available for licensing. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Technical and licensing information on the invention may be obtained by writing to: Mindy L. Aisen, M.D., Department of Veterans Affairs, Acting Director Technology Transfer Program, Office of Research and Development, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420; fax: 202-254-0255; e-mail:                         *mindy.aisen@mail.va.gov*. Any request for information should include the Number and Title for the relevant invention as indicated below. Issued patents may be obtained from the Commissioner of Patents, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, DC 20231.                     

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The invention available for licensing is:  U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/574,756 “Production of Urokinase in a Three-Dimensional Cell Culture.” 

Dated: December 13, 2004. 

Anthony J. Principi, 

Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 04-28036 Filed 12-22-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
        (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,
                               UNITED STATES CODE)

                  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
Code), I, John W. Elias, Chief Executive Officer of Edge Petroleum Corporation,
a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:

         (1)      the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
                  period ending September 30, 2003 (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.


Dated:    November 14, 2003           /s/ John W. Elias
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Name:   John W. Elias
                                              Chief Executive Officer
§ 1003.303 Project rating. Each project included in an application that meets the threshold requirements shall be competitively rated within each Area ONAP's jurisdiction under the five following rating factors. Additional details regarding the rating factors will be provided in the periodic NOFAs. ( a ) *Capacity.* This factor will address the applicant's organizational resources necessary to successfully implement the proposed activities in a timely manner.
( b ) *Need/Extent of the problem.* This factor will address the extent to which there is a need for the proposed project to address a documented problem among the intended beneficiaries.
( c ) *Soundness of Approach.* This factor will address the quality and cost effectiveness of the proposed project, the commitment to sustain the proposed activities, and the degree to which the proposed project provides other benefits to community members.
( d ) *Leveraging of resources.* This factor will address the level of tribal resources and resources from other entities that are used in conjunction with ICDBG funds to support the proposed project. HUD will evaluate the level of non-ICDBG resources based on the percentage of non-ICDBG resources provided relative to project costs.
( e ) *Comprehensiveness and coordination.* This factor will address the extent to which the applicant's proposed activities are consistent with the strategic plans or policy goals of the community and further on-going priorities and activities of the community.
[66 FR 4581, Jan. 17, 2001, as amended at 66 FR 8176, Jan. 30, 2001]
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JESSIE LEWIS,

Defendant.

Case No. 09-cr-00323-SI-1 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME

Re: Dkt. No. 45

It has come to the Court's attention that in October 2010 defendant filed a motion for an 

extension of time to file a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For reasons that are unclear to the 

Court, the undersigned did not receive a copy of the motion. 

On July 31, 2013, the Court received a letter from Mark Wilfing, Residential Reentry 

Manager, Federal Bureau of Prisons, informing the Court that defendant had escaped from federal 

custody. The Court has since been informed by the U.S. Probation Office that defendant was 

subsequently arrested, released back to the Bureau of Prisons, and completed his sentence in this 

case on April 18, 2014. 

Accordingly, in light of subsequent events in this case, the Court DENIES defendant's 

