alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.                  

###### Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

# Date and Time:

Thursday, March 15, 2007, 1 p.m., Eastern Time.

# Place:

Clarence M. Mitchell, Jr. Conference Room on the Ninth Floor of the EEOC Office Building, 1801 “L” Street, NW., Washington, DC 20507.

# Status:

The meeting will be open to the public.

# Matters to be Considered:

*Open Session:*

1. Announcement of Notation Votes, and

2. FY 2007 Budget Allocations for the State and Local Program.

# Note:

                        In accordance with the Sunshine Act, the meeting will be open to public observation of the Commission's deliberations and voting. (In addition to publishing notices on EEOC Commission meetings in the                         **Federal Register**                        , the Commission also provides a recorded announcement a full week in advance on future Commission sessions.)                    

Please telephone (202) 663-7100 (voice) and (202) 663-4074 (TTY) at any time for information on these meetings. The EEOC provides sign language interpretation at Commission meetings for the hearing impaired. Requests for other reasonable accommodations may be made by using the voice and TTY numbers listed above.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Stephen Llewellyn, Acting Executive Officer on (202) 663-4070.

Dated: March 6, 2007.

Stephen Llewellyn,

Acting Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat.

[FR Doc. 07-1108 Filed 3-6-07; 1:27 pm]

BILLING CODE 6570-06-M
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board
of Managers

DB Commodity Services LLC:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-163552) of PowerShares DB US Dollar Index Bearish Fund and Subsidiary of our reports dated
February 24, 2010, with respect to the consolidated statements of financial condition, including the consolidated schedules of investments, of PowerShares DB US Dollar Index Bearish Fund and Subsidiary as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and
the related consolidated statements of income and expenses, changes in shareholders equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2009 and the period from February 15, 2007 (commencement of
investment operations) to December 31, 2007 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009, which reports appear in the December 31, 2009 Annual Report on Form 10-K of PowerShares DB US
Dollar Index Bearish Fund and Subsidiary.

/s/ KPMG LLP



|                  
|------------------
|                  
|New York, New York
|February 24, 2010
#### §§ 86.19-86.20 [Reserved]
#### § 110.20-1 Equivalents.

The Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Center (MSC), may approve any arrangement, fitting, appliance, apparatus, equipment, calculation, information, or test that provides a level of safety equivalent to that established by specific provisions of this subchapter. Requests for approval must be submitted to the Marine Safety Center. If necessary, the Marine Safety Center may require engineering evaluations and tests to demonstrate the equivalence of the substitute.

[CGD 94-108, 61 FR 28275, June 4, 1996]
United States District Court

Eastern District of Louisiana

New Orleans Division

Anh “Joseph” Cao,

Republican National Committee, and

Republican Party of Louisiana,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Federal Election Commission,

Defendant

Civil Action No. 2:08-cv-4887-HGB-ALC

Section C, Mag. 5

[Proposed] Order

At the request and stipulation of the parties, the Court hereby clarifies that all claims by all

plaintiffs have been dismissed with prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this ___ day of April, 2011.

HELEN G. BERRIGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

3rd

 Hello This is a Test

May

Case 2:08-cv-04887-HGB-ALC Document 112 Filed 05/04/11 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MADISON BOYKIN and BEVERLY BOYKIN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 14-12745

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST HON. AVERN COHN

COMPANY, as Trustee for Long Beach

Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-1 and SELECT

PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 8)

This is a case challenging foreclosure proceedings following a default on a

mortgage obligation. Plaintiffs Madison and Beverly Boykin are suing defendants

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Loan

Trust 2005-1 and Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. The foreclosure has taken place and

the redemption period has expired. Nevertheless, plaintiffs believed they have a right to

the property, and in particular a right to a loan modification. On December 16, 2014, the

Court issued a Memorandum and Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12). In

the Memorandum, the Court explained that plaintiffs’ claims lack plausible merit and that

defendants’ motion should be granted. However, the Court delayed entered an order

granting defendants’ motion for 60 days to allow plaintiffs a final opportunity to obtain a

loan modification. See Doc. 12 at p. 14. The 60 day time limit was subsequently

extended as plaintiffs proceeded through the loan modification process. On June 18,

