alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**-  Beltsville  \ BARC 
-  Human Nutrition 
-  Food Surveys 
Printable VersionE-mail this pageThis site onlyAll ARS Advanced Search  UBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">		You are here: 						Research / 																				**Research Project:**Collaboration of Fsrg in Dietary Data Collection and Analysis for the Healthy Aging in Neighborhoods of Diversity Across the Life Span Study
**Location: Food Surveys**
												Project Number: 1235-53000-016-04Project Type:																				Reimbursable

Start Date: May 01, 2008End Date: Apr 30, 2013

**Objective:**Provide scientific and technical support in the collection, coding, and analysis of dietary data for the HANDLS study.  The primary objective of Healthy Aging in Neighborhoods of Diversity across the Life Span (HANDLS) is to create a representative 20-year longitudinal study of health status across the life span focused on investigating the differential influences of race and socioeconomic status on health in an urban population.
**Approach:**1.	FSRG shall provide the following components from its USDA Dietary Intake Data System: a)  The USDA Automated Multiple Pass Method instrument for collection of the 24- hour dietary recalls in HANDLS.  Blaise licenses required for running the AMPM on laptops shall be the responsibility of the National Institute on Aging.b)  Electronic version of the AMPM Training Guide.c)  Electronic version of the AMPM Interviewer Reference Manual.d)  SurveyNet for computer-assisted coding of dietary intake data.e)  The SurveyNet Coder Reference Manual.f)   Post Interview Processing System.2.  FSRG staff shall collaborate and participate in the HANDLS study by providing the following technical and scientific work:a)	Provide monthly technical consultation from scientists regarding system operations and quality assurance procedures and oversight.b)	Technical support for the processing of dietary recalls collected in HANDLS utilizing the USDA Post Interview Processing System for extraction of AMPM Blaise databases, reformatting AMPM data for SurveyNet, and autocoding of foods and portion sizes.
    Project TeamMOSHFEGH, ALANNA  
Project Annual Reports FY 2011 FY 2010 FY 2009 
Related National Programs Human Nutrition(107)  							Last Modified: 02/09/2012 		ARS Home |USDA.gov |Site Map |Policies and Links FOIA |Accessibility Statement |Privacy Policy |Nondiscrimination Statement |Information Quality |USA.gov |White House

**
Filed by Bowne Pure Compliance



 




Exhibit 10.8

Amendment to Existing Warrants




This Amendment to Warrant and the Warrant amended hereby have not been registered under the
Securities Act of 1933 (the “Act”), and are “restricted securities” as that term is defined in Rule
144 under the Act. The securities may not be offered for sale, sold or otherwise transferred
except pursuant to an effective registration statement under the Act, or pursuant to an exemption
from registration under the Act, the availability of which is to be established to the satisfaction
of the Company.



***SMART MOVE, INC.***




CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF WARRANT ISSUED ON SEPTEMBER 2, 2007 TO PURCHASE 100,000 SHARES

OF COMMON STOCK OF SMART MOVE, INC. AT AN EXERCISE PRICE OF $7.50, EXPIRING AT 5:00 P.M. ON

SEPTEMBER 2, 2010




THIS CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF WARRANT is dated January 22, 2008 and certifies that the
Warrant previously issued to Thomas P. Grainger dated September 2, 2007 and expiring at 5:00 P.M.
on September 2, 2010 (“Existing Warrant”), has been amended pursuant to an Amended and Restated
Note and Warrant Purchase Agreement of even date herewith signed by the Smart Move, Inc. (the
“Company”) and the Holder of the Warrant to which this amendment pertains, Thomas P. Grainger.



For value exchanged, the Company and the Holder have agreed that the Exercise Price of $7.50
currently applicable under the Existing Warrant shall be, and hereby is, revised to be $1.50 per
Share.



The only change the parties wish to make to the Existing Warrant is to specify a revised
Exercise Price as above provided. The parties intend all other terms of the Existing Warrant to
remain the same.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Certificate of Amendment of Warrant has been duly executed as of the
day and year first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	SMART MOVE, INC.