motion as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2015

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cr-00323-SI Document 98 Filed 01/21/15 Page 1 of 1
### Attendee Name **Company Location**  **(City, State) Title**  **Phone # E-Mail**  **Angus Crane NAIMA**  **Alexandria, VA Vice President, Gen. Counsel** **703-684-0084 acrane@naima.org**  **Granta Nakayama Kirkland & Ellis LLP** **Washington, DC Partner**  **202-879-5074 granta.nakayama@kirkland.com**  **Lee Houlditch Amerrock Products LP**  **Nolanville, TX Owner/ CEO**  **205-516-9164 lhoulditch@amerrock.com**  **Joe Eisert Kirkland & Ellis LLP** **Washington, DC Partner**  **202-879-5136 joseph.eisert@kirkland.com**  **Tom Lund Isolatek International**  **Huntington, IN Operations Manager**  **260-356-2040 tlund@isolatek.com**  **Gerald Miller Rock Wool Mfg Co.**  **Leeds, AL Vice President Operations** **205-699-6121 lgeraldmiller@gmail.com**  **Timothy Scott Rock Wool Mfg Co.**  **Leeds, AL President**  **905-875-9307 leslie.maclaren@roxul.com**  **Steve Edris Thermafiber, Inc.**  **Wabash, IN President & CEO**  **260-563-2111 sedris@Thermofiber.com**  **John Bolden USG Interiors**  **Chicago, IL Env. Service Manager**  **312-823-6702 jbolden@usg.com**  **Christopher Bullock Ind. Insulation Group**  **Phenix City, AL Vice President**  **205-603-8498 bullockc@iig-llc.com**  **Nancy Davis Rock Wool Mfg Co.**  **Chapel Hill, NC General Counsel & V.P.**  **919-932-6672 nancyworth.davis@gmail.com**  **Michael McLaughlin Roxul, Inc.**  **Milton, Canada Vice President Business Dev.** **905-875-9353 michael.mclaughlin@roxul.com**  **Bent Jorgenson Roxul, Inc.**  **Milton, Canada Vice President Operations** **905-875-9304 bent.jorgensen@roxul.com** 

**Susan Fairchild EPA - OAQPS - MMG**  **RTP, NC Project Lead**  **919-541-5167 fairchild.susan@epa.gov**  **Winifred Okoye (via phone) EPA - OGC**  **Washington, DC Attorney**  **202-564-5446 okoye.winifred@epa.gov**  **Keith Barnett EPA - OAQPS - MMG**  **RTP, NC Metals & Mfg Group Leader** **919-541-5605 barnett.keith@epa.gov**  **Steffan Johnson EPA - OAQPS - MPG**  **RTP, NC Testing/Measurement**  **919-541-4790 johnson.steffan@epa.gov**  **Chris Sarsony EPA - OAQPS - ATAG**  **RTP, NC Risk Assessment**  **919-541-4843 sarsony.chris@epa.gov**  **Dave Guinnup EPA - OAQPS - ATAG**  **RTP, NC ATAG Group Leader**  **919-541-5368 guinnup.dave@epa.gov**  **Dave Reeves RTI**  **RTP, NC EPA Contractor**  **919-316-3739 dwreeves@rti.org**  **Cindy Hancy (via phone) RTI**  **RTP, NC EPA Contractor**  **919-541-6623 chancy@rti.org** 



### EPA Meeting with NAIMA and Mineral Wool Production Industry Representatives on December 13, 2011
###### Editorial Note on Part 201

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 201 appear at 62 FR 38027, July 16, 1997.

#### § 201.86 Waiver and amendment authority.

USAID may waive, withdraw, or amend at any time any or all of the provisions of this part.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARVIN WOODARD,

Petitioner,

v.

CHRISTOPHER CRUZ, community 

manager for BOP,

Respondent. /

No. C 08-2765 SI (pr)

JUDGMENT

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Judgment is

entered accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.

DATED: April 26, 2010 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02765-SI Document 8 Filed 04/26/10 Page 1 of 1
#### § 72.23 Affidavit of next of kin.

If the United States citizen or non-citizen national who has died abroad did not leave a will that applies locally, and the personal estate in the consular district consists only of clothing and other personal effects that the consular officer concludes in his or her discretion is worth less than $2000 and/or cash of a value equal to or less than $2000, the consular officer may decide in his or her discretion to accept an affidavit from the decedent's next of kin as satisfactory evidence of the next of kin's right to take possession of the personal estate. The Department must approve any release based on an affidavit of next of kin where the consular officer concludes that the personal estate effects are worth more than $2000 and/or the cash involved is of a value more than $2000 and generally will consider approving such releases only in cases where state law prohibits the appointment of executors or administrators for estates that are valued at less than a specified amount and the law of the foreign country where the personal property is located would not prohibit such a release.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                        SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
              ACT OF 2002 (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350,
                   CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)

                  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
Code), I, Michael G. Long, Chief Financial Officer of Edge Petroleum
Corporation, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify, to my
knowledge, that:

         (1)      the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
                  period ending June 30, 2003 (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.

