alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -           HEADS UP Concussion and Helmet Safety App      

# HEADS UP Concussion and Helmet Safety App

CDC’s new HEADS UP Concussion and Helmet Safety app provides access to concussion safety information that can help parents and coaches spot a concussion and learn how to respond if an athlete has a concussion or brain injury. The free app also includes a 3D helmet fit feature that teaches about proper helmet fit, safety, and care.

http://www.cdc.gov/headsup/resources/app.html?s_cid=headsup_govd106&utm_source=youth.gov&utm_medium=federal-links&utm_campaign=reports-and-resources
#### § 1726.200 General requirements.

The borrower must use the procedures described in this subpart where such procedures are required under subparts B through F of this part. The borrower must ensure that arrangements prior to announcement of the award of the contract are such that all bidders are treated fairly and no bidder is given an unfair advantage over other bidders.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 9, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 68848]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28200]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>12353 and <greek-i>12354]


North Carolina Disaster Number NC-00030

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 2.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for the State of North Carolina (FEMA-1942-DR), dated 
10/14/2010.
    Incident: Severe Storms, Flooding, and Straight-line Winds 
associated with remnants of Tropical Storm Nicole.
    Incident Period: 09/27/2010 through 10/01/2010.

DATES: Effective Date: 11/01/2010.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 12/13/2010.
    EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: 07/14/2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the Presidential disaster 
declaration for the State of North Carolina, dated 10/14/2010 is hereby 
amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the 
disaster:

Primary Counties: (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans): Camden, 
Martin, New Hanover, Washington.
Contiguous Counties: (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans):
    North Carolina: Currituck, Pasquotank.
    Virginia: Chesapeake City, Suffolk City.

    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-28200 Filed 11-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-M
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Spansion Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i.) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 28, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii.) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ----- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |  |  |                             
|---------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------
|Date: November 7, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Dario Sacomani          
|                       |  |  |  | Dario Sacomani              
|                       |  |  |  | Executive Vice President and
|                       |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles Butler, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, ren*755dered June 23, 1975, convicting defendant of robbery in the first degree (five counts), and robbery in the second degree (five counts), and sentencing him to 15 years to life, unanimously affirmed. We find the reconstructed record of defendant’s trial sufficient to afford adequate appellate review. Our recent decision in *People v Carney*(73 AD2d 9) provided a procedure for the reconstruction of a proceeding when the stenographic minutes are unavailable. We held, under the circumstances of that case, that the procedure followed was erroneous, and we set forth guidelines to be followed "so far as possible” (p 12): "We are thus faced with a basic question of procedure in such reconstructions of the record—specifically, who, if anyone, takes charge of the proceedings and who 'settles’ the record, at least where there is no agreement among the parties or their recollections differ. In my view, so far as possible the final arbiter of the record should be the Judge who presided at the original proceeding sought to be reviewed, if he is available. At a minimum, he should take charge of the reconstruction proceeding. In such a proceeding he is not merely, or not at all, a witness; he is the official who certifies to the appellate court—if he can—what took place before him.” While the Trial Judge in the case before us did not preside at the reconstruction hearing, he did testify, with the aid of a detailed minute book, as did the trial Assistant District Attorney, the Assistant District Attorney who had attempted to secure the missing minutes and the defendant’s trial attorney. The proceeding outlined in *Carney (supra)*is to be preferred, with the same Justice presiding at the reconstruction hearing as presided over the trial or hearing in which the stenographic minutes are unavailable, and making specific findings of fact. However, the mere failure to follow these guidelines will not afford automatic reversal, where, as here, the alternative method used actually provided an adequate record and sufficed to satisfactorily demonstrate that genuine appealable and reviewable issues do not (or do) exist. ''It is only upon an appropriate showing that this cannot be accomplished that a defendant is entitled to automatic reversal”. *(People v Glass,*43 NY2d 283, 286; *People v Rivera,*39 NY2d 519.) Concur—Ross, J. P., Markewich, Bloom, Lynch and Carro, JJ.
M. P. No. 79-282.

#### Randy Anderson *v.*John J. Moran.

Mr. Justice Weisberger did not participate.

