alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 127 (Friday, June 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 40672]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16620]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Center for Research Resources; 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 Center for Research Resources 
Special Emphasis Panel Comparative Medicine.
    Date: July 11, 2000.
    Time: 7:30 p.m. to Adjournment.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: The Ritz-Carlton San Juna Hotel, 6961 Avenue of the 
Governors, Isla Verde, PR 00979.
    Contact Person: William C. Angus, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Office of Review, National Center for Research 
Resources, 6705 Rockledge Drive, MSC 7965, Room 6018, Bethesda, MD 
20892-7965, 301-435-0812.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine, 93.306; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.333; 
93.371, Biomedical Technology; 93.389, Research Infrastructure, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: June 23, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-16620 Filed 6-29-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
contractor for respondent's approval) See Cuzze v. Univ. & Cmty. Coll. 

Sys. of Nev., 123 Nev. 598, 602-03, 172 P.3d 131, 134 (2007) (noting that 

when the nonmoving party bears the burden of persuasion at trial, the 

moving party may demonstrate that summary judgment is appropriate by 

"pointing out. .. that there is an absence of evidence to support the 

nonmoving party's case" (internal quotation omitted)). 

As for the deficiency judgment, we conclude that substantial 

evidence supported the district court's determination that respondent 

mitigated its damages. See Mason-McDuffie Real Estate, Inc. v. Villa 

Fiore Dev., LLC, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 83, 335 P.3d 211, 213-14 (2014) 

(recognizing that this court will not disturb a district court's factual 

findings that are supported by substantial evidence); see also Sheehan & 

Sheehan v. Nelson Malley & Co., 121 Nev. 481, 492, 117 P.3d 219, 226 

(2005) (noting that the party asserting a failure-to-mitigate-damages 

defense bears the burden to prove that damages might have been lessened 

by "reasonable diligence on the part of the aggrieved party" (internal 

quotation omitted)). In particular, evidence was presented from which it 

was reasonable for the district court to conclude that appellant's proposed 

mitigation strategies were not practicable. See Mason-McDuffie Real 

Estate, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 83, 335 P.3d at 214 (indicating that substantial 

evidence is "that which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to 

support a conclusion" (internal quotation omitted)). 

'To the extent that appellant has made arguments on appeal based 

on evidence that was procured after summary judgment was granted, we 

have not considered those arguments. Old Aztec Mine, Inc. v. Brown, 97 

Nev. 49, 52, 623 P.2d 981, 983 (1981). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 2 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A eia> 
J. 

Consistent with the foregoing, we affirm the judgment in 

Docket No. 61812. In light of our disposition of the appeal in Docket No. 

61812, we affirm the award of attorney fees and costs appealed in Docket 

No. 62478. 

It is so ORDERED. 

cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge 

Lansford W. Levitt, Settlement Judge 

David J. Winterton & Associates, Ltd. 

Holland & Hart LLP/Las Vegas 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 3 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A en
```

                                   EXHIBIT 21

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF iDNA, INC.

                                         State of     Percent by
           Corporate Name              Organization   iDNA, Inc.
------------------------------------   ------------   ----------
ARAC, Inc. (1)                           Delaware        100%
Audience Response Systems, Inc.          New York        100%
Campus Group Companies, Inc.             New York        100%
Illumine Entertainment, Inc.             Delaware        100%
NAC, Inc. (2)                            Delaware        100%
National Cinemas, Inc.                   Delaware        100%
OMI Business Communications, Inc.        New York        100%
Option Technologies Interactive, LLC      Florida        100%
ZoomLot Corporation                      Delaware        100%

          All of the subsidiaries listed above are included in the consolidated
financial statements of iDNA. iDNA also has various subsidiaries which, when
considered in the aggregate, do not constitute a significant subsidiary as of
the end of Fiscal 2006.

(1)  Formerly operated under the name of Agency Rent-A-Car and its divisions,
     Altra Auto Rental, Automate Auto Rental and National Motors.

(2)  NAC, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of ARAC, Inc.
```
*Smith, Scott, Leigh, Brown, Duncan,*JUDGES PRESENT. *Fry, Clopton, Baker, Wilson, Johnston, Gholson,*M’ *Comas, Taliaferro, Scarburg.*

#### The Commonwealth v. Howard.

December, 1844.