2:14-cv-12745-AC-RSW Doc # 16 Filed 06/23/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 367
2015, the parties advised the Court that plaintiffs’ request for a loan modification has

been denied and their appeal has also been denied. (Doc 15). In light of this filing, and

for all the reasons stated in the Memorandum, defendants’ motion to dismiss is

GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

S/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: June 23, 2015

Detroit, Michigan

2

2:14-cv-12745-AC-RSW Doc # 16 Filed 06/23/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 368
§ 900.205 Environmental assessment. ( a ) An EA is required for all proposals, except those exempt from NEPA or categorically excluded under this part, and those requiring or determined to require an EIS. EAs provide sufficient evidence and analysis to determine whether to prepare an EIS or a finding of no significant impact (FONSI).
( b ) In addition, an EA may be prepared on any action at any time in order to assist in planning and decision making, to aid in the Commission's compliance with NEPA when no EIS is necessary, or to facilitate EIS preparation.
( c ) EAs shall be prepared in accordance with subpart C of this part and shall contain analyses to support conclusions regarding environmental impacts. If a FONSI is proposed, it shall be prepared in accordance with § 900.305.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32

                          CERTIFICATE OF NURESCELL INC.
               CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                            PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350
               OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE

I, Lawrence Shatsoff, President and Chief Financial Officer of Nurescell Inc.
(the "Company"), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 that, to my
knowledge:

(1)      the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter
         ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
         Commission (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 results of operations of
         the Company.

DATED: August 12, 2004                         /S/    LAWRENCE SHATSOFF
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

                                       19
Exhibit 31.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 
Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 
as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Brad J. Peters, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Global Innovation Corp. ("GIC"), formerly Integrated Performance Systems, Inc. ("IPS");

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 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 of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for GIC 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of GIC's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly 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 quarterly report any change in GIC's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during GIC's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect GIC's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. GIC's other certifying officer 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 in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which could adversely affect GIC'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 GIC's internal control over financial reporting,

|Date: March 14, 2007 | /s/    BRAD J. PETERS  
|-------------------- | -----------------------
|                     | Brad J. Peters         
|                     | Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

# CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

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

| | (i) | the
accompanying report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended July 31, 2008
(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 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.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|                         |     |                                         
|------------------------ | --- | ----------------------------------------
|Dated:  October 14, 2008 | By: | /s/ Michael L. Krall                    
|                         |     | Michael L. Krall
Chief Executive Officer
|                         |     |                                         

This certification has not been, and
shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
§ 108.520 Type of survival craft. ( a ) Each lifeboat must be a fire-protected lifeboat approved under approval series 160.035. A lifeboat of aluminum construction in the hull or canopy must be protected in its stowage position by a water spray system meeting the requirements of part 34, subpart 34.25 of this chapter.
( b ) Each inflatable liferaft must be approved under approval series 160.151. Each rigid liferaft must be approved under approval series 160.118. Each liferaft must have a capacity of six persons or more.
[CGD 84-069, 61 FR 25291, May 20, 1996, as amended by USCG-2006-25697, 71 FR 55746, Sept. 25, 2006]
No. 99-40977 

-1-

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-40977

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SIDNEY HUNT,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:98-CR-91-1

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

February 16, 2000

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Sidney Hunt appeals the sentence imposed following his

guilty plea conviction of possession with intent to distribute

crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Hunt

argues that the district court erred by denying him a three-level

downward adjustment in his offense level for acceptance of

responsibility. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 (a) & (b). Hunt argues

that he is entitled to the adjustment because he took 

responsibility for his actions by pleading guilty of the offense. 
No. 99-40977 

-2-

The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that he is

entitled to the offense level reduction. See United States v.

