alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6095

ANTHONY RENELL LEE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNKNOWN, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-03-1163-AM) Submitted: April 29, 2004 Decided: May 5, 2004 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Renell Lee, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Anthony Renell Lee seeks to appeal from the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lee has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 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
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Vital Health Technologies, Inc. on Form
10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Halton Martin, Chief Executive
Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

     1. The Report 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/ Halton Martin                                       April 15, 2005
------------------------------------
Halton Martin
Chief Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer
***EXHIBIT 32(b)***

** **

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

** **

In connection with the reporton Form 10-Q of WWA Group, Inc. for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, DigamberNaswa, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

 

(1)  This report fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

(2)  The information contained in thisreport fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition ofthe registrant at the end of the period covered by this report and results ofoperations of the registrant for the period covered by this report.

 

 

Date: August 23, 2010

                       

 

/s/ Digamber Naswa

Digamber Naswa

Chief Financial Officer

 

 

This certificationaccompanies this report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 andshall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, bedeemed filed by the registrant for the purposes of §18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporatedby reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, orthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or afterthe date of this report), irrespective of any general incorporation languagecontained in such filing.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by §906 has been provided to the registrant and willbe retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

 

** **

 

 

 

----
No. 498.

#### Von Hardenberg et al. *v.*Kennedy, Attorney General.

*Roland Towle*and *Thomas P. Sullivan*for petitioners.

*Solicitor General Cox, Acting Assistant Attorney General Guiljoyle*and *Sherman L. Cohn*for respondent.

Supreme Court of Illinois. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 172 (Thursday, September 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 61600]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19289]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2023-N-2607]


Issuance of Priority Review Voucher; Rare Pediatric Disease 
Product

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the 
issuance of a priority review voucher to the sponsor of a rare 
pediatric disease product application. The Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) authorizes FDA to award priority review 
vouchers to sponsors of approved rare pediatric disease product 
applications that meet certain criteria. FDA is required to publish 
notice of the award of the priority review voucher. FDA has determined 
that SOHONOS (palovarotene), manufactured by Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals, 
Inc., meets the criteria for a priority review voucher.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cathryn Lee, Center for Drug 
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New 
Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-1394, email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6a290b1e0218130444260f0f2a0c0e0b44020219440d051c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4c0f2d38243e3522620029290c2a282d6224243f622b233a">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA is announcing the issuance of a priority 
review voucher to the sponsor of an approved rare pediatric disease 
product application. Under section 529 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 
360ff), FDA will award priority review vouchers to sponsors of approved 
rare pediatric disease product applications that meet certain criteria. 
FDA has determined that SOHONOS (palovarotene), approved on August 16, 
2023, and manufactured by Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., meets the 
criteria for a priority review voucher. SOHONOS (palovarotene) capsules 
are indicated for reduction in volume of new heterotopic ossification 
in adults and pediatric patients (aged 8 years and older for females 
and 10 years and older for males) with fibrodysplasia ossificans 
progressiva.
    For further information about the Rare Pediatric Disease Priority 
Review Voucher Program and for a link to the full text of section 529 
of the FD&C Act, go to http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/DevelopingProductsforRareDiseasesConditions/RarePediatricDiseasePriorityVoucherProgram/default.htm. For further 
information about SOHONOS (palovarotene), go to the ``Drugs@FDA'' 
website at http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/.

    Dated: September 1, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-19289 Filed 9-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 106.

#### Schenley Distillers, Inc., *v.*John P. Dant Distillery Co. et al.

September 7, 1962.

*Milton Handler, Sidney A. Diamond*and *Ben F. Washer*for petitioner.

*Oldham Clarke*for respondents.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Dismissed pursuant to Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court.
SUPREME COURT.

#### Elizabeth Inman, administratrix, &c., agt. Henry McNeil.

*AcOon against constable for false return—what officer may set up and prove.*

In a,n action brought by a plaintiff in execution against a constable for having falsely returned his writ *nulla bona,*such officer may prove on tin trial the reversal of the judgment on which the execution was issued. Such evidence is a defense to the action for false return.

*Montgomery County Circuit, February,*1879.

Tee plaintiff’s intestate recovered judgment against one John C. Richards, in justices’ court, on which execution was issued and delivered to the defendant McNeil, a constable. The constable levied upon property of the defendant in execution sufficient to satisfy the same, but released his levy and returned the execution *nulla bona.*Thereupon the plaintiff brought this suit for a false return. Afterwards an appeal was taken by the defendant in execution; the judgment was reversed. The constable (the defendant in this action), upon motion, was permitted to set up the fact of the reversal of the judgment by way of supplemental answer. At the trial, at the circuit, the above facts were established.

*John W. Eighmy,*for plaintiff,

cited 39 *Barb.,*69; 3 *Selden*(7 *N. Y.),*195, 550; 4 *Bosworth,*469; 2 *Greenleaf on Evidence, secs.*584, 591 *and*599; 12 *Wend*96; 5 *id.*170; 8 *id.*545; 1 *Cowen,*309; 1 *Abbott's Pr.,*433.

