alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1532.1300 Can I resolve my eligibility status under terms of an administrative agreement without having to submit a formal reinstatement request? ( a ) The EPA debarring official may, at any time, resolve your CAA or CWA eligibility status under the terms of an administrative agreement. Ordinarily, the debarring official will not make an offer to you for reinstatement until after the administrative record for decision is complete, or contains enough information to enable him or her to make an informed decision in the matter.
( b ) Any resolution of your eligibility status under the CAA or CWA resulting from an administrative agreement must include a certification that the condition giving rise to the conviction has been corrected.
( c ) The EPA debarring official may enter into an administrative agreement to resolve CAA or CWA disqualification issues as part of a comprehensive criminal plea, civil or administrative agreement when it is in the best interest of the United States to do so.
§ 1134.130 Requesting extensions of due dates for performance reports. ( a ) *OMB guidance.* OMB guidance in 2 CFR 200.328(b)(1) states that, if a recipient submits a justified request for an extension in the due date for any interim or final performance report under a grant or cooperative agreement, an agency may extend the due date.
( b ) *DoD implementation.* A DoD Component's general terms and conditions for non-construction awards must specify that a recipient may request an extension of the due date for interim or final performance reports. DoD Components should grant requests that provide adequate justification. For a DoD Component that pre-approves a 30-day extension of due dates for final performance reports in its general terms and conditions, as described in § 1134.125(b)(1)(ii) and (c)(1)(ii), any award-specific extensions would be beyond the pre-approved 30-day extension.
( c ) *Award terms and conditions.* To implement the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, a DoD Component's general terms and conditions for non-construction awards must include the wording that appendix A to this part provides for Section D of REP Article I on extensions of performance reporting due dates.
Skip NavigationEn Español

You are here:                Home » Disorders A - Z » Epilepsy »             

# Seizures and Epilepsy: Hope Through Research

Skip secondary menu

Home

Disorders A - Z

Information Page

Publications

Organizations

News

Research literature

Other related groupsOrganizationsProfessional SocietiesGovernment Resources

CRC Clinical Trials

En EspañolOrder Brochures

News From NINDS

Recovery Act

Funding Information

Training & Career Awards

Research Programs

Find People

About NINDS

 

Email this pagePrint-friendly versionContact NINDS

----

Adobe ReaderMicrosoft Word Viewer

**Clinical Trials**

                    - 
                    - 
                    - 
                    - 

**Brain Infusion of Muscimol to Treat Epilepsy**

More Information »See All Trials »

**The Epilepsy Phenome/Genome Project**

More Information »See All Trials »

**Radiosurgery vs Lobectomy for Temporal Lobe Epilepsy (ROSE)**

More Information »See All Trials »

See a list of all NINDS Disorders

Get Web page suited for printing                              			Email this to a friend or colleague                              			                              			Request free mailed brochure                              		Crisis Epilépticas: Esperanza en la Investigación

## Table of Contents (click to jump to sections)
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### N OTICE OF 

### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

Cause number: 01

- 13

- 00970

- CV

Style: In the Interest of T.M.D, Jr., B.M.D., Z.T.D and E.M.D.

, children

v Department of Family and Protective Services

Date motion filed * : February 21, 2014

Type of motion: Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant’s Brief

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed: Appellant’s Brief

If motion to extend time:

Original Due Date : February 24, 2014

Number of previous extensions granted: 0

Date Requested : No date specified

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: March 14, 2014

 The Clerk is instructed to file the document as of the date of this order

 Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend

time

 Denied

 Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

Appellant’s brief was due on February 24, 2014. On February 21, 2014, appellant filed a motion

requesting an unspecified extension of time to file appellant’s brief . Appellant stated that extension

request is due to her needing a supplemental reporter’s record containing the transcript for the January 16,

2014 hearing on appellant’s motion for a new trial. The supplemental reporter’s record was filed on

February 27, 2014.

Appellant’s motion is granted . Appellant’s brief is due on March 14, 2014 . Appellee’s brief is due 20

days after the filing of appellant’s brief . In light of the short time available to resolve this appeal, no

further briefing extensions will be g ranted absent extraordinary circumstances.

Judge's signature: /s/ Michael Massengale

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Panel consists of

_____________________________________________

Date: February 27, 2014
###### Editorial Note on Part 70

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 70 appear at 81 FR 86910, Dec. 2, 2016.

#### § 70.23a Hearing required for uranium enrichment facility.

The Commission will hold a hearing under 10 CFR part 2, subparts A, C, G, and I, on each application for issuance of a license for construction and operation of a uranium enrichment facility. The Commission will publish public notice of the hearing in the Federal Register at least thirty (30) days before the hearing.

[69 FR 2280, Jan. 14, 2004]
**31.2
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

 

           I, Lisa Norman, certify that:

     1)   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of American Home Alliance Corporation.