 	 
	 	/s/Chris Sapyta
 	 
	 	Chris Sapyta 	 
	 	President
Exhibit 31.4


CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-


OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Diane M. Morefield, certify that:


|   |                                                                                
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of Strategic Hotels & Resorts, Inc.;

|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | Based on my knowledge, this 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 report; and

|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|3. | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report.

Date: March 12, 2014


/s/ Diane M. MorefieldDiane M. MorefieldChief Financial Officer
No. 96-7927.

#### Scroger *v.*United States.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 1, 2019

No. 04-19-00349-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.L.R., A CHILD,

Appellant

From the County Court at Law, Val Verde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 3688CCL

Honorable Sergio J. Gonzalez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s motion to file his brief late is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief was filed on July 

31, 2019. Appellee’s brief is due on or before August 20, 2019.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

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

court on this 1st day of August, 2019.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle,

Clerk of Court
#### J. C. Pirkle Machinery Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7882.

Entry No. A/191.

(Decided September 21, 1950)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General *(Richard E. FitzGibbon,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been' submitted for decision upon tbe following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, that the above styled! matter be forthwith submitted to the Chief Judge for decision.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval-of the Court, that the issues in appeal for reappraisement listed above are the-same in all material respects as the issues decided in *C. J. Towers & Sons*v. *United' States,*R. D. 7624, and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised values-of the merchandise involved in the case enumerated above, less the additions-made by the importer on entry -because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the-United States, at which such or similar merchandise is freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the-usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the-United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise is no-higher.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that these cases may be'submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

> On tbe agreed facts I find tbe export value, as that value is defined-in section 402 (d) of tbe Tariff Act of 1930, to be tbe proper basis for tbe determination of tbe value of tbe merchandise bere involved, and tbat sucb values are tbe appraised values, less tbe additions made by tbe importer on entry because of advances by tbe appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Broadwind Energy, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, J.Cameron Drecoll, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

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

 

(2)                                The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/  J. Cameron Drecoll    |   |
|----------------------------|--------|
| J.  Cameron Drecoll        |   |
| Chief  Executive Officer   |   |
|                       |   |
|                       |   |
| Date:  March 16, 2009 |   |

 

----
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-13-00577-CV

Falcon International Bank

v.

Mark A. Cantu, Roxanne Pena Cantu, Individually, and Canflor, L.P., a Texas Limited 

Partnership

On Appeal from the

370th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Cause No. C-0300-12-G

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and rendered. The 

Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and RENDERS judgment in 

favor of the appellant. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellee.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

April 16, 2015
On the Letterhead of De Visser Gray LLP.















CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
    To the Board of Directors of Rubicon Minerals Corporation
      We hereby consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F of our Report of Independent Registered Chartered Accountants dated March 27, 2012 on the consolidated financial statements of Rubicon Minerals Corporation (“the Company”) which is incorporated by reference in this annual report on Form 40-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2012.
    
  "/s/De Visser Gray LLP"
  Independent Registered Chartered Accountants
  Vancouver, Canada
  March 12, 2013
(Reap. Dec. 9125)

#### Moscahlades Bros., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 86540, etc.

(Decided April 9, 1958)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

DoNLON, Judge:

These appeals to reappraisement were consolidated for trial, the official papers and an affidavit of the seller were introduced in evidence, and the appeals submitted for decision, with leave granted counsel to file briefs. Plaintiff now has filed a motion, consented to by the defendant, praying that the submission be set aside and vacated, in order that plaintiff may abandon said appeals. Written abandonment has been filed by counsel for plaintiff.

