alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 50 (Thursday, March 15, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12165-12166]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4708]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of 
information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
    Title: NOAA Teacher-At-Sea Program.
    Form Number(s): None.
    OMB Approval Number: 0648-0283.
    Type of Request: Regular submission.
    Burden Hours: 309.
    Number of Respondents: 375.
    Average Hours Per Response: Application, 1 hour; health services 
questionnaire, 15 minutes; and recommendation, 15 minutes.
    Needs and Uses: The NOAA Teacher-at-Sea Program provides educators 
with the opportunity to participate in research projects aboard NOAA 
vessels. The respondents are educators who provide information about 
themselves and their teaching situation and who submit a follow-up 
report with ideas for classroom applications. Recommendations are also 
required.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker, (202) 395-3897.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance 
Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8eeac6f7e0ebe5ceeae1eda0e9e1f8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a4c0ecddcac1cfe4c0cbc78ac3cbd2">[email protected]</span></a>).
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number (202) 395-7285, or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1054716679744f427f63647b7562507f7d723e757f603e777f66"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="642005120d003b360b17100f0116240b09064a010b144a030b12">[email protected]</span></a>.


[[Page 12166]]


    Dated: March 9, 2007.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
 [FR Doc. E7-4708 Filed 3-14-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#     Search All NIDA Content
Deloitte & Touche


Deloitte & Touche LLP
Suite 1800
50 South Main Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84144-0458
Telephone: (801) 328-4706
Facsimile: (801) 355-7515

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS'REPORT

To the Supervisory Committee of America First Credit Union:

We have examined management's assertion about America First Credit Union's
(AFCU's) compliance with the minimum servicing standards identified in the
Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for
Mortgage Bankers (USAP)as of and for the year ended December 31, 1999 included
in the accompanying management assertion. Management is responsible for AFCU's
compliance with those minimum servicing standards. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on management's assertion about AFCU's compliance based on
our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about AFCU's compliance with the minimum
servicing standards and performing such other procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a
reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal
determination on AFCU's compliance with the minimum servicing standards.

In our opinion, managements assertion's that AFCU complied with the
aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended
December 31,1999 is fairly stated , in all material respects.

Deloitte & Touche

March 24,2000
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-41338

Summary Calendar

NICHOLAS J. QUEEN,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

T.C. OUTLAW, WARDEN,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:07-CV-21

Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Nicholas J. Queen, federal prisoner # 29623-037, is serving a 562-month

term of imprisonment for his convictions for bank robbery and related offenses. 

In 2007, Queen filed an unsuccessful 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging the 

calculation of his sentence. This court affirmed the judgment of the district 

court. Queen v. Outlaw, 393 F. App’x 176, 177-78 (5th Cir. 2010). In September 

and October 2014, Queen filed three identical motions pursuant to Federal 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 12, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-41338 Document: 00513634787 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/12/2016
No. 15-41338

2

Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) seeking relief from the judgment denying his 

§ 2241 petition. The district court denied the motions on the grounds that it 

had no authority to reconsider this court’s decision affirming the denial of

§ 2241 relief, the motions were not timely, and they lacked merit. Queen now 

appeals the denial of his Rule 60(b) motions.

Under Rule 60(b)(6), a court may relieve a party from a final judgment 

for “any . . . reason that justifies relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(6). We review 

the denial of a Rule 60(b)(6) motion for an abuse of discretion. Diaz v. Stephens,

731 F.3d 370, 374 (5th Cir. 2013). Although the one-year filing period does not 

apply to Rule 60(b)(6) motions, such motions “must be made within a 

reasonable time.” FED. R. CIV. P. 60(c)(1). Queen did not meet this standard. 

See In re Osborne, 379 F.3d 277, 283 (5th Cir. 2004). Moreover, Queen has not 

shown the existence of “extraordinary circumstances,” as required for relief 

under Rule 60(b)(6). Hernandez v. Thaler, 630 F.3d 420, 429 (5th Cir. 2011) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-41338 Document: 00513634787 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/12/2016
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUESTECH FINANCIAL , et al., 

NO. CIV. S-04-2553 FCD/GGH

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND

DISPOSITION

JYM, CORPORATION, et al., 

Defendants.

____________________________________/

Pursuant to the representations of the parties in the above action the court has determined

that this case has settled. 

In accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 160, dispositional documents are to be

filed on or before March 20, 2006. All dates set in this matter, including any pending motions,

are hereby VACATED.

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER MAY BE GROUNDS FOR THE

IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS ON ANY AND ALL COUNSEL AS WELL AS ANY

PARTY OR PARTIES WHO CAUSE NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ORDER.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 1, 2006

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02553-FCD-GGH Document 72 Filed 02/01/06 Page 1 of 1
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

         I, John R. Signorello, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Annual Report of IceWEB, Inc. on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2004:

         1. That such report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         2. That information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A
fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of IceWEB, Inc.

