alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 73 (Monday, April 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22581-22582]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9087]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Eye Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel, NEI Loan Repayment Program.
    Date: April 26-27, 2012.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate loan repayment program 
applications.
    Place: National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, 
5635 Fishers Lane,

[[Page 22582]]

 Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Brian Hoshaw, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Division of Extramural Research, National Eye Institute, National 
Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 1300, MSC 9300, 301-
451-2020, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ddb5b2aeb5bcaabf9db0bcb4b1f3b3b4b5f3bab2ab"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9af2f5e9f2fbedf8daf7fbf3f6b4f4f3f2b4fdf5ec">[email protected]</span></a>.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.867, 
Vision Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: April 10, 2012.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-9087 Filed 4-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TAMMY CALLAHAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

WASHOE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT; 

et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16755 

D.C. No. 3:15-cv-00200-LRHWGC 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 26, 2017**

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. 

Tammy Callahan appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing 

her employment action alleging discrimination in violation of federal and state law, 

including the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUN 30 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-16755 

Civ. P. 12(b)(6), Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Callahan’s ADEA claim as timebarred. See Laguaglia v. Rio Hotel & Casino, Inc., 186 F.3d 1172, 1174 (9th Cir.

1999) (Nevada is a “deferral state” in which claimants have 300 days to institute 

proceedings with their state anti-discrimination agency); see also 29 U.S.C. 

§ 626(d)(1)(B) (charges under the ADEA “shall be filed . . . within 300 days after 

the alleged unlawful practice occurred, or within 30 days after receipt by the 

individual of notice of termination of proceedings under State law, whichever is 

earlier”).

We reject as without merit Callahan’s contentions regarding judicial 

estoppel, laches, the continuing violation doctrine, and ineffective assistance of 

counsel.

AFFIRMED.
Post Of fice Box 12548, Austin, Texas 7 8 7 1 1 - 2 5 4 8 • ( 5 1 2 ) 4 6 3 - 2 1 0 0 • www.texasattorneygeneral.gov

April 9, 2015

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS VIA ELECTRONIC FILING

301 Fannin Street

Houston, Texas 77002-2066

ATTN: Christopher A. Prine

Re: Case No. 01-14-00899-CV; The State of Texas v. Titan Land Development,

Inc. and Bauer-Hockley 550, L.P.; In the First Court of Appeals, Houston,

Texas.

Dear Mr. Prine:

Oral argument was held in this case on April 8, 2015. At that time the Court indicated

that the State could provide a letter with a case citation for the proposition that

statutory provisions without penalties were directory rather than mandatory. Please

distribute this post-submission letter to Justices Jennings, Higley and Huddle.

In Helena Chemical Company v. Wilkins, 47 S.W.3d 486 (Tex. 2001), the Supreme

Court stated the following:

To determine whether a timing provision is mandatory, we first look to

whether the statute contains a noncompliance penalty. If a provision

requires that an act be performed within a certain time without any

words restraining the act’s performance after that time, the timing

provision is usually directory. 

Id. at 495. 

In addition, in further response to Justice Jennings’s question regarding other

provisions with similar twenty-day deadlines, a comparable provision would be the

civil suit answer deadline contained in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 99(b). 

ACCEPTED

01-14-00899-cv

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

4/9/2015 5:34:48 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/9/2015 5:34:48 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
Mr. Prine

April 9, 2015

Page 2

Post Of fice Box 12548, Austin, Texas 7 8 7 1 1 - 2 5 4 8 • ( 5 1 2 ) 4 6 3 - 2 1 0 0 • www.texasattorneygeneral.gov

Sincerely,

/S/ Susan Desmarais Bonnen

Susan Desmarais Bonnen

Assistant Attorney General

susan.bonnen@texasattorneygeneral.gov

SDB/lfs

cc: Charles McFarland via email: cmcfarland@mcfarlandpllc.com

and E-Service
SERVED: JUNE 27, 2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION· 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATfER OF 

GLOBAL AIRCRAFT INTERIORS, INC. 

DOCKET NO. F AA-2014-0324 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

·.E~IJiTtviENT OF ·~~'JSPORTATlOI·J 

·~.~r<.ET OPERATIONS 

Zill4 JUN 30 A G: 3q 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2011EA11 0043) has been assigned 

to Administrative Law Judge J.E. Sullivan. All future pleadings and other communications 

regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other 

persons on the attached Service List. 

Attachment - Service List 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration · 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20.591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 ooo1 

ONE COPY 

Sande Lichtenstein, Respondent's Counsel 

Lichtenstein & Schindel 

158 West Boston Post Road 

P.O. Box 787 

Mamaroneck, NY 10543 

Zachary M. Berman, Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3258 

FAX: 718-995-5699 

Hon. J.E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

. U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-31 0) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0324 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited coUrier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 57 Received in Senate (RDS)]

<DOC>
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 57

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 9, 2019

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall for an event to commemorate 
the 400th anniversary of the arrival of the first African slaves to the 
             territory that would become the United States.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR EVENT COMMEMORATING 400TH 
              ANNIVERSARY OF ARRIVAL OF FIRST AFRICAN SLAVES.

    Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center is authorized to be 
used on September 10, 2019, for an event to commemorate the 400th 
anniversary of the arrival of the first African slaves to the territory 
that would become the United States. Physical preparations for the 
ceremony shall be carried out in accordance with such conditions as the 
Architect of the Capitol may prescribe.

