alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 19 (Friday, January 30, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 5664]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1842]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), 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 on Alcohol Abuse and 
Alcoholism, Special Emphasis Panel, AA-3 Member Conflict Review.
    Date: March 9, 2009.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 5635 
Fishers Lane, 2085, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Abraham P. Bautista, PhD, Chief, Extramural 
Project Review Branch, National Institute On Alcohol Abuse & 
Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Rm 
2085, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-443-9737, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3d5f5c4849544e495c7d505c545113535455135a524b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2b494a5e5f42585f4a6b464a424705454243054c445d">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, 
Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and 
Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, 
Alcohol Research Center Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 22, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-1842 Filed 1-29-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
The County of Guadalupe, 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 17, 2014

No. 04-14-00497-CV

David GOAD,

Appellant

v.

THE COUNTY OF GUADALUPE, TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12-1923-CV

Honorable William Old, Judge Presiding

CORRECTED ORDER

On September 5, 2014, this court issued an order requiring appellant to pay the remainder 

of the filing fee on or before November 4, 2014. That order was issued in error. Accordingly, 

we withdraw our September 5, 2014 order and render this order in its place. 

A filing fee of $195.00 was due when this appeal was filed. See TEXAS SUPREME COURT 

ORDER REGARDING FEES CHARGED IN THE SUPREME COURT, IN CIVIL CASES IN THE COURTS OF 

APPEALS, AND BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION (Misc. Docket No. 

13-9127, Aug. 16, 2013). The clerk of the court notified appellant of the total amount due in a 

letter dated July 16, 2014. On July 29, 2014, appellant paid $100.00 of the total amount due; 

however, the full amount of the fee remains unpaid despite our decision to allow appellant 

additional time to remit the remainder of the fee. Rule 5 of the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure provides:

A party who is not excused by statute or these rules from paying costs must pay –

at the time an item is presented for filing – whatever fees are required by statute 

or Supreme Court order. The appellate court may enforce this rule by any order 

that is just.

TEX. R. APP. P. 5. 

We therefore order appellant, not later than September 29, 2014 to either (1) pay the 

remaining $95.00 of the applicable filing fee, or (2) provide written proof to this court that he is 

indigent or otherwise excused by statute or the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure from paying 
the fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1 (providing that indigent party who complies with provisions of 

that rule may proceed without advance payment of costs). If appellant fails to respond 

satisfactorily within the time ordered, this appeal will be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 17th day of September, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
**EXHIBIT31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Charles M.McKenna, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify that:

1.             I have reviewed this quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q of Ibis Technology Corporation;

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

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

4.             The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)             designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)            evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

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

5.             The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent function):

a)             allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b)            anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
| Date: May 15, 2007 |   | /s/Charles M. McKenna, Ph.D.          |
|--------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|               |   | Charles M. McKenna, PH.D.             |
|               |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
- USGS Home
- Contact						   USGS
- Search USGS
-     - USGS Publications Warehouse
  - Contact
  - 							   Explore recent     publications by USGS Authors						    
  - 							   Browse all of Pubs     Warehouse by Publication type and year						    
  - FAQS
  - Web     Service Documentation
  - Other     Resources
  - 							       Descriptions of US Geological Survey Report Series 
- USGS Publications   Warehouse
- Explore    - 							   Explore recent     publications by USGS Authors						    
  - 							   Browse all of Pubs     Warehouse by Publication type and year 
- Documentation    - FAQS
  - Web     Service Documentation
  - Other     Resources
  - 							       Descriptions of US Geological Survey Report Series 
- Contact
Search:					    				    			                                             Petrology and structure of Precambrian rocks, Central City quadrangle, ColoradoProfessional Paper 554-E- By:
- P.K.   Sims and D.J. Gable                         
TweetLinks- More information:  National Geologic Map Database Index Page                                  (html)
- Document:  Document                                  (pdf)
- Plate:  Plate 1                                  (pdf)
- Download citation as:   RIS
AbstractAdditional publication details- Publication type:
- Report
- Publication Subtype:
- USGS Numbered Series
- Title:
- Petrology and structure of Precambrian rocks, Central City quadrangle,   Colorado
- Series title:
- Professional Paper
- Series number:
- 554
- Chapter:
- E
- Edition:
- -
- Year Published:
- 1967
- Language:
- ENGLISH
- Description:
- p. E1-E56
- Larger Work Type:
- Report
- Larger Work Subtype:
- USGS Numbered Series
- Larger Work Title:
- Shorter Contributions to General Geology, 1966

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found here.

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacy					   Policies and Notices				    

					   U.S. Department of the Interior				    				    | 				    U.S. Geological Survey				    				   URL: http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp554E                    				    				   Page Contact Information: Pubs Warehouse Contact Page				    				   Page Last Modified: February 02, 2012 00:10:17
##### 



(a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 the
quarterly report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the issuers disclosure controls and procedures as
of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and(c)
    
    Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls (a
pre-existing term relating to internal controls regarding financial reporting) which
could adversely affect the companys ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial data and have identified for the companys auditors any material weaknesses in
internal controls; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the companys internal controls; and
  Date: August 22, 2005
 /s/ Jay N. Torok
( tJ( 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

FILED 

JAN 27 2009 

Clerk, U.S. District and 

Bankruptcy Courts 

Jason Earl Jones, ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Petitioner, 

v. Civil Action No. on 0146 

Henry Paulson, 

Respondent. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

This action, brought pro se by a prisoner at the Kern Valley State Prison in Delano, 

California, is before the Court on its initial review of the petition for a writ of mandamus. I 

Petitioner seeks to compel the Secretary of the Treasury 

to direct the United States Secret Service to respond to Kern Valley State 

Prison and enforce the lien/foreign securities ofthe sovereign state family 

of [petitioner] and further discharge its responsibility to protect 

sovereign/ambassador [petitioner,] demanding the immediate release of 

[petitioner] and his personal property from custody. 