November 9, 2005                  By: /s/ John R. Signorello
                                      ----------------------
                                      John R. Signorello, CEO,
                                      principal executive officer and
                                      principal financial and accounting officer
# \5~SOt c2 1947Galileo Ct., Suite 103 • Davis, California 95618

.,., __ (530) 757-3650• (800) 287-3650 • Fax (530) 757-3670
October23,2014

~‘ lANAG~~’ Andrew Steckel, Chief United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 SUBJECT: State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submittal Letter Dear Mr. Steckel. The Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (District) previously submitted a request, through the Air Resources Board (ARB) to have our Rule 2.31 (Solvent Cleaning and Degreasing) approved into the SIP. As part of that request, we asked for Rule 2.13 (Organic Solvents), Rule 2.15 (Disposal and Evaporation ofSolvents), and Rule2.24 (SolventCleaning Operations

—Degreasing)to be rescinded. Related to this requestto rescind Rule 2.24, you have asked aboutthe requirements in the formerrule for ‘conveyorized degreasers’, as we did not copythem verbatim to the new Rule 2.31. The District did not include the requirements in Rule 2.31 when it was revised in May of2008 because we did not have any conveyorized degreasers in our District. As stated on pages 9 and 10 of the staff report (http://www.ysacirnd.org/documents/Solvent Rules Staff_Report.pdf): “The District is proposing to delete Rule 2.24 from the District Rules and Regulations. Requirements for batch cold cleaners, remote reservoir cleaners and gun washers will be addressed in Rule 2.31. The District currently does not have any other degreaserpermitted or operating in the District. Anysourceproposing to operate adegreaserwould require a Permitto Operate andwouldbesubjectto Rule 3.4 -NewSource Review.” We reconfirmed through a review ofour permits database and discussion with knowledgeable inspection staffthat there are currently no conveyorized degreasers and there are no sources planning to construct one in the District. In addition, the old Rule 2.24 allowed operators to use any solvent, including those with unlimited Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) content, in a conveyorized degreaser so long as the equipment met certain requirements such as covers for entrances exits, safety devices, minimized openings, and freeboard ratio. Under our revised Rule 2.31, ifwe did getaconveyorized degreaser, Rule 2.31 section 302.2 would require the operation to use solvents with aVOC content less than or equal to 25 grams/liter, since a conveyorized degreaser would not meet the requirements of Rule 2.31, section 302.2.b through 302.2.e. The District believes that the use of 25 g/L solvent is an equally effective emission control comparedto using ahigh VOC solventwiththe specified controls ofthe old rule. Thankyou foryour attention to this matter. Ifyou have any questions, please contact Paul Hensleigh at (530) 757-3650. Sincerely,
Mat Ehrhardt, P.E. Executive Director/Air Pollution Control Officer f:\rules developmentsip since 5-99\2014 sipsolventrule supplemental.docx
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the annual report of The Liquid Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned principal executive officer of the Company,
hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


Date:  April 17, 2006

/s/ Jason Daggett
Jason Daggett, President
(Principal executive officer)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID RAY WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2559 LKK KJM P

vs.

CSP SOLANO, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested an extension of time to file and serve a reply to defendant’s

opposition to plaintiff’s May 26, 2006 motion for default judgment. Good cause appearing, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's June 19, 2006 request for an extension of time is granted; and

2. Plaintiff shall file and serve a reply to defendant’s opposition to plaintiff’s May

26, 2006 motion for default judgment on or before July 15, 2006.

DATED: June 26, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

/mp

will2559.36

Case 2:04-cv-02559-LKK -KJM Document 49 Filed 06/27/06 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001.

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

In connection with the Annual Report of PARK HILL CAPITAL I CORPORATION (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended May 31, 2001, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Francis
Mailhot, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2001, that:

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

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

Dated: October 28, 2005


                                        /s/ Francis Mailhot
                                        -------------------
                                        Francis Mailhot,
                                        Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 10.15(d)

AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO
SETTLEMENT AND PURCHASE AGREEMENT

THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO SETTLEMENT AND PURCHASE AGREEMENT (this "Amendment"), is entered into as of
October 2, 2001, by and among Microsoft Corporation, a Washington corporation ("Microsoft"), MS Channel Initiatives Corp., a Nevada corporation
and a wholly owned subsidiary of Microsoft ("MSCI"), divine, inc., a Delaware corporation
("divine"), and divine/Whittman-Hart, inc., an Illinois corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of divine
("DWH").

