alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1c.115 IRB Records. ( a ) An institution, or when appropriate an IRB, shall prepare and maintain adequate documentation of IRB activities, including the following: ( 1 ) Copies of all research proposals reviewed, scientific evaluations, if any, that accompany the proposals, approved sample consent forms, progress reports submitted by investigators, and reports of injuries to subjects.
( 2 ) Minutes of IRB meetings, which shall be in sufficient detail to show attendance at the meetings; actions taken by the IRB; the vote on these actions including the number of members voting for, against, and abstaining; the basis for requiring changes in or disapproving research; and a written summary of the discussion of controverted issues and their resolution.
( 3 ) Records of continuing review activities, including the rationale for conducting continuing review of research that otherwise would not require continuing review as described in § 1c.109(f)(1).
( 4 ) Copies of all correspondence between the IRB and the investigators.
( 5 ) A list of IRB members in the same detail as described in § 1c.108(a)(2).
( 6 ) Written procedures for the IRB in the same detail as described in § 1c.108(a)(3) and (4).
( 7 ) Statements of significant new findings provided to subjects, as required by § 1c.116(c)(5).
( 8 ) The rationale for an expedited reviewer's determination under § 1c.110(b)(1)(i) that research appearing on the expedited review list described in § 1c.110(a) is more than minimal risk.
( 9 ) Documentation specifying the responsibilities that an institution and an organization operating an IRB each will undertake to ensure compliance with the requirements of this policy, as described in § 1c.103(e).
( b ) The records required by this policy shall be retained for at least 3 years, and records relating to research that is conducted shall be retained for at least 3 years after completion of the research. The institution or IRB may maintain the records in printed form, or electronically. All records shall be accessible for inspection and copying by authorized representatives of the Federal department or agency at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 0990-0260)
§ 1786.96 Definitions. As used in this subpart: *Act* means the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended (7 U.S.C. 901 *et seq.*).
*Administrator* means the Administrator of RUS.
*Consolidation* means: ( 1 ) The combination, pursuant to state law, of two or more borrower or nonborrower organizations into a new successor organization that takes over the assets and assumes the liabilities of those organizations; or
( 2 ) Any other transaction including an acquisition which has substantially the same effect.
*Discounted Present Value* shall have the meaning specified in § 1786.98.
*Fund* means the Rural Electrification and Telephone Revolving Fund pursuant to the Act.
*Merger* means: ( 1 ) The combination, pursuant to state law, of two or more borrower or nonborrower organizations into an existing survivor organization that takes over the assets and assumes the liabilities of the merged organizations; or
( 2 ) Any other transaction including an acquisition which has substantially the same effect.
*REA* means the Rural Electrification Administration formerly an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture and predecessor agency to RUS with respect to administering certain electric and telephone loan programs.
*RUS* means the Rural Utilities Service, an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture established pursuant to Section 232 of the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-354, 108 Stat. 3178), successor to REA with respect to administering certain electric and telephone programs. See 7 CFR 1700.1.
*RUS Loan Agreement* means the agreement between the borrower and RUS providing for loans pursuant to the Act.
*RUS Notes* means those notes, bonds or other obligations evidencing indebtedness created by loans made or guaranteed by RUS pursuant to titles I and III of the Act (7 U.S.C. 901-940).
[56 FR 37268, Aug. 6, 1991, as amended at 59 FR 66440, Dec. 27, 1994]
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 accompanying report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 of Global Partners LP
(the "Partnership") and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas J. Hollister, Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer and
Chief Financial Officer of Global GP LLC, the general partner of the Partnership, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|Dated: November 9, 2007 |  | By: | /s/THOMAS J. HOLLISTERThomas J. Hollister
Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer and
Chief Financial Officer of Global GP LLC,
general partner of Global Partners LP
|----------------------- |  | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with thequarterly report on Form 10-Q of Advanced Life Sciences Holdings, Inc.(the “Company”) for the fiscal quarter ending June 30, 2009 (the “Report”),I, John L. Flavin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 to the extent applicable; and

 

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 
|   | Date: August 11, 2009           |
|--------|--------------------------------------|
|   |                                 |
|   |                                 |
|   | /s/ John L. Flavin                   |
|   | John L. Flavin                       |
|   | Chief Financial Officer              |
|   | Advanced Life Sciences Holdings, Inc |

 

1

----
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DEBORAH DUROSS GUIBORD,

Appellant,

v.

GUARDIANSHIP OF KATHLEEN DUROSS FORD,

Appellee.

No. 4D2023-1070

[July 11, 2024]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Laura Johnson, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2018-GA-000542-

XXXX-NB.

Harriet Rae Freeman and James R. Merola of Merola & Freeman, P.A., 

Palm Beach Gardens, and Sonia E. O’Donnell, Robert A. O’Donnell, and 

Donald E. Christopher of O’Donnell Christopher LLP, Miami Springs, and 

Jefferson P. Knight of The Knight Law Firm, Miami, for appellant.