Pet. at 2. The extraordinary remedy of a writ of mandamus is available to compel an "officer or 

employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to plaintiff." 28 

U.S.C. § 1361. The petitioner bears a heavy burden of showing that his right to a writ of 

I The petition is accompanied by petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis 

("IFP"), in which he states that he is not incarcerated (Question 1). This is belied, however, by 

the address of record. Because the case will be dismissed on the merits, the Court will not 

prolong matters by compelling petitioner's compliance with the filing fee requirements of the 

Prison Litigation Reform Act, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915, by providing a six-month statement of his 

inmate trust fund account. Petitioner is warned nonetheless that by signing the IFP application 

and affidavit, he has attested to the truthfulness of the information contained therein. His 

untruthful statement is itself a ground for dismissal of the case. 

3 
mandamus is "clear and indisputable." In re Cheney, 406 F.3d 723, 729 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (citation 

omitted). Mandamus relief is not appropriate when another adequate remedy is available. LoBue 

v. Christopher, 82 F.3d 1081, 1082-84 (D.C. Cir. 1996). Notwithstanding petitioner's alleged 

grandeur, he ultimately seeks his release from custody. His remedy therefore lies in a writ of 

habeas corpus directed at his immediate custodian in California. See Chatman-Bey v. 

Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 806 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (where "habeas is an available and potentially 

efficacious remedy, it is clear beyond reasonable dispute that mandamus will not appropriately 

lie."); Rooney v. Secretary of Army, 405 F.3d 1029, 1032 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (habeas 'Jurisdiction 

is proper only in the district in which the immediate, not the ultimate, custodian is located") 

(internal citations and quotation marks omitted). A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this 

Memorandum Opinion. 

Date: December 'I ,2008 

2
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**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 thisQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Weida Communications, Inc. (the “Company”)for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Mitchell Sepaniak,as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Joseph Zumwalt, asChief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that, to the best of each such officer’s knowledge:

 

(1)      The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2)      The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 
|   |                                      |  /s/ Mitchell Sepaniak |   |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|--------|--------|
| Name:  | **Mitchell Sepaniak**                     |                        |
| Title: | **President and Chief Executive Officer** |                        |
| Date:  | **March 22, 2005**                        |                        |

 
|   |                        |  /s/ Joseph Zumwalt |   |   |
|--------|-----------------------------|--------------------------|--------|--------|
| Name:  | **Joseph Zumwalt**          |                     |
| Title: | **Chief Financial Officer** |                     |
| Date:  | **March 22, 2005**          |                     |

 

This certificationaccompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 and shall not, except to extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 hasbeen provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
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.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# Time and Date:

 11 a.m., Friday, August 28, 2009.

# Place:

 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.

# Status:

 Closed.

# Matters To Be Considered:

 Surveillance Matters.

# Contact Person for More Information:

 Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,

Assistant Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. E9-18346 Filed 7-28-09; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GURPREET SINGH, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-72041 

Agency No. A201-295-482 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 13, 2018**

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Gupreet Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the 

decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an immigration 

judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of 

removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

FEB 22 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-72041 

evidence the agency's factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-

85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that, although Singh 

established past persecution, the government rebutted Singh’s presumed wellfounded fear of future persecution with evidence that he could safely and 

reasonably relocate within India to avoid harm. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3); 

Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 995, 999 (9th Cir. 2003). We reject 

Singh’s contentions that the agency’s relocation analysis was insufficient and that 

the BIA failed to adequately address his argument that the IJ’s analysis was 

insufficient. Thus, his asylum claim fails.

In this case, because Singh failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he failed 

to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 1745** 

MICHAEL RUTH , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. CITY OF CREEDMOOR; ROBERT G. MORRIS, in his official and individual capacities; JOHN DOES 1

- 10, in their official and individual capacities , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. ( 5:13

- cv - 00862

- BR )

Submitted : November 10, 2015 Decided: November 30, 2015

Before KING and WYNN , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Michael Ruth , Appellant Pro Se. Dan M. Hartzog, Jr. , CRANFILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG, LLP , Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees

.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Michael Ruth appeals the district court ’s order granting summary judgment to the Defendants in his civil action. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversib le error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Ruth v. City of Creedmoor , No. 5:13

- cv - 00862

- BR (E.D.N.C. June
30, 2015). We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts a nd legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### § 1.66-5 Effective date.

Sections 1.66-1 through 1.66-4 are applicable on July 10, 2003. In addition, § 1.66-4 applies to any request for relief filed prior to July 10, 2003, for which the Internal Revenue Service has not issued a preliminary determination as of July 10, 2003.

[T.D. 9074, 68 FR 41070, July 10, 2003]