WHEREAS, each of Microsoft, MSCI, divine, and DWH (the "Parties") has executed that
certain Settlement and Purchase Agreement dated as of September 7, 2001 (the "Agreement");

WHEREAS, marchFIRST Consulting, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of marchFIRST, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (collectively with marchFIRST, the "Debtors"), (X) is the maker of that certain loan agreement and unsecured promissory note in the
amount of $12,000,000 in the favor of MSCI dated July 5, 2000, (Y) and Microsoft are parties to that certain Alliance Agreement dated as of April 1, 2000 and (Z) and
desires to become a third-party beneficiary to Section 1.01 of the Agreement; and

WHEREAS, the Parties desire to include the Debtors as third party beneficiaries to the Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto
hereby agree as follows:

AMENDMENT

Section 9.09 of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in full to read:

"SECTION
9.09Severability; Parties of Interest.If any provision of this Agreement or the application thereof
to any Person or circumstance is held invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement, and the application of such provision to other Persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby,
and to such end, the provisions of this Agreement are agreed to be severable. Nothing in this Agreement, express or implied, is intended to confer upon any Person not a party to this Agreement (other
than the Debtors and their Affiliates with respect to Section 1.01 of this Agreement) any rights or remedies of any nature whatsoever under or by reason of this Agreement."

1

---

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be executed on their behalf by their officers thereunto duly authorized, as of the date first above written.

| | MICROSOFT CORPORATION                    
| | -----------------------------------------
| | By:                                      
| | Name:
Title:                             
| | MS CHANNEL INITIATIVES CORP.             
| | By:                                      
| | Name:
Title                              
| | DIVINE, INC.                             
| | By:                                      
| | Name: Jude Sullivan
Title: Vice President
| | DIVINE/WHITTMAN-HART, INC.               
| | By:                                      
| | Name: Jude Sullivan
Title: Vice President

2

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 10.6(b)


 


AMENDMENT TO


WARRANT TO PURCHASE COMMON STOCK


 


This Amendment to Warrant to Purchase Common
Stock (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into effective as of the Effective Date (as defined below) by and
between Ekso Bionics Holdings, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), and each holder of a Bridge Warrant
(as defined below) as of the Effective Date (each, a “Holder” and together, the “Holders”).
Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Bridge Warrants.


 


WHEREAS, the Company
issued a series of warrants of like tenor to purchase an aggregate of 2,725,000 shares of the Company’s common stock (the
“Warrant Shares”) at an exercise price of $1.00 per share on January 15, 2014 to investors participating in
the Ekso Bionics, Inc. bridge financing completed in November 2013 and to a prior lender of Ekso Bionics, Inc. (each
such warrant, a “Bridge Warrant” and, together, the “Bridge Warrants”);


 


WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 19 of the Bridge
Warrants, any term of the Bridge Warrants may be amended with the written consent of the Company and the Holders of Bridge Warrants
exercisable to


purchase a majority of the Warrant Shares (the “Requisite
Approval”);


 


WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Bridge
Warrants in order to remove any price-based anti-dilution provisions therefrom and in connection therewith is seeking the Requisite
Approval of this Amendment as provided herein.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual
covenants and conditions contained herein, the parties hereby agree as follows:


 


1. Adjustment of Exercise Price Upon
Issuance of Additional Shares of Common Stock. Section 3(b) of the Bridge Warrants is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced
with the following: “[Reserved]”.


 


2. Necessary Acts. Each party to this
Amendment hereby agrees to perform any further acts and to execute and deliver any further documents that may be necessary or
required to carry out the intent and provisions of this Amendment and the transactions contemplated hereby.


 


3. Governing Law. This Amendment will
be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of New York without regard to conflicts of laws principles that would
require the application of any other law.


 


4. Continued Validity. Except as otherwise
expressly provided herein, the Bridge Warrants shall remain in full force and effect.


 


5. Approval of Amendment. This Amendment
will become effective with respect to all outstanding Bridge Warrants upon the execution of this Amendment by the Company and the
Company’s receipt of signed counterpart signatures from a sufficient number of Holders to obtain the Requisite Approval (the
“Effective Date”).
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with this amended Quarterly Report of ASAH Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Zak W. Elgamal, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 
| 1. | Such amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006, 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 such amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of ASAH Corp. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

   
| Dated: May 11, 2006 |
|---------------------|

 

**ASAH CORP.**

 
| By: | */s/ Zak W. Elgamal*Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TONY CAMPBELL,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2268 GEB CMK P

vs.

G. WOODFORD,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has

filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General

Order No. 262.

On May 9, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and

recommendations herein which were served on plaintiff and which

contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings

and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. 

Case 2:04-cv-02268-GEB-CMK Document 10 Filed 06/21/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1Although plaintiff included a proof of service, he failed

to properly serve defendants as required by Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 5 and Local Rule 5-135(b) and (c). Instead, on his

proof of service he lists the party that he served as the Clerk

of the U.S. District Court. 

2

Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed May 9, 2005,

are adopted in full; and

2. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, for

failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Dated: June 21, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02268-GEB-CMK Document 10 Filed 06/21/05 Page 2 of 2