     2)   Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of 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 quarterly report.

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

By:  /s/ Lisa Norman****
Editorial Note on Part 180
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 180 appear at 79 FR 75879, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 180.870 When do I know if the debarring official debars me? ( a ) The debarring official must make a written decision whether to debar within 45 days of closing the official record. The official record closes upon the debarring official's receipt of final submissions, information and findings of fact, if any. The debarring official may extend that period for good cause.
( b ) The debarring official sends you written notice, pursuant to § 180.615 that the official decided, either— ( 1 ) Not to debar you; or
( 2 ) To debar you. In this event, the notice: ( i ) Refers to the Notice of Proposed Debarment;
( ii ) Specifies the reasons for your debarment;
( iii ) States the period of your debarment, including the effective dates; and
( iv ) Advises you that your debarment is effective for covered transactions and contracts that are subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR chapter 1), throughout the executive branch of the Federal Government unless an agency head or an authorized designee grants an exception.
#### In the Matter of Josselyn M. Shore et al., Respondents, v. Joy C. Zagoren et al., Appellants, et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding to invalidate a petition purporting (1) to protest against a resolution adopted on February 10, 1970 by the Town Board of the Town of North Hempstead approving a proposal for the erection of a roof structure to cover a certain ice skating rink and (2) to request a referendum upon the resolution, the appeal is from (a) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered April 21, 1970, which declared the petition void, and (b) an order of the same court, entered the same day, which denied a motion by appellants, Joy C. Zagoren and Robert H. Zagoren (respondents at Special Term) for reargument. Appeal from order dismissed, without costs. No appeal lies from an order denying reargument. Judgment affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Christ, P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Martuscello and *Brennan,*JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published

and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-50489

Summary Calendar

VERONICA T. DAVIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

BAPTIST MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, doing business as Baptist

Medical Center Hospital, et al,

Defendants,

BAPTIST MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, doing business as Baptist Memorial Center Hospital,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Texas

(SA-93-CV-599)

January 9, 1998

Before WISDOM, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Veronica T. Davis sued Baptist Memorial Hospital System, her former employer, and several

of its employees for racial discrimination in violation of Tit le VII o f the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Following a jury trial, she recovered $15,00 0 in punit ive damages. On November 13, 1995, both

parties filed post-tri al motions seeking to amend the judgment. Davis specifically requested the court

to invoke its equitable powers to grant an appropriate remedy to compensate her for lost wages, both

past and future. On March 28, 1996, the district court denied all post-trial motio ns except t hat it

granted Davis an award of attorneys’ fees. Davis filed a motion to reconsider on April 8, 1996, but

that motion was denied on April 30. Davis filed a notice of appeal on May 8,1996. This Court2 Davis does not specifically state that she is relying upon this rule. Rule 60(b)(6) is the only

possible basis for her motion, however, because that motion was filed after the 10-day time period

for a valid Rule 59 motion and it does not qualify under subparts (1) - (5) of Rule 60(b).

3 Lancaster v. Presley , 35 F.3d 229, 231 (5th Cir. 1994).

4 Id .; Latham v. Wells Fargo Bank , 987 F.2d 1199, 1203 (5th Cir. 1993).

5 See Lancaster , 35 F.3d at 232.

2 dismissed Davis’s appeal as untimely on August 13, 1996.

On January 2, 1997, Davis filed more post-tri al motions in the district court, seeking equitable

relief, an opportuni ty to reopen her case, and a hearing. We read these motions to be filed under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). 2 The district court denied those motions on May 12, 1997. On June 10, 1997,

Davis filed her notice of appeal. We review the district court’s denial o f Davis’s Rule 60(b)(6)

motion for abuse of discretion. 3

We have held on numerous occasions that Rule 60(b) cannot be used as a substitute for a

t imely appeal. 4 The issues raised by Davis’s current motion are substantially the same as those raised

in her previous post-tri al motions. The district court has already ruled against her, and Davis failed

to perfect a t imely appeal. Davis cannot revive that previous disput e by merely reasserting those

issues in another Rule 60(b) motion. 5

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Davis’s motions. The judgment is

AFFIRMED.
#### Alma L. RAMEY, petitioner, v. Hershel W. GOBER, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

No. 97-7457.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 2, 1998.