Indictments—Overseer of Road—Allegations.—In an indictment against an overseer of a public road for failing to keep it in repair, it is not necessary to allege that the county court had not, by an order entered of record, authorized a less width than thirty feet.

This was a case adjourned from the superior court of Harrison county. At the October term of that court for 1844, the grand jury found an indictment against Samuel Howard, an overseer of a public road in the county, for not keeping the same well cleared and smoothed, and thirty feet wide.

The defendant appeared and moved the court to quash the indictment, “because it was not alleged therein that the county court had not, by order entered of record, authorized a less width than thirty feet.” And with the consent of the defendant, the court adjourned to the general court the question, What judgment the court ought to render on the said motion to quash?

*SMITH, J.,

delivered the resolution of the court.

*226Ordered that it be certified to the circuit superior court of law and chancery for the county of Harrison, that the motion to quash the indictment for the cause stated be overruled.
§ 15.221 Operation in the band 525-1705 kHz. ( a ) Carrier current systems and transmitters employing a leaky coaxial cable as the radiating antenna may operate in the band 525-1705 kHz provided the field strength levels of the radiated emissions do not exceed 15 uV/m, as measured at a distance of 47,715/(frequency in kHz) meters (equivalent to Lambda/2Pi) from the electric power line or the coaxial cable, respectively. The field strength levels of emissions outside this band shall not exceed the general radiated emission limits in § 15.209.
( b ) As an alternative to the provisions in paragraph (a) of this section, intentional radiators used for the operation of an AM broadcast station on a college or university campus or on the campus of any other education institution may comply with the following: ( 1 ) On the campus, the field strength of emissions appearing outside of this frequency band shall not exceed the general radiated emission limits shown in § 15.209 as measured from the radiating source. There is no limit on the field strength of emissions appearing within this frequency band, except that the provisions of § 15.5 continue to comply.
( 2 ) At the perimeter of the campus, the field strength of any emissions, including those within the frequency band 525-1705 kHz, shall not exceed the general radiated emission in § 15.209.
( 3 ) The conducted limits specified in § 15.207 apply to the radio frequency voltage on the public utility power lines outside of the campus. Due to the large number of radio frequency devices which may be used on the campus, contributing to the conducted emissions, as an alternative to measuring conducted emissions outside of the campus, it is acceptable to demonstrate compliance with this provision by measuring each individual intentional radiator employed in the system at the point where it connects to the AC power lines.
( c ) A grant of equipment authorization is not required for intentional radiators operated under the provisions of this section. In lieu thereof, the intentional radiator shall be verified for compliance with the regulations in accordance with subpart J of part 2 of this chapter. This data shall be kept on file at the location of the studio, office or control room associated with the transmitting equipment. In some cases, this may correspond to the location of the transmitting equipment.
( d ) For the band 535-1705 kHz, the frequency of operation shall be chosen such that operation is not within the protected field strength contours of licensed AM stations.
[56 FR 373, Jan. 4, 1991]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 130 (Thursday, July 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41633-41634]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16987]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and Technology


Advanced Technology Program (ATP) Advisory Committee

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of 
Commerce.

ACTION: Request for nominations of members to serve on the Advance 
Technology Program Advisory Committee.

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

SUMMARY: NIST invites and requests nominations of individuals for 
appointment to the Advanced Technology Program Advisory Committee. NIST 
will consider nominations received in response to this notice for 
appointment to the Committee, in additional to nominations already 
received.

DATES: Please submit nominations on or before July 21, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Please submit nominations to Dr. Brian C. Belander, National 
Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 
1004, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1004. Nominations may also be submitted 
via FAX to 301-948-1224.
    Additional information regarding the Committee, including its 
charter and current membership list may be found on its electronic home 
page at: http://www.atp.nist.gov/atp/adv_com/ac_menu.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Brian C. Belanger, National 
Institute of

[[Page 41634]]

Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1004, 
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1004; telephone 301-975-4720, fax 301-948-1224; 
or via email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3351415a525d1d51565f525d545641735d5a40471d545c45"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2644544f47480844434a474841435466484f555208414950">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Committee will advise the Director of 
the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on ATP 
programs, plans, and policies.
    The Committee will consist of not fewer than six nor more than 
twelve members appointed by the Director of NIST and its membership 
will be balanced to reflect the wide diversity of technical disciplines 
and industrial sectors represented in ATP projects.
    The Committee will function solely as an advisory body, in 
compliance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

    Authority: Federal Advisory Committee Act: 5 U.S.C. App. 2 and 
General Services Administration Rule: 41 CFR Subpart 101-6.10.

    Dated: June 26, 2000.
Karen H. Brown,
Deputy Director.
[FR Doc. 00-16987 Filed 7-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-13-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 32.2








Section 1350


CERTIFICATION





The undersigned officer hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of COMFORCE Corporation for the quarter ended September 27, 2009 as to which this Certification is an exhibit fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d))
and (2) the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of COMFORCE Corporation.








Signed November 5, 2009.








/s/ Harry V. MaccarroneHarry V. MaccarroneExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             1027615
<SECURITIES>                                        272217
<RECEIVABLES>                                        20930
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   1251296
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     1939337
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                24332
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             13810
<OTHER-SE>                                          942055
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       1939337
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     85853
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        61552
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      42477
<INCOME-TAX>                                         11210
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         31267
<EPS-BASIC>                                            .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .02



</TABLE>
#### § 22.321 [Reserved]
#### William Robert GIBSON, Appellant, v. PREMIUM STANDARD FARMS, INC., Appellee.

No. 03-2604.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted March 5, 2004.

Decided March 25, 2004.

Jerold L. Drake, Grant City, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jeffrey D. Hanslick, Beth Ann Larigan, Blackwell & Sanders, Kansas City, MO, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

William Robert Gibson appeals from the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his Age Discrimination in Employment Act lawsuit. Upon our careful de novo review of the admissible evidence, we conclude summary judgment was proper because Gibson failed to submit evidence that Premium Standard Farm’s (PSF’s) stated reason for his termination — violation of PSF’s policy against intentional animal abuse — was a pretext for age discrimination. *See Winkle v. S.W. Bell Tel. Co.,*195 F.3d 418, 420 (8th Cir. 1999) (standard of review; burden-shifting analysis).

We also conclude Gibson’s service-letter claim fails because he did not adduce evidence that PSF’s stated reason for firing him was false. *See*Mo.Rev.Stat. § 290.140 (2000); *Stark v. Am. Bakeries Co.,*647 S.W.2d 119, 124 n. 5 (Mo.1983) (en banc).

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,

Appellant

v.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,

Appellee

ANDREW HIRSHFELD, PERFORMING THE 

FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF THE UNDER 

SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR 

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF 

THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK 

OFFICE,

Intervenor

______________________ 

2021-1166

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016-

01289.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

CHRISTOPHER DRYER, Fish & Richardson PC, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by LAUREN 

Case: 21-1166 Document: 55 Page: 1 Filed: 01/18/2022
ANN DEGNAN, JARED HARTZMAN, WALTER KARL RENNER. 

 CHRISTOPHER PEPE, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, 

Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by 

ANISH R. DESAI, New York, NY. 

 PETER JOHN SAWERT, Office of the Solicitor, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for intervenor. Also represented by DANIEL KAZHDAN, 

THOMAS W. KRAUSE, MAUREEN DONOVAN QUELER, 

FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED, MOLLY R. SILFEN. 

 ______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (PROST, CHEN, and HUGHES, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

January 18, 2022 

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 21-1166 Document: 55 Page: 2 Filed: 01/18/2022
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 41466]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16910]


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

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA-1331-DR]


Tennessee; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the 
State of Tennessee, (FEMA-1331-DR), dated June 12, 2000, and related 
determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 19, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madge Dale, Response and Recovery 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, 
(202) 646-3772.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster for the State 
of Tennessee is hereby amended to include the following area among 
those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the 
catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of June 12, 2000: Weakley County for Public Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 83.537, Community 
Disaster Loans; 83.538, Cora Brown Fund Program; 83.539, Crisis 
Counseling; 83.540, Disaster Legal Services Program; 83.541, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 83.542, Fire Suppression 
Assistance; 83.543, Individual and Family Grant (IFG) Program; 
83.544, Public Assistance Grants; 83.545, Disaster Housing Program; 
83.548, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)


Robert J. Adamcik,
Deputy Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate.
[FR Doc. 00-16910 Filed 7-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4355

To suspend until January 1, 1998, the duty on fluvoxamine maleate.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 5, 1994

Mr. GINGRICH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To suspend until January 1, 1998, the duty on fluvoxamine

maleate.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. FLUVOXAMINE MALEATE.

4 Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tar5 iff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting

6 in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.31.12 Fluvoxamine

maleate (provided for in subheadings

2928.00.20 and

3004.90.60) ...... Free No change No change On or before

12/31/97 ’’.
2

•HR 4355 IH

1 SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The amendment made by section

3 1 applies with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from

4 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after

5 the date of the enactment of this Act.

6 (b) RETROACTIVE PROVISION.—Notwithstanding sec7 tion 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision

8 of law to the contrary, upon a request filed with the appro9 priate customs officer before the 90th day after the date

10 of the enactment of this Act, any entry or withdrawal from

11 warehouse for consumption of goods to which the amend12 ment made by section 1 applies and that was made—

13 (1) after December 31, 1992; and

14 (2) before the 15th day after the date of the en15 actment of this Act;

16 and with respect to which there would have been no duty

17 or a lower duty if the amendment made by section 1 had

18 applied to such entry or withdrawal, shall be liquidated

19 or reliquidated as though such entry or withdrawal had

20 occurred on such 15th day.

Æ
Consent of Price Waterhouse LLP - Exhibit 23.1


     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration 
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-3388 and 333-10253) and in the Registration 
Statement on Form S-4 (333-6086) of Cotelligent Group, Inc. of our report dated
April 29, 1997, appearing on page 21 of Cotelligent Group, Inc,'s Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 1997.  We also consent to the 
reference to us under the heading "Selected Financial Data".  However, it
should be noted that Price Waterhouse LLP has not prepared or certified such
"Selected Financial Data".

(Signature of Price Waterhouse Appears Here)
Price Waterhouse
Minneapolis, Minnesota
June 30, 1997





                                       50
<PAGE>
#### § 302-9.103 Do I have to ship my POV to my actual post of duty?

Yes, you must ship your POV to your actual post of duty. You may not transport the POV to an alternate location.
#### Rodney Victor HARRIS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Betty SPEARS, Social Services Worker of the Social Services Department of Pembroke, Virginia; Social Services Department of Pembroke, Virginia, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 03-7855.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 11, 2004.

Decided March 18, 2004.

Rodney Victor Harris, Appellant pro se. Jim Harold Guynn, Jr., Guynn, Memmer & Dillon, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appel-lees.

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

*32Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Rodney Victor Harris appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we deny Harris’s motions to stay and to submit circuit court transcripts and all motions set forth therein, and we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See Harris v. Spears,*No. CA-03-562-7 (W.D.Va. Nov. 20, 2003). 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*