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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 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 Institute of Child Health and Human Development Initial Review Group; Developmental Biology Subcommittee.                    

*Date:*                         February 26, 2021.                    

*Time:*                         11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health,  Rockledge II,  6701 Rockledge Drive,  Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Cathy J. Wedeen, Ph.D.,  Scientific Review Officer, Division of Scientific Review, OD, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, DHHS,  6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5B01-G,  Bethesda, MD 20892,  301-435-6878,                         *wedeenc@mail.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 6, 2021.

Ronald J. Livingston, Jr.,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2021-00386 Filed 1-11-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Lisa Bowlin Hobbs | Lisa@KuhnH obbs.com 3307 Northland Drive , Suite 310 | Austin, Texas 787 31 Tel 512.4 76 .6003 | Fax 512.4 76 .6002

December 29 , 2015

Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk via e

- filing Third Court of Appeals 209 West 14th Street, Room 101 Austin, Texas 78701

Re: Nos. 03

- 15

- 00085

- CV & No. 03

- 15

- 00280

- CV ; DeLitta v. Schaefer

Dear Mr. Kyle

,

On November 3, 2015 , the Court abate d the two above

- referenced appeals to allow the parties to proceed with settlement negotiations. The Court requested that, if the parties had not finalized a settlement by December 29, 2015, the parties file a report informing the Court of the status of t he settlement negotiations.

On October 20 , 2015 , the parties entered into a binding Rule 11 agreement that resolved the litigation. Unfortunately, a significant dispute has arisen concerning the agreement. A hearing is scheduled in the trial court on Schaefer’s Motion to Enforce for February 17, 2016

.
Counsel suggests the case remain abated to allow the enforcement hearing to proceed and requests until March 1, 2016 to further update the Court on the matter. I have conferred with opposing counsel, and , though this letter was not prepared jointly, they agree that continued abatement is warranted under the circumstances.

Kindest Regards,

Kuhn Hobbs PLLC

By: __________________________ Lisa Bowlin Hobbs

c: Douglas R. Drucker & Kirby D. Hopkins, D RUCKER | H OPKINS ( via e

- service ) ACCEPTED

03-15-00085-CV 8395085 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 12/29/2015 2:42:15 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK
130512210v1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

JAMES WILLIAMS, on 

behalf of himself and all others similarly 

situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

E-BACKGROUNDCHECKS.COM, INC. d/b/a 

BACKGROUNDCHECKS.COM 

 Defendant. 

Case No.: 12-cv-00190 

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

 To facilitate judicial economy, Plaintiff James Williams and Defendant EBackgroundchecks.com d/b/a Backgroundchecks.com hereby notify the Court that the 

Parties have settled in principle the captioned case. The Parties are currently working to 

execute a final settlement and anticipate filing a notice of dismissal with the Court within 

twenty-eight (28) days of this notice. Respectfully submitted this 31st day of January 2013. 

s/ Craig M. Shapiro (with consent) 

Craig M. Shapiro 

Keith J. Keogh 

Timothy Sostrin 

KEOGH LAW, LTD. 

101 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 605 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

(312) 726-1092 

(312) 726-1093 (facsimile) 

cshapiro@keoghlaw.com 

Attorneys for James Williams 

 s/ Nabil G. Foster 

Nabil G. Foster (Atty. No. 6273877) 

HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 

222 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 300 

Chicago, Illinois 60601-1081 

(312) 704-3000 

(312) 704-3001 (facsimile) 

nfoster@hinshawlaw.com

Cindy D. Hanson 

John P. Jett 

KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP 

1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 

Atlanta, Georgia 30309 

Telephone: (404) 815-6500 

Facsimile: (404) 541-3240 

Attorneys for E-Backgroundchecks.com d/b/a 

Backgroundchecks.com

Case: 1:12-cv-00190 Document #: 58 Filed: 01/31/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:306
2 

130512210v1 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on January 31, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing NOTICE 

OF SETTLEMENT with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will 

automatically send email notification of such filing to all attorneys of record:

Attorneys for James Williams 

Keith J. Keogh 

Craig M. Shapiro 

Timothy J. Sostrin 

KEOGH LAW, LTD. 