            Passed the House of Representatives August 16, 2019.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Exhibit 32.2



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 on Form 10-K of Cartica Acquisition Corp (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2021, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, C. Brian Coad, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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, as amended; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the report.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: March 25, 2022 | By: | /s/ C. Brian Coad                                  
|-------------------- | --- | ---------------------------------------------------
|                     |     | C. Brian Coad                                      
|                     |     | Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer
|                     |     | (Principal Financial Officer)
IA 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 34 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide 

that Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the number of persons 

in each State who are citizens of the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 24, 2019 

Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio (for himself, Mr. BROOKS of Alabama, Mr. MOONEY

of West Virginia, Mr. COLE, Mr. STIVERS, Mr. GIBBS, Mr. YOHO, Mr. 

TURNER, and Mr. CHABOT) submitted the following joint resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States to provide that Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the number of persons in 

each State who are citizens of the United States. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 34 IH 

1 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

2 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

3 for ratification: 

4 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

5 ‘‘Representatives shall be apportioned among the sev6 eral States according to their respective numbers, which 

7 shall be determined by counting the number of persons 

8 in each State who are citizens of the United States.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
WALTER DEAN WARING, ) 

 ) 

 Appellant, ) 

 ) 

 vs. ) No. SD33507 

 ) 

STATE OF MISSOURI, ) FILED: April 7, 2015 

 ) 

 Respondent. ) 

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CEDAR COUNTY 

Honorable James R. Bickel, Judge 

(Before Francis, P.J./C.J., Bates, J., and Scott, J.) 

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS 

PER CURIAM. Walter Waring timely filed an indigency affidavit and pro se

motion for Rule 24.035 relief from his felony DWI convictions. The motion court 

summarily denied relief without appointing counsel for Waring, who claims this was 

error. The state agrees, as do we. 

“When an indigent movant files a pro se motion, the court shall cause counsel 

to be appointed for the movant.” Rule 24.035(e). Such appointment “is mandatory.” 

Ramsey v. State, 438 S.W.3d 521, 522 (Mo.App. 2014). “A motion court that 
2

dismisses a pro se Rule 24.035 motion without appointing counsel commits clear 

error.” Id. See also Wilson v. State, 415 S.W.3d 727, 728 (Mo.App. 2013). 

We reverse, remand, and direct the motion court to appoint counsel for 

Waring and proceed further after that appointment. Id.
No. 14-0766 – State of West Virginia ex. rel. Ford Motor Company, et al. v. 

The Honorable David W. Nibert 

FILED 

April 9, 2015 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
 

OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

Justice Ketchum, concurring: 

I agree that this case should be remanded for the trial judge to make specific 

findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by West Virginia Code § 56-1­

1(e). 

My reading of the record, West Virginia Code § 56-1-1, and our case law 

lead me to believe, without any doubt, that the proper forum is Michigan. 

Nevertheless, the trial judge may have seen something I missed and should be 

allowed to make specific findings and conclusions before this Court rules.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2412

In re: ANDREW CHARLES JACKSON, a/k/a William Benbow, a/k/a 

Ricky Antonio Bady, a/k/a Sway,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 

(3:00-cr-00006-GMG-JES-1; 3:00-cr-00046-JPB-RWT-1)

Submitted: April 21, 2016 Decided: April 25, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew Charles Jackson, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Andrew Charles Jackson petitions for a writ of mandamus 

seeking an order declaring void the district court’s order 

denying Jackson’s motion for production of jury voir dire 

transcripts. We conclude that Jackson is not entitled to 

mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only 

in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 

U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 

516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available 

only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. 

In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 

1988). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In 

re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).

The relief sought by Jackson is not available by way of 

mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
**EXHIBIT
      32.4**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**




**PURSUANT
      TO**




**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**




**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**




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









I,
      Peter
      J. Anderson, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this quarterly report of
      Prestige Brands International, LLC on Form 10-Q for the period ended December
      31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as applicable, and that information contained
      in such quarterly report fairly presents in all material respects the financial
      condition and results of operations of Prestige Brands International,
      LLC.




**/s/
                P****eter****J. A****nderson**Name:Peter
                J. AndersonTitle:Chief
                Financial OfficerDate:February
                14, 2006
Exhibit 32.2

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 quarterly report of SendTec, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Donald Gould, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                  
|------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Donald Gould                                                  
|Donald Gould Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
|August 20, 2008
**Exhibit 31.1****RULE 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION**I, Michael Piazza, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Amendment No.1 to the Quarterly Report of IgnisPetroleum Group, Inc. on Form 10-QSB/A; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations, and cashflows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report; 4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer andhave: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the smallbusiness issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;  b) language intentionally omitted SEC Rel. 33-8238 and 33-8818.  c) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  d) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during thesmall business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small businessissuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting;and5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors andthe audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting.        Date:      November 14, 2007 /s/ Michael Piazza   Michael Piazza   President (Chief Executive Officer)
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

 

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

**New Holland Credit Company, LLC**

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer ofNew Holland Credit Company, LLC (“NHCC”), as Servicer pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 1,2022 (as amended from time to time, the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”) by and among NHCC, CNH Capital Receivables LLC andCNH Equipment Trust 2022-C does hereby certify that:

 

1.            NHCC is Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.

 

2.            The undersigned is duly authorized as required pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate tothe Indenture Trustee.

 

3.            This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 4.9(a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement and Item 1123 of Regulation AB.

 

4.            A review of the Servicer’s activities during the period from the trust’s initial cut-off date, October 31, 2022, to andincluding December 31, 2022 and of its performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

 

5.            To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreementin all material respects throughout the period from the trust’s initial cut-off date, October 31, 2022, to and including December 31,2022.

 

6.            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 30th day of March, 2023.

 

 

 

March 30, 2023