*Allegro E. Munson,*for petitioner, *Dennis J. Roberts, II,*Attorney General, for defendant.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is remanded to the Superior Court and shall be treated as if originally filed with that court. The Superior Court is directed to conduct a hearing on the question of bail, taking into consideration the length of the petitioner’s continued incarceration since arraignment and any other factors which may be relevant to a determination of reasonable bail.
EX-10.21



 Exhibit 10.21 
 First Amendment to the Exclusive IP License Agreement for RQ-00000007 

between Aratana Therapeutics Inc. and RaQualia Pharma Inc. 
 This is the First Amendment (“Amendment”) to the Exclusive IP License Agreement for RQ-00000007 dated December 27, 2010 (the “Agreement”) between Aratana
Therapeutics Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Licensee”) and RaQualia Pharma Inc., a Japanese corporation (“Licensor”), and is made and entered into between Licensee and Licensor on July 12, 2012 (the
“Amendment Effective Date”). Licensee and Licensor are referred to herein individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties”. 
 RECITALS 
 WHEREAS, the Parties have entered into the Agreement, pursuant to
which Licensor granted Licensee an exclusive worldwide license to RQ-00000007 Technology (as defined in the Agreement); 
 WHEREAS, the
Parties desire to amend the provision of development and supply of the API; 
 WHEREAS, Licensor has developed another EP4 antagonist
known as RQ-00000008 which is useful for treating acute and chronic pain and therefore could be competitive with RQ-00000007; 
 NOW
THEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree as set forth below: 
 AMENDMENT 

A. Amendment. The Parties agree to delete Section 7 of the Agreement in its entirety. The Parties further agree that neither Party has claims
and/or liabilities arising out of or in relation to the performance of or failure to perform the rights and obligations stipulated under Section 7 of the Agreement prior to Amendment Effective Date. 

B. Other Terms: All other terms of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. To the extent that any provision of the Agreement
conflicts with any provision of this Amendment, this Amendment will take priority. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Amendment to the Agreement to be executed by their
authorized representatives. 
  

									
	Aratana Therapeutics Inc.	 		 	RaQualia Pharma Inc.
					
	By:	 	 /s/ David K. Rosen
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Atsushi Nagahisa

					
	Name:	 	 David K. Rosen
	 		 	Name:	 	 Atsushi Nagahisa

					
	Title:	 	 President & COO
	 		 	Title:	 	 President & CEO

					
	Date:	 	 12 July 12
	 		 	Date:	 	 July 23, 2012
§ 1734.31 Approved purposes for a combination loan and grant. The approved purposes for a combination loan and grant are: ( a ) Acquiring, by lease or purchase, eligible equipment or facilities as defined in § 1734.3;
( b ) Acquiring instructional programming;
( c ) Providing technical assistance and instruction for using eligible equipment, including any related software; developing instructional programming; providing engineering or environmental studies relating to the establishment or expansion of the phase of the project that is being financed with a combination loan and grant (this purpose shall not exceed 10 percent of the total requested financial assistance);
( d ) Paying for medical or educational equipment and facilities that are shown to be necessary to implement the project, including vehicles utilizing distance learning and telemedicine technology to deliver educational and health care services. The applicant must demonstrate that such items are necessary to meet the purposes under this subpart and financial assistance for such equipment and facilities is not available from other sources at a cost which would not adversely affect the economic viability of the project;
( e ) Providing links between teachers and students or medical professionals who are located at the same facility, provided that such facility receives or provides distance learning or telemedicine services as part of a distance learning or telemedicine network which meets the purposes of this subpart;
( f ) Providing for site development and alteration of buildings in order to meet the purposes of this subpart. Financial assistance for this purpose must be necessary and incidental to the total amount of financial assistance requested;
( g ) Purchasing of land, buildings, or building construction determined by RUS to be necessary and incidental to the project. The applicant must demonstrate that financial assistance funding from other sources is not available at a cost that does not adversely impact the economic viability of the project as determined by the Administrator. Financial assistance for this purpose must be necessary and incidental to the total amount of financial assistance requested; and
( h ) Acquiring telecommunications or broadband facilities provided that no telecommunications carrier will install such facilities under the Act or through other financial procedures within a reasonable time period and at a cost to the applicant that does not impact the economic viability of the project, as determined by the Administrator.
EXHIBIT 32



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 Innova Pure Water, Inc. (the Company), on Form 10-KSB of the year ended June 30, 2005, I hereby certify solely for the purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



1. The annual 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 annual report fairly presents, in all
materials respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: October 10, 2005.