Case below, 9 Vet. App. 40; 120 F.3d 1289.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
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 Quarterly Report of SITI-Sites.com, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), We, Lawrence M. Powers, Chief Executive Officer and Toni Ann
Tantillo, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 Act of 2002, that:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
result of operations of the Company.   /s/   Lawrence M. PowersLawrence M. PowersChief Executive Officer/s/   Toni Ann TantilloToni Ann TantilloChief Financial Officer
  August 14, 2006
   13
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                              29,879
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       51,423
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,367,381
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,466,887
<PP&E>                                             325,233
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (106,260)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,768,398
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,703,153
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                            252
<COMMON>                                             1,851
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,686,378
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,768,398
<SALES>                                            172,161
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   172,161
<CGS>                                               89,140
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       89,140
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   512,135
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  16,343
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (399,227)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (399,227)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (399,227)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        

</TABLE>
§ 830.202 Safety basis. ( a ) The contractor responsible for a Hazard Category 1, 2, or 3 DOE nuclear facility must establish and maintain the safety basis for the facility.
( b ) In establishing the safety basis for a Hazard Category 1, 2, or 3 DOE nuclear facility, the contractor responsible for the facility must: ( 1 ) Define the scope of the work to be performed;
( 2 ) Identify and analyze the hazards associated with the work;
( 3 ) Categorize the facility consistent with DOE-STD-1027-92 (“Hazard Categorization and Accident Analysis Techniques for compliance with DOE Order 5480.23, Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports,” Change Notice 1, September 1997);
( 4 ) Prepare a documented safety analysis for the facility; and
( 5 ) Establish the hazard controls upon which the contractor will rely to ensure adequate protection of workers, the public, and the environment.
( c ) In maintaining the safety basis for a Hazard Category 1, 2, or 3 DOE nuclear facility, the contractor responsible for the facility must: ( 1 ) Update the safety basis to keep it current and to reflect changes in the facility, the work and the hazards as they are analyzed in the documented safety analysis;
( 2 ) Annually provide DOE the current documented safety analysis or a letter stating that there have been no changes in the documented safety analysis since the prior submittal; and
( 3 ) Incorporate in the safety basis any changes, conditions, or hazard controls directed by DOE.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 849 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 849

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                          June 7, 2006.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 5521) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the 
bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the 
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill 
shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill 
for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. Notwithstanding 
clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the bill shall be in order except those 
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. 
Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may 
be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as 
read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided 
and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to 
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered 
as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                        OF QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10 - QSB
                              OF SIONIX CORPORATION
                      FOR THE PERIOD ENDED December 31, 2006

         The undersigned is the Chief Executive Officer of Sionix Corporation
(the "Company"). This certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This certification accompanies the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2006 (the
"Report").

         I, James J. Houtz, certify that:

         (i)      the Report fully complies with the requirements of section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

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

This certification is executed as of June 12, 2007

                                       /s/ James J. Houtz
                                       ------------------
                                       James J. Houtz, Chief Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT 10.2****SUMMARY OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS**     Each director who also is not an associate of Westcorp or its subsidiaries (*i.e*., all of ourdirectors except for Ernest Rady and Thomas Wolfe) receive $5,000 for each quarterly board meetingthat they attend, $2,250 for each non-quarterly board meeting that they attend, and $1,500 for eachcommittee meeting that they attend that is not held in conjunction with a board meeting.Additionally, directors receive $700 for participation in an earnings press release conferencecall. Directors who are associates of Westcorp or its subsidiaries do not receive additionalcompensation for their services as directors. Directors who attend a Westcorp and WFS Financial Incboard meeting on the same day are compensated for only one of the two meetings.     Our directors also are eligible to receive stock options and restricted stock awards on adiscretionary basis, pursuant to the terms of the Westcorp 2001 Stock Incentive Plan.     The compensation arrangements we have with our directors are reviewed and may be modified fromtime to time by our Board of Directors.
§ 1126.3 Exceptions from requirements in this subchapter. ( a ) *Exceptions that are not permitted.* A DoD Component may not grant any exception to the requirements in this subchapter if the exception is: ( 1 ) Prohibited by statute, executive order, or regulation;
( 2 ) Inconsistent with the OMB implementation of the Single Audit Act in Subpart F of 2 CFR part 200.
( b ) *Other exceptions.* Other exceptions are permitted from requirements in this subchapter for institutions of higher education, nonprofit organizations, States, local governments, and Indian tribes as follows: ( 1 ) *Statutory or regulatory exceptions.* A DoD Component's general terms and conditions may incorporate a requirement that is inconsistent with the requirements in this subchapter if that requirement is specifically authorized or required by a statute or regulation adopted in the Code of Federal Regulations after opportunity for public comment.
( 2 ) *Individual exceptions.* The Head of the DoD Component or his or her designee may approve an individual exception affecting only one award in accordance with procedures stated in 32 CFR 21.340.
( 3 ) *Small awards.* A DoD Component's terms and conditions for small awards may apply less restrictive requirements than those specified in this subchapter (a small award is an award for which the total value of obligated funding through the life of the award is not expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold).
( 4 ) *Other class exceptions.* The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering or his or her designee may approve any class exception affecting multiple awards other than small awards, with OMB concurrence if the class exception is for a requirement that is inconsistent with OMB guidance in 2 CFR part 200. Procedures for DoD Components' requests for class exceptions are stated in 32 CFR 21.340.