Kara Rockenbach Link of Link & Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach,

and F. Gregory Barnhart and Jack Scarola of Searcy Denney Scarola 

Barnhart & Shipley, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**

Board of Directors and Stockholders  Microlog Corporation 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-84375 dated August 3, 1999, 333-69025 dated  December 16, 1998, 333-07981 dated July 11, 1996, 333-34094 dated March 30,  1990, and 333-30965 dated September 11, 1989) of our report dated January 6,  2004, (except for Note 8, as to which the date is January 28, 2004) with respect  to the consolidated financial statements of Microlog Corporation included in  the Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended October 31, 2003. 

Vienna, Virginia 

**January 6, 2004, (except for Note 8, as to which the date  is January 28, 2004.)**
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 29, 2018

t0627 

# Order

Clerk June 29, 2018

154565 (84)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 154565

COA: 325569

Wayne CC: 13

- 009087

- FC

LAVERE DOUGLAS

- LE BRYANT,

Defendant

- Appellee.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s May 16, 2018

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because i t does not appear that the order was

entered erroneously.
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

DONALD K. LEACOCK, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0186 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Coconino County

Nos. S0300CR20080187

 S0300CR20080511

The Honorable Mark R. Moran, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Coconino County Attorney’s Office, Flagstaff

By Stacy Lynn Krueger

Counsel for Respondent

Donald K. Leacock, Florence

Petitioner

FILED 7-31-2018
STATE v. LEACOCK

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz, Judge Jennifer B. Campbell, and Judge 

James P. Beene delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Donald K. Leacock seeks review of the superior 

court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant 

to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is petitioner’s third 

successive petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction 

relief. State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner’s 

burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying 

the petition for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 

538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of 

discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the 

petition for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse 

of discretion.

¶4 We grant review but deny relief.
Editorial Note on Part 1980
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1980 appear at 80 FR 9905, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1980.1004 Funding. Unless the Agency publishes a notice that indicates otherwise, the Agency will reserve funds according to the procedures specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section for each of the programs identified in § 1980.1002 each fiscal year. ( a ) *Individual program basis.* The Agency will reserve funds on an individual program basis.
( b ) *Percentage of funds.* The Agency will reserve up to 15 percent of the funds made available in a fiscal year to each program identified in § 1980.1002. The percentage of funds to be set aside will be published in a notice in the Federal Register on an annual basis. The Agency may reserve the same or different percentages for each program in a single fiscal year.
( c ) *Unobligated funds.* In accordance with 7 U.S.C. 2008v, all Strategic Economic and Community Development (SECD) reserved funds will be reserved for the 1-year period beginning on the date on which the funds were first made available. The Agency has determined that for both non-annual and annually appropriated programs, SECD reserved funding will be available for obligation until dates established by covered programs as specified in a SECD annual Federal Register publication. Reserved funds in annual programs not obligated by September 30 will be reconciled according to applicable law.
[80 FR 28816, May 20, 2015, as amended at 85 FR 59393, Sept. 22, 2020]
EXHIBIT 31.1              CERTIFICATION
I, Robert L. Saxe, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
Research Frontiers Incorporated ("RFI" or the "registrant") certify
that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of RFI;

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in
this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about
the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the
end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting.

Dated: March 12, 2004         /s/ Robert L. Saxe
                              Robert L. Saxe
Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer
Non-Employee Director Compensation Plan



  
 Exhibit 10.2

  
 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION PLAN 

 

	1)	All director annual retainer and meeting fees will be paid in the form of Restricted Stock Units (“RSU”); 

  

	2)	The vesting schedule for the RSUs will be as follows: 

  

	 	A.	First Tranche (one-third of the RSU) - earlier of (a) the third anniversary of the grant date and (b) the date a Director ceases to be a Director of the Company;


  

	 	B.	Second Tranche (remaining two-thirds of the RSU) - the date the Director ceases to be a Director of the Company; 

  

	3)	Directors have the option to defer the First Tranche pursuant to the terms of the Plan and the Company may elect to make payment in the form of Company Common Stock or cash; and


  

	4)	The schedule of fees is as follows: 

  

				
	 A. Director Annual Retainer
	  	- $	180,000
	 B. Chairman BOD
	  	- $	120,000
	 C. Chairman of Audit
	  	- $	35,000
	 D. Chairs of Committees
	  	- $	20,000
	 E. Audit Committee Member
	  	- $	20,000
###### Editorial Note on Part 1942

#### Editorial Notes:

Nomenclature changes to part 1942 appear at 80 FR 9878, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### §§ 1942.22-1942.29 [Reserved]
Second Department,

March, 1967

(March 1, 1967)