Dated: August 14, 2003             /s/ Michael G. Long
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                   Name: Michael G. Long
                                         Chief Financial and Accounting Officer
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2742 

To amend the Small Business Act to increase the minimum Governmentwide goal for procurement contracts awarded to small business concerns. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 26, 2005 

Mr. WYNN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Small Business 

A BILL 

To amend the Small Business Act to increase the minimum 

Government-wide goal for procurement contracts awarded to small business concerns. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN GOVERNMENT-WIDE GOAL FOR 

4 PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS AWARDED TO 

5 SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS. 

6 Section 15(g)(1) of the Small Business Act (15 

7 U.S.C. 644(g)(1)) is amended by striking ‘‘23 percent’’ 

8 and inserting ‘‘25 percent’’. 

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.2

INTERLINE BRANDS, 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 Annual Report of Interline Brands, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period
ending December 25, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John A. Ebner, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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.

/s/ JOHN A. EBNER John A. Ebner Chief Financial Officer and TreasurerFebruary 23, 2010


---



QuickLinks
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 20

- 12704 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8 :1 7

- cr - 00308

- CEH

- TGW

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus

MANUEL ANTONIO SILVA , Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ (April 12, 2021) Before WILSON, JORDAN, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

USCA11 Case: 20-12704 Date Filed: 04/12/2021 Page: 1 of 22 Scott Robbins , appointed counsel for Manuel Silva in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. Califo rnia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s m otion to withdraw is
GRANTED , and Silva’s conviction s and sentence s are AFFIRMED

.

USCA11 Case: 20-12704 Date Filed: 04/12/2021 Page: 2 of 2
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JJW, L.L.C.,

Appellant,

v.

ANTONIO AGUIRRE,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 16

- 00051

- CV

Appeal from

205th District Court

of Culberson County, Texas

(TC # 5291)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court are motions by both Appellant and Appellee requesting that we

dismiss the appeal because the trial court has granted a motion for new trial. We grant the

motions and dismiss the appeal as moot.

It is well established that a court is prohibited from deciding moot controversies.

National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Jones , 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex. 1999). A case is moot

if a justiciable controversy ceases to exist at any stage of the legal proceedings, including the

appeal. In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc. , 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005). The trial court ’ s

order granting the motion for new trial has rendered this appeal moot. Consequently, we grant

the motions and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The District Clerk’s request for an

extension of time to file the record is denied as moot.

Ju ly 6 , 2016

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
### §2136. Classes of facilities

The Commission may—

(a) group the facilities licensed either under section 2133 or 2134 of this title into classes which may include either production or utilization facilities or both, upon the basis of the similarity of operating and technical characteristics of the facilities;

(b) define the various activities to be carried on at each such class of facility; and

(c) designate the amounts of special nuclear material available for use by each such facility.

(Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, title I, §106, as added Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1073, §1, 68 Stat. 938; renumbered title I, Pub. L. 102–486, title IX, §902(a)(8), Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2944.)
#### Sharon McAdam et al., Respondents, v Ridge Press, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Order of the Supreme Court, at Special Term, entered January 5, 1977, denying defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and for summary judgment, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant motion dismissing the complaint and for summary judgment, except as to the causes of action for breach of contract based on the respective releases and otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Plaintiffs’ causes of action other than those for breach of contract are without merit. There is no properly pleaded cause of action for libel, in the absence of special damages, which are lacking here *(McGraw v Watkins,*49 AD2d 958, 959). Neither can plaintiffs claim an invasion of privacy, in view of their consent whether or not such consent was limited to publication *(Wrangell v Hathaway Co.,*22 AD2d 649; *Gautier v Pro-Football,*304 NY 354; *Sherwood v McGowan,*3 Misc 2d 234, 235). Plaintiffs’ claim for fraud, negligence, conversion and intentional interference with contract rights are unsubstantiated and conjectural and hence cannot withstand a motion for summary judgment. The foregoing observations make it unnecessary to allude to the possible defense of the Statute of Limitations. Insofar as the causes of action alleging breach of contract are concerned, we adopt the view expressed by the Justice at Special Term that they are sufficiently stated, predicated upon the language employed in the releases executed by plaintiffs and given to defendant Greene. The release from plaintiff McAdam limited publication of her photographs to "M. Greene’s book unless further agreement” and may not have been intended to embrace the publication of her photographs in the book known as "Pin-up”, authored by Ralph Stein and copyrighted, published and distributed by the other defendants. Further, the use of plaintiff McAdam’s photograph on the cover of the book may fall within the proscription of the release that her photographs may not be used for "product packaging”. Plaintiff Silverstone may properly contend, as the justice below noted, "that a restriction on 'publication in Playboy without *764further agreement,’ may have been intended to cover all Playboy publications, it being conceded that the book 'Pin-up’ is a Playboy Publication and was initially distributed through the Playboy Book Club.” Each of these factual questions is for the trial court to determine. Settle order on notice. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Lane and Markewich, JJ.
#### Woodard, administrator, *v.*Harris *et al.*

September 30, 1912.

Action upon bond. Before Judge Felton. Houston superior court. April 4, 1911.

*H. A. Mathews*and *A. G. Riley,*for plaintiff.

*Miller & Jones,*for defendants.

Atkinson, J.

1. The judgment against which it was sought to enjoin, and in connection with which proceeding the bond involved in the present suit was given, was held, in *Harris*v. *Woodard,*133 *Ga.*104 (65 S. E. 250), to be against W. H. Harris individually, and not as executor of the will of H. C. Harris.

2. A petition by W. H. Harris to enjoin against the enforcement of the judgment referred to in the preceding note, in which there was nothing tending to suggest that it was brought in a representative capacity, unless it be the words “Exr. will of H. C. Harris,” which appear only once, and then immediately following the name of plaintiff, under the facts of this case is to be construed as a suit by W. H. Harris individually.

3. When in such a suit an injunction was granted on condition that the plaintiff execute a bond conditioned to pay the defendant such amount as might be found in his favor on the judgment referred to, and for such purpose a bond was given, signed “W. H. Harris, Executor, by Louis L. Brown, attorney of record,” W. H. Harris was liable individually upon such bond, as well as his security.

4. In a suit on the bond described in the third headnote, it was error to admit, over appropriate objection, the will of H. C. Harris, and certain testimony to the effect that the note was for the benefit of the estate and the bond was given in a representative capacity, and to direct a verdict in favor of the defendants.

5. There is nothing in the decision of *Harris*v. *Woodard,*supra, that is in conflict with the ruling now made.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### In Re: Jerry Wayne SHEPPARD, Petitioner.

No. 06-7954.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 15, 2007.

Decided: Feb. 26, 2007.

Jerry Wayne Sheppard, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jerry Wayne Sheppard petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his § 2255 action. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Although we find that mandamus relief is not warranted because the delay is not unreasonable, we deny the mandamus petition without prejudice to the filing of another mandamus petition if the district court does not act expeditiously. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL SKARRY,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

Case No. C08-05789 MMC (JCS)

ORDER TO SUBMIT SETTLEMENT

CONFERENCE STATEMENTS IN .PDF

FORMAT

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that in addition to the submission of paper copy of settlement

conference statements to chambers, each party shall submit their confidential settlement conference

statements in .pdf format and email their statement to JCSPO@cand.uscourts.gov.

All other provisions of this Court's original Notice and Settlement Conference Order remain

in effect.

Dated: February 8, 2010

_______________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-05789-MMC Document 33 Filed 02/08/10 Page 1 of 1