Now, therefore, it is hereby ordered that the submission of these consolidated appeals to reappraisement be and it hereby is set aside and vacated. The consolidated appeals for reappraisement, having been abandoned, are dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
### MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 10

- 00061

- CV IN THE INTEREST OF J .J.L. , J.M.L., L.M.E., G.X.E., Jr., and M.A.E. From the 57th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2009

- PA

- 00463 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor , Judge Presiding Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Delivered and Filed: February 9, 2011
AFFIRMED This is an appeal from the trial court’s termination of appellant’s parental rights. See
T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN
. § 161.001(1)(D), (E), (N), (O), (2) (Vernon 2002). After the record from the trial on the merits was filed, appellant’s court

- appointed attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Counsel concludes that the appeal is without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re R.R. , No. 04

- 03

- 00096

- CV, 2003 WL 21157944, at * 4 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio May 21, 2003, no pet.) (applying Anders procedure in appeal from t ermination of parental rights). Counsel provided appellant with a copy of the04

- 10

- 00061

- CV

- 2

- brief. Appellant was informed of her right to review the record and advised of her right to file a pro se brief. Appellant has not filed a brief. After reviewing the record, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. We GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw. Nichols v.
State , 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State , 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n .1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1996, no pet.).

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# 380th EMDG: Providing Care to the Fight

By  Tech. Sgt. Darnell T. Cannady380 AEW/PA

                AL DHAFRA AIR BASE, United Arab Emirates (AFNS)   –              *Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Air Force website.*

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

380th Air Expeditionary Wing380th Expeditionary Medical Groupflight medicineAerospace Medical SupportMedical Operations FlightClinical OperationsmedicineMedicalmedical equipmentmedical suppliesAl Dhafra Air Base
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6747
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CURTIS WOODROW JONES, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-75-A, CA-96-158-AM) Submitted: February 27, 1997 Decided: March 10, 1997 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis Woodrow Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Joseph Hulkower, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we denyAppellant's motion to proceed on the original record, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Jones , Nos. CR-93-75-A; CA96-158-AM (E.D. Va. Apr. 9, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Before the Third Division,

October 13, 1943

No. 48860.

#### Petition 6356-R of S. Lisk & Bro. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The petition was dismissed.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350



In connection with the  accompanying  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of Surety
Holdings Corp. and  Subsidiaries  for the quarter ended  September 30, 2003, the
undersigned  hereby  certifies  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  to the best of my
knowledge and belief, that:

     (1)  such Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended  September
          30, 2003 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
          the quarter ended September 30, 2003 fairly presents,  in all material
          respects,  the financial condition and results of operations of Surety
          Holdings Corp. and Subsidiaries.

November 11, 2003

                                               By: /s/ Howard R. Knapp
                                               -------------------------
                                               Howard R. Knapp
                                               President, Chief Executive and
                                               Financial Officer of Surety





A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Surety  Holdings Corp. and will be retained by Surety Holdings Corp.
and  furnished  to the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  or its staff upon
request.
# C_2015213EN.01002801.xml

| 29.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2015 — Harper Hygienics v OHIM — Clinique Laboratories (CLEANIC Kindii)

(Case T-364/12) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark CLEANIC Kindii - Earlier Community word marks CLINIQUE - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods and services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier marks - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2015/C 213/48)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Harper Hygienics S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: initially R. Rumpel, and subsequently D. Rzążewska and G. Pietras, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Clinique Laboratories, LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: initially V. von Bomhard and A. Renck, lawyers, and K. Hughes, Solicitor, and subsequently K. Hughes)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 May 2012 (Case R 1135/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Clinique Laboratories, LLC and Harper Hygienics S.A.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the action;

| 2. | orders Harper Hygienics S.A. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Clinique Laboratories, LLC. |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders Harper Hygienics S.A. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Clinique Laboratories, LLC.

---

(1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.

1

---
#### Flora A. Wolfe v. A. W. Cole.

No. 16,103.

Adverse *Possession*— Evidence. The evidence held to support a finding that a vtitle had not been acquired by adverse possession.

Error from Ellis district court; Jacob C. Ruppenti-ial, judge.

Opinion filed July 3, 1909.

Affirmed.

*A. D. Gilkeson,*for the plaintiff in error.

*Harry L. Pestaña,*for the defendant in error.

*Per*Curiam:

This is an action to recover a strip of land not included in an instrument of conveyance but claimed to have been acquired by adverse possession. The trial court determined upon the testimony that the plaintiff in error had not held such possession or exercised such dominion over the strip for the necessary period as would give her a title. The decision of the court rests upon disputed evidence, but as there appears to be sufficient to support the general finding the judgment is affirmed.