101 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 605 

Chicago, IL 60606

 s/ Nabil G. Foster 

Nabil G. Foster (Atty. No. 6273877) 

HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 

222 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 300 

Chicago, Illinois 60601-1081 

(312) 704-3000 

(312) 704-3001 (facsimile) 

nfoster@hinshawlaw.com 

Case: 1:12-cv-00190 Document #: 58 Filed: 01/31/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:307
<PAGE>   1

                          EL PASO NATURAL GAS COMPANY

                           EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                             Form 10-Q, Exhibit 11

                   (In Thousands, except earnings per share)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            Second Quarter                     Six Months
                                                        -----------------------         ------------------------
                                                         1997            1996            1997             1996
                                                        -------         -------         -------         --------
<S>                                                     <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>
Income available for common stock dividends             $43,194         $24,425         $90,495         $(10,823)

Primary average for common shares outstanding            58,756          35,476          57,849           35,264
Primary earnings per share                              $0.7351         $0.6885         $1.5643         $(0.3069)

Fully diluted average common shares outstanding          58,756          35,476          57,849           35,264 
Fully diluted earnings per common share                 $0.7351         $0.6885         $1.5643         $(0.3069)

</TABLE>
EX-10.6
                           PROMISSORY NOTE


$  54,131.67

For value received I promise to pay to the order of 3Si, Inc. at
its offices in Englewood, Colorado, $ 54,131.67 on July 1, 2004
plus interest accruing from June 30, 1999, at the rate of 5.37%
compounded annually.

This Note is secured by __260,000__________ shares of 3Si
Holdings, Inc. common stock.

Signed: /s/  Frank Backes
Print or type name: ____Frank Backes_______________
Date: _____10-8-2001___________________________
Englewood, Colorado
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.)

TREMAYNE CORA #B79855, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) No. 11 C 9230

)

MARCUS HARDY, )

)

Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

As soon as this Court received the self-prepared Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) filed by Tremayne Cora

(“Cora”), it conducted a preliminary review of that presentation

in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases in the United States District Courts (“Section 2254

Rules”). That review revealed that a threshold look at the

Petition’s timeliness was obviously called for--as this Court’s

January 5, 2012 memorandum order pointed out, Cora’s December 2,

2002 post-conviction petition in the state court was said to have

taken fully 6-1/2 years (until May 21, 2009) to have reached the

dismissal stage. After making a number of unsuccessful efforts

to reach Cora’s post-conviction attorney Lee Boyd, Jr. (“Boyd”)

to obtain some informed input in that respect, this Court 1

perforce had to look instead to the Attorney General’s office for

 It has since been learned that attorney Boyd had died 1

recently, explaining the failures of his office to respond to

voicemail messages.
such enlightenment.

Assistant Attorney General David Iskowich has just submitted

a thorough memorandum, replete with appropriate attachments, that

explains the timeliness of the Petition under 28 U.S.C.

§2244(d)(1) and (2). That makes it necessary to address the

substantive sufficiency of the Petition, as to which this Court

turns to the Attorney General’s office for an answer, to be filed

on or before April 16, 2012.2

One matter remains for discussion: Cora’s Motion for

Appointment of Counsel (“Motion”), which was tendered with the

Petition. Although Cora has presented an adequate showing of his

financial inability to retain counsel, his submission is lacking

an essential ingredient required by our Court of Appeals--a

statement as to his efforts to obtain counsel on his own. As and

when that is provided, this Court will be in a position to

consider the Motion. Cora has suffered no harm by reason of any

delay in that respect, for Section 2254 Rule 5(e) specifies that

any reply that may be needed from Cora necessarily follows the

 It is hoped that this opinion is not viewed by attorney 2

Iskowich as qualifying for a “no good deed goes unpunished”

characterization--the Attorney General’s office is obviously in

the best position to provide that analysis in the first instance. 

As for the timing of the required answer, it is shorter than this

Court ordinarily allows, but it is hoped that the head start in

reviewing the matter as reflected in the current memorandum will

make it feasible to meet the shorter timetable. If such is not

the case, this Court would of course be prepared to consider a

motion for extension.

2
respondent’s answer called for earlier in this memorandum order.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: March 12, 2012

3
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 524 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 524

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent certain 
provisions of the Heartland, Habitat, Harvest, and Horticulture Act of 
                        2008 relating to timber.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 2, 2017

   Mr. Boozman (for himself, Mr. Brown, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Cotton, Mr. 
Isakson, and Mr. Wicker) introduced the following bill; which was read 
             twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent certain 
provisions of the Heartland, Habitat, Harvest, and Horticulture Act of 
                        2008 relating to timber.

    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 ``Timber Revitalization and Economic 
Enhancement Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF TIMBER GAINS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 1201(b) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``beginning in'' and 
inserting ``beginning after''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2016.
                                 <all>
```
#### Ellen M. Chernowski, an Infant, by Michael P. Chernowski, Her Guardian ad Litem, et al., Respondents, v. G. R. Kinney Co., Inc., Appellant.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and facts, without costs of this appeal to either party and a new trial granted. Memorandum: The infant plaintiff was injured when she slipped and fell on a floor in defendant’s store. The trial court correctly instructed the jury that " the mere waxing and polishing of a linoleum floor in a retail business place is not negligence” *(Curren*v. *O’Connor,*304 N. Y. 515, 518; *Nelson*v. *Salem Danish Lutheran Church,*270 App. Div. 1030, affd. 296 N. Y. 870). The court further correctly stated that “if a floor is so maintained as to be excessively slippery, either by the nature of the flooring or by the application of some material, that may be negligence.” The state of the proof, however, was well summarized in the next sentence of the charge: " But there is no indication here as to what it was that brought about the claimed condition of the floor.” It follows that the case should not have been submitted to the jury but defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint made at the close of the proof should have been granted. In the interest of justice, however, we conclude that there should be a new trial to provide an opportunity for the plaintiffs to supply the deficiencies in the proof. (Appeal from judgment of Erie Trial Term in favor of plaintiffs in a negligence action.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Noonan, JJ.
#### Fern Babbidge, an Infant, by Vira Babbidge, Her Guardian ad Litem, et al., Appellants, v. Walter Pohl et al., Respondents.

Appeal by plaintiffs from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in Green County upon a jury verdict of no cause of action. The action was brought to recover for personal injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff and derivative damages sustained by the infant’s mother. Plaintiffs contend that, as the infant plaintiff was walking in an easterly direction upon the north shoulder of a road at a point where the highway approaches a bridge, a car owned by defendant Walter Pohl and being driven by his wife, Elsie Pohl, in a westerly direction, was driven onto the shoulder of the road and struck the infant plaintiff. The defendant driver contends that the infant plaintiff was walking upon the paved portion of the road and was looking back. The driver testified that the ear did not actually strike the plaintiff but came to a stop so close to her that she became frightened *613and fell to the ground. The great weight of the evidence establishes, however, that the car struck the plaintiff and knocked her to the ground. The accident happened in broad daylight. The infant plaintiff was 15 years of age. The jury returned a 10 to 2 verdict of no cause of action, expressly reporting to the court that it found both the defendant driver and the infant plaintiff negligent. The negligence of the defendant driver is amply supported by the evidence. The finding that the infant plaintiff was also negligent, however, is against the weight of the evidence. If she was walking on the shoulder, as she testified, she was clearly free from negligence. If she was walking on her left side of the pavement she had a right to do so. It is undisputed that she was in full view of the defendant driver in daylight. The accident seems solely attributable to the failure of the defendant driver to sound a warning or stop her ear until it was too late. Judgment reversed, on the law and facts, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event. Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 23 - CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS




We  consent  to the incorporation by reference (1) in the Registration
Statements (Form S-8 No. 33-34906, Form S-8 No. 33-43102 and Form  S-8
No.  33-84094) pertaining to the Provident Financial Group, Inc.  1988
Stock  Option  Plan,  (2) in Post-Effective Amendment  No.  1  to  the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-34904) pertaining to the  1990
Provident Financial Group, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan,  (3)  in
the  Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-90792) pertaining to  the
Provident   Financial  Group,  Inc.  Retirement  Plan,  (4)   in   the
Registration  Statements  (Form S-8 No.  33-51230  and  No.  33-62707)
pertaining  to the 1992 Outside Directors' Stock Option Plan  and  the
1992 Advisory Directors' Stock Option Plan and (5) in the Registration
Statement   (Form  S-8  No.  33-61576)  pertaining  to  the  Provident
Financial  Group, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan of our report  dated
January   13,  1998,  with  respect  to  the  consolidated   financial
statements  of Provident Financial Group, Inc. included in the  Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1997.





                                                     ERNST & YOUNG LLP






Cincinnati, Ohio
March 26, 1998
Exhibit 32 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002.

The undersigned officer of FieldPoint Petroleum Corporation (the"Company") hereby certifies that:

     i.     theaccompanying Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31,2004 (the "Report") fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

     ii.     theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: March 31, 2005

/s/ RayReaves                              Ray ReavesChief Executive Officer andChief Financial Officer
1209.407-1 General. ( b ) For the purposes of FAR 9.407-1, the SDO is the suspending official under the Federal Management Regulation at 41 CFR 102-117.295.
( d ) The SDO is authorized to make a written determination of compelling reasons justifying continuing business dealings between the agency and a contractor that is suspended. However, in accordance with FAR 23.506(e), only the Secretary of Transportation may waive the suspension of contract payments, termination of a contract for default, or suspension of a contractor for actions under FAR subpart 23.5 and FAR 23.506.
,.EO Sr 4 , ) UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX PRO1’ 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105.3901 

## JUN 302014
Edie (‘hang. Deputy Executive Officer CaliforniaAir Resources Board Post Office Box 2815 Sacrarnento. CA 95812 Dear ang: On May 13, 2014, CARB submitted revisions to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). We have reviewed materials submittedwiththe followingrule and foundthat it fulfills the completeness criteriain 40 (‘FR Part 51, Appendix V. APCD/AQMD RuIe# Rule Title San Lois Obispo 220 Federal Prevention ofSignificantdeterioration We intend to address the otherproposed SIP revisions in CARB’s May 13, 2014 submittal separately. In the coming months we will reviewthe complete revisions for action pursuantto Clean AirAct section 110(k). Questions regarding our completeness review should be directedto Arnold Lazarus at (415) 972-3024. Sincerely.

Dc orah Jordan Director, Air Division

cc: Sentby e-mail Larry R. Allen, Executive Officer, San Luis Obispo APCD Mr. Michael (}uzzetta. Manager, Rule Evaluation Section, CARB

Printed on Recycled Paper
#### Alan R. Varley *v.*Nina B. Varley

*Hina B. Varley,*pro se, in support of the motion.

Submitted November 5

decided November 26, 1974

The defendant’s “Request for Representation” dated October 29,1974, in the appeal from the Superior Court in Hartford County is denied.
Need to return call by / at/between and . Signature: 

 Project No.: 0172.08.005.607 Page 1 of 1 

 Project Name: 2011 Prelim Cat Rev CBI? 

 Yes 

 No 

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD 

 Incoming 

 Outgoing 

Date: 9/19/2011 Time: 2:30 am 

 pm 

Company Name: Georgia Environmental Protection Division 

(GA EPD) 

ERG Staff Name: Elizabeth Sabol 

Contact Name: Bill Noel Contact Phone Number: (570) 826-2313 

General Subject: 2009 DMR Sulfide Discharges for Gold Mills 

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN 

I called Ms. Hendricks on Tuesday, September 9, at 2:45 PM EST. Mr. Noell returned my call on 

September 19, 2011 at 10:15 AM ET. I explained to Mr. Noell that I was calling to determine if 

the GA EPD was focusing on sulfide discharges for the Mohawk Industries facility. Mr. Noell 

stated that the permit limits are based on the ELG production-based limits because Georgia does 

not have a water quality standard for sulfide. Mr. Noell also stated that they were not collecting 

data on sulfide discharges or treatment technologies because facilities were not having problems 

meeting sulfide limits.
#### SPRINGER, Appellant, v. FUCHS & LANG MFG. CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 23, 1903.)

Action by John H. Springer, as receiver, against the Fuchs & Lang Manufacturing Company.

E. Crandall, for appellant.

J. E. Ludden, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.