/s/ David L. ZichPrint Name:

David L. ZichTitle:

Chief Executive Officer/s/ Jim R. DavissonPrint Name:

Jim R. DavissonTitle:

Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6556

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SAMUEL BAILEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (CR-00-113, CA-02-1441) Submitted: July 24, 2003 Decided: July 30, 2003 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel Bailey, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Samuel Bailey seeks to appeal the district court’s orders adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). This order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bailey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
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

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of Gladstone Investment Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies on the
date hereof, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350(a), as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2012 (Form 10-Q),
filed concurrently herewith by the Company, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: October 29, 2012



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ David Watson                     
|David Watson                         
|Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
The
Mark shown in this certificate has been registered in the United States Patent
and Trademark Office to the named registrant.
  The
records of the United States Patent and Trademark Office show that an
application for registration of the Mark shown in this Certificate
was filed in the Office, that the application was examined and determined
to be in compliance with the requirements of the law and with the regulations
prescribed by the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and
that the Applicant is entitled to registration of the Mark under the Trademark
Act of 1946, as Amended
  A
copy of the Mark and pertinent data, from the application are part of this
certificate.
  To avoid CANCELLATION of the registration, the owner
of the registration must submit a declaration of continued use or excusable
non-use between the fifth and sixth years after the registration date.
(See next page for more information.) Assuming such a declaration is properly
filed, the registration will remain in force for ten (10) years, unless
terminated by an order of the Commissioner for Trademarks or a federal
court. (See next page for information on maintenance requirements for successive
ten-year periods)
  
  
  
 Int.
      Cl.: 39Prior
      U.S. Cls.: 100 and 105Reg.
      No. 3,589,928United
      States Patent and Trademark Office
                  Registered
      Mar. 17, 2009
  SERVICE
MARK
 PRINCIPAL
REGISTER
  Cryoport
Express
  CRYOPORT
SYSTEMS, INC. (NEVADA COR­PORATION)
 20382
BARENTS SEA CIRCLE
 LAKE
FOREST, CA 92630
  FOR:
TRANSPORTATION BY TRUCK, TRAIN OR AIR OF TEMPERATURE SENSITIVE MATERI­ALS IN
THE NATURE OF LIVE CELL BIOLOGI­CALS AND OTHER FROZEN BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL,
IN CLASS 39 (U.S. CLS. 100AND
105).
  FIRST USE
11-1-2006; IN COMMERCE 7-1-2007.
  THE MARK
CONSISTS OF STANDARD CHAR­ACTERS WITHOUT CLAIM TO ANY PARTICULAR FONT,
STYLE, SIZE, OR COLOR.
  NO CLAIM
IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "EXPRESS", APART FROM THE MARK AS
SHOWN.
  SER. NO.
77-374,541, FILED 1-17-2008.
  KIMBERLYPERRY,
EXAMINING ATTORNEY
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

41 

CA 14-01346 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

KENNETH F. MAVING, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LISA M. MAVING, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

KENNEY SHELTON LIPTAK NOWAK LLP, BUFFALO (SHARI JO REICH OF COUNSEL),

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. 

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP, BUFFALO (JOHN A. COLLINS OF COUNSEL),

FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Tracey A.

Bannister, J.), entered November 13, 2013. The order granted the

quantum meruit application of defendant for attorneys’ fees. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously reversed on the law without costs and defendant’s

application is denied. 

Memorandum: In this divorce action, plaintiff appeals from an

order granting defendant’s quantum meruit application for attorneys’

fees. The parties’ stipulation of settlement, which was incorporated

but not merged into the judgment of divorce, provided that defendant

could make an application for attorneys’ fees within 15 days of the

date of the stipulation. Defendant’s attorney, however, did not file

the application until almost six months after the date of the

stipulation. 

Plaintiff contends that Supreme Court erred in granting

defendant’s late application for attorneys’ fees, which was in

violation of the stipulation of settlement. We agree. Because

“[m]arital settlement agreements are judicially favored” (Simkin v

Blank, 19 NY3d 46, 52), “[o]nly where there is cause sufficient to

invalidate a contract, such as fraud, collusion, mistake or accident,

will a party be relieved from the consequences of a stipulation made

during litigation” (Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230,

citing Matter of Frutiger, 29 NY2d 143, 149-150). Here, defendant

asserts that her attorney mistakenly thought he had 30 days from the

entry of judgment of divorce to file the application. We conclude,

however, that the unilateral mistake of defendant’s attorney does not

excuse defendant’s failure to comply with the terms of a stipulation

where, as here, the language in the stipulation is clear, unequivocal,

and unambiguous (see Morey v Sings, 174 AD2d 870, 872; Hirsch v
-2- 41 

CA 14-01346 

Manzione, 130 AD2d 714, 714-715; 27 Richard A. Lord, Williston on

Contracts § 70:104 at 520 [4th ed 1990]). 

Entered: February 6, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court