*P. J. Lewis,*for defendant,

cited 13 *New York,*238 - 248; 7 *Hill,*35; 3 *Denio,*45; 2 *id.*643; 16 *Wend.,*562; 1 *Hill,*118; 48 *Barb.,*85.

Landon, J.

It is necessary for the plaintiff to prove a judgment upon which the execution issued. Whatever right the plaintiff has rests upon that judgment (3 *Denio,*45; 7 *Hill,*35). The officer has been permitted, when sued for a *152false return, to show that the execution was issued upon avoid judgment *(Allen*agt. *Ward,*8 *Mass.,*79; *and cases cited in Earl*agt. Camp, 16 *Wend., at page*568). If there is no judgment there is no loss and if the defendant McReil has not injured the plaintiff there ought to be no recovery. A reversed judgment is no judgment. But it is urged that when che execution was issued the judgment was in being and the officer neglected to do his duty. This is true, but the reversal of the judgment, fortunately for the officer, occurs before the trial of this action and enables him to show from the record that no valid judgment exists, although one has existed. The plaintiff, being bound to prove the existence of a valid judgment, fails upon the whole evidence .and, therefore, proves nothing to uphold the execution. If the trial had been sooner the defendant would have no defense, but he has been permitted to show, what subsequent facts proved to be the truth, that the plaintiff was not injured by any negligence of the officer and if the plaintiff is without injury he is without action.

Judgment is directed for the defendant.
# 

# CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

POWERNOTES (SM)

With Maturities of 9 months or more from Date of Issue

Registration No.  333-97047

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (3)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO.  333                                                                   Trade Date: 9/08/03

(To Prospectus Supplement dated August 15, 2002 &

  Prospectus dated August  8,2002)                                                                Issue Date:  9/11/03

The Date of this Pricing SupplementSeptember  8, 2003

SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION OR REPAYMENT

 CUSIP                                                                                                                                   Date and terms of redemption or

     or       Stated                                                                   Interest                                       repayment (includingany

Common  Interest                      Price to  Discounts &        Payment     Survivors                  applicable regular or special

  Code      Rate (1)   Maturity  Public (2) Commissions       Frequency       Option  Yes/No     record dates)

14911QPW5   4.05%       03/15/09           100%               1.0%                  Quarterly                      YES           NO                                                              

                          

Principal                                                                                 1st Payment             Day         

Amount                  Proceeds                  Dealer                           Date                   Count

$2,370,000.00         $2,346,300.00         ABN AMRO Inc.        12/15/03                               30/360    

Original Issue DiscountNote:                                                                          Total Amount of OID:

____  Yes                X   No                                                                                  N/A

The interest rates on the PowerNotes (SM) may be changed by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation from time to time, but any such change will not affect the interest rate on any PowerNotes (SM) offered prior to the effective date of the change.  Prior to the date of this Pricing Supplement, $258.903 mm principal amount of the PowerNotes (SM) were sold at interest rates then in effect.  Subsequent offerings of PowerNotes (SM) will be made under the Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated August 8,2002.

Expressed as a percentage of aggregate principal amount.  Actual Price to Public may be less, and will be determined by prevailing market prices at the time of purchase as set forth in the confirmation sheet.
From: lisseryoung@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:16:31 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Melissa Young

Greenville, SC 29615
From: Ann Taylor

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: support for contraception access

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 7:11:55 AM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept

the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of preventive care

under the new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These

preventive services are a critical element of the new law and would provide countless women

better access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access to

contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive services,

are pushing the government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are

pushing for the exemption to apply to religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with

religious affiliations would be exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they

employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny

access to thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998             JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998             MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          24,322                   9,591
<SECURITIES>                                    23,611                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,433                  12,492
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                75,828                  23,510
<PP&E>                                          11,807                   5,198
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  91,943                  31,598
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,879                  12,223
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        65,571                  22,048
<OTHER-SE>                                       (375)                   (435)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    91,943                  31,598
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                58,124                  24,073
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,428                   3,598
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                42,556                  20,337
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,305                     274
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,386                     230
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,919                      44
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.24                    0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18                    0.00
        

</TABLE>
From: wereitz@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:46:37 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Willard Reitz

Canonsburg, PA 15317
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the report of CommScope, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each ofthe undersigned officers of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

(1)          The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| By:    | /s/ FRANK M. DRENDEL                                 |   |   |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|   | Frank M. Drendel                                     |   |
|   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer                 |   |
|   |                                                 |   |
| Date:  | May 9, 2005                                          |   |
|   |                                                 |   |
|   |                                                 |   |
| By:    | /s/ JEARLD L. LEONHARDT                              |   |   |
|   | Jearld L. Leonhardt                                  |   |
|   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|   |                                                 |   |
| Date:  | May 9, 2005                                          |   |

 

----