#### In the Matter of R. D. 184 Rest. Inc., Petitioner, v. New York State Liquor Authority et al., Respondents.

Proceeding under CPLR article 78 to annul a determination of the respondent State Liquor Authority, made January 20, 1967, after a hearing, which cancelled petitioner’s restaurant liquor license as of January 26,1967 on a charge that the conduct of its president and director, in connection with other licensed premises of which he was the sole owner of record, was of such improper nature as to warrant revocation, cancellation or suspension of petitioner’s license in accordance with rule 36 (subd. 14 [or subd. (n)]) of the Rules of the State Liquor Authority (9 NYCRR 53.1 [n]). Said conduct, as charged, consisted of misrepresentations in 1961,1962 and 1963 (and other dates not specified) having to do with the financing of his purchase of said other premises of which he was the sole owner. By order of the Supreme Court, *836Kings County, dated February 14, 1967, the proceeding was transferred to this court for disposition (CPLR 7804, subd. [g]). Petition granted and determination of the State Liquor Authority annulled, on the law, without costs; and the Authority directed to reinstate forthwith petitioner’s restaurant liquor license for the period January 26, 1967 to February 28, 1967, both dates inclusive. No questions of fact have been considered. The determination under review could not properly be based on the violation in question, which occurred prior to the license period immediately preceding the last renewal of the license *(Matter of Hacker*v. *State Liq. Auth.,*19 N Y 2d 177; *Matter of Vilabar Cafe*v. *State Liq. Auth.,*19 N Y 2d 186). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### William Mielauckas, Respondent, v. William Friede, Doing Business under the Name of Friede Trucking Company, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered May 31, 1966, reversed on the law and facts, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event, unless within 30 days after entry of the order hereon plaintiff shall serve and file a written stipulation, consenting to reduce the amount of the verdict in his favor from $52,500 to $40,000 and to the entry of an amended judgment accordingly, in which event the judgment, as so reduced and amended, is affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, the amount of verdict in plaintiff’s favor was excessive to the extent indicated. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 6674]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2886]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for 
Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, February 25, 2010, 1 p.m. to 
February 25, 2010, 4 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the Federal 
Register on February 1, 2010, 75 FR 5092.
    The meeting will be held February 22, 2010, from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. 
The meeting location remains the same.
    The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: February 2, 2010.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-2886 Filed 2-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
skip navigation

        -  Coins & Medals 
        -  Shop Online 
        -  News & Media 
        -  Customer Service 
        -  Education 
        -  About Us 

----

        -  Home 
        -  Pressroom 
        -  Legislation 
        -  Press Image Library 
        -  Coins Online Newsletter 

Print Friendly| News and Views: 2006 Issues |
|-----------------------------|
| January                     |  |  |
| April                       |  |  |
| June                        |  |  |
| August                      |  |  |
| November                    |  |  |
|                        |
| News and Views: 2005 Issues |
| January                     |  |  |
| April                       |  |  |
| June                        |  |  |
| September                   |  |  |
| October                     |  |  |
|                        |
| News and Views: 2004 Issues |
| January                     |  |  |
| April                       |  |  |
| August                      |  |   |
| October                     |  |  |
|                        |
| News and Views: 2003 Issues |
| January                     |  |   |
| March                       |  |  |
| June                        |  |  |
| August                      |  |  |
| October                     |  |  |

 
|    Adobe Acrobat Reader is required for the above PDF links. |  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|

          -  Online Catalog 
          -  Terms of Use 

          -  Site Map 
          -  Privacy Policy 

          -  Website Information 
          -  No FEAR Act Data 

          - FOIA 
          -  www.treasury.gov 

          -  FAQs 
          -  www.usa.gov 

          -  Tours 
          -  www.ccac.gov 

          -  Contact Us
#### The Commonwealth, for Sanders, *vs.*Herndon (sheriff,) and his sureties.

Debt,.

When a sheriff" summons a jury to try the right of property, and they cannot agree,the claimant fails to succeed, the sheriff' is bound to sell, and is not liable • to any suit on account of such' ’sale.

[Messrs. Sanders and Depew for Plaintiff: Messrs. Morehead and Brown for Defendants.]

From the Circuit Court for Scott County.

*November 11.*

Judge Underwood,

delived the Opinion of the Court.

This action was instituted upon the official bond of Herndon, to render him liable for a slave sold under execution, purchased by Sanders, aud afterwards recovered from him by the true owner, in an action of detinue.

A jury ivas empannelled to try the right of property, and upon their failure to render a verdict, the sheriff sold the slave. It seems that the jury informed the sheriff they could not agree, and dispersed.

*430No costs.

The liability of the sheriff to Sanders, if there be any, grows out of the sale of the slave to him.

The act of '1803, 2 Dig. 1047, makes it the duty of the sheriff to sell the property, where the claimant does, not succeed in establishing his right before the jury. If there is no verdict rendered in favor of the claimant, it cannot be said that he succeeds. Consequently, in such a case, the sheriff should sell; and if' he does, the act declares he shall “not be liable to any suit on account of such sale.” This suit is an attempt to make him liable, contrary to the letter and spirit of the statute, and cannot be sustained.

Judgment affirmed, but without costs, as defendants are in default.