Flucas, 99 F.3d 177, 180 (5th Cir. 1996). “The entry of a guilty

plea prior to trial is significant evidence of acceptance of

responsibility, but does not entitle the defendant to a reduction

as a matter of right.” United States v. Rickett, 89 F.3d 224,

227 (5th Cir. 1996). In determining whether a defendant has

accepted responsibility for his crime, the district court should

consider whether the defendant has voluntarily terminated or

withdrawn from criminal conduct or associations. See id.;

§ 3E1.1, comment (n.1(b)).

The district court did not err in determining that Hunt was

not entitled to the downward adjustment because he failed to

withdraw from criminal conduct while he was on bond pending

trial. Hunt admitted to using cocaine, submitted two urine

samples which tested positive for cocaine, was arrested for and

pleaded guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia, and failed to

report his arrest to his pretrial services officer. See Flucas,

99 F.3d at 179-80; Rickett, 89 F.3d at 227. 

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2422

LEONARD GREGORY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; BECKY DICKSON; OSCAR K. RUCKER; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT; LONNA BLUE; CHARLES STIGGER; CLAUDIA WILKES, Defendants - Appellees, and DUDLEY GREGORY, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-03-1651-18-2) Submitted: October 27, 2004 Decided: November 17, 2004 Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chalmers C. Johnson, CHALMERS JOHNSON LAW FIRM, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States- 2 - Attorney, John H. Douglas, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina; Robert L. Widener, MCNAIR LAW FIRM, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, Michael A. Scardato, MCNAIR LAW FIRM, P.A., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Leonard Gregory appeals the district court’s order dismissing this action because the State Defendants are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment and his claims against the Federal Defendants are barred by sovereign immunity. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Gregory v. South Carolina Dep’t of Transp. , No. CA-03-1651-18-2 (D.S.C. Oct. 29, 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.

AFFIRMED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case Number: 14-cr-20427-02 

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington 

KWAME AMIN MATHEWS, 

 Defendant. 

_______________________________________/ 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, ACCEPTING 

DEFENDANT’S PLEA OF GUILTY, AND TAKING THE RULE 11 PLEA 

AGREEMENT UNDER ADVISEMENT 

On October 8, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris conducted a plea 

hearing pursuant to Defendant’s consent. The Magistrate Judge issued her report on October 8, 

2014, recommending that this Court accept Defendant’s plea of guilty. 

Although the Magistrate Judge’s report explicitly stated that the parties to this action may 

object to and seek review of the recommendation within fourteen days of service of the report, 

neither Plaintiff nor Defendant filed any objections. The election not to file objections to the 

Magistrate Judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the record. 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). The failure to file objections to the report and 

recommendation waives any further right to appeal. 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, 

ECF No. 78, is ADOPTED. 

 

Case 1:14-cr-20427-TLL-PTM ECF No. 95, PageID.605 Filed 10/31/14 Page 1 of 2
 It is further ORDERED that Defendant’s plea of guilty is ACCEPTED, and the Rule 11 

Plea Agreement, ECF No. 76, is taken UNDER ADVISEMENT. 

Dated: October 31, 2014 s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served 

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first 

class U.S. mail on October 31, 2014. 

 s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

 TRACY A. JACOBS 

Case 1:14-cr-20427-TLL-PTM ECF No. 95, PageID.606 Filed 10/31/14 Page 2 of 2
#### § 81.82 Exceptions to rulings of presiding officer unnecessary.

Exceptions to rulings of the presiding officer are unnecessary. It is sufficient that a party, at the time the ruling of the presiding officer is sought, makes known the action which he desires the presiding officer to take, or his objection to an action taken, and his grounds therefor.
-79 -78 -77 -76 -75

 37

 38

 39 ★▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲

▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

08/30

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 30 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.92 N 77.01 W Meters AGL
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7482

ROLAND FENNELL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-02-163-3) Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: February 6, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roland Fennell, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen R. McCullough, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Roland Fennell seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on July 30, 2002. Giving Fennell the benefit of Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6), the notice of appeal was filed on September 3, 2003. Because Fennell failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED