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

1. Hogar

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Peer Review

Last Modified: 

Print

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is providing this information to meet

the requirements of Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) "Final Information

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review" in the Federal Register on January 14, 2005.

OMB's Peer Review Bulletin established government-wide guidance to enhance the

practice of peer review of the federal government's science documents. It requires

federal agencies to systematically plan for peer review of influential scientific

information (including highly influential scientific assessments) that the government

intends to disseminate in the foreseeable future. By making these plans publicly

available, members of the public know which scientific documents are being peer

reviewed and approximately when and how the peer review will take place. In some

cases, members of the public may be allowed to nominate experts chosen to

participate in peer review panels. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has issued

guidance consistent with OMB's Bulletin.

The Bulletin provides specific requirements for peer reviews of highly influential

scientific assessments and influential scientific information disseminated by Federal

agencies, including posting the agenda and plans for such peer reviews on agency

Web sites. Members of the public who wish to comment on an individual plan may

send an email message by following the instructions at the end of the plan.
Current Peer Reviews

Wildlife Services: Human Health and Ecological Risk

Assessments

Creado Documento

Submit a Comment

You may comment on a peer review plan by sending an email to Ron Hardman. In

the subject line of the message, write an abbreviated title of the review.

Submit a Comment

Related Links

Quality of Information
#### State v. Lui

24172

02/07/2003

Affirmed
March 6, 1998

20171

#### Doe, In Interest of

Affirmed
EXHIBIT
23 – CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-130798, 333-142415, 333-155602 and 333-157179 on Forms S-8, Form S-3 and
Form S-3D of First Financial Service Corporation of our report dated March 15,
2010 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of First Financial
Service Corporation and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting, which report appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for First
Financial Service Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2009.











Crowe
      Horwath LLPLouisville,
      KentuckyMarch
      15, 2010
#### Kiehm v. Adams

25411

06/15/2004

Granted

- Hawai'i -, - P.3d -
# United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 2 3

- 1727

JOYCE TOTH,

Plaintiff

, Appellant,

v.

EVERLY WELL, INC. and EVERLY HEALTH, INC.,

Defendant s , Appellee s

.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court, issued on September 25 , 2024 , is

amended as follows:

On page 1 7 , line 10 replace "Cullinane" with " Cullinane ".
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

CORRECTED: October 5, 2005 at 1:00 PM 

04-1581 

NOVO NORDISK PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., 

and NOVO NORDISK A/S, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

BIO-TECHNOLOGY GENERAL CORP. and 

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., 

Defendants-Appellees. 

Steven E. Lipman, Darby & Darby, P.C., of New York, New York, argued for 

plaintiffs-appellants. Of counsel were James Edward Hanft, Paul M. Zagar, Jay P. 

Lessler, Kevin L. Reiner, Robert Schaffer and Joseph R. Robinson. 

John W. Bateman, Kenyon & Kenyon, of Washington, DC, argued for 

defendants-appellees. On the brief was Richard L. DeLucia, of New York, New York. 

Of counsel were Steven J. Lee, and Thomas J. Meloro, of New York, New York, and 

Kenneth R. Corsello, of Washington, DC. 

Appealed from: United States District Court for the District of Delaware 

. 

Chief Judge Sue L. Robinson
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 18, 2015

No. 04-15-00709-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF N.F.L.,

From the 81st Judicial District Court, La Salle County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14-12-00205CVL

Honorable Melissa Uram-Degerolami, Judge Presiding

ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal of an order terminating appellant’s parental rights. 

Accordingly, this court must dispose of this appeal no later than 180 days after the date the 

notice of appeal was filed. TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6. The reporter’s record for this appeal was due 

to be filed on November 2, 2015. On November 23, 2015, the reporter filed a notice of late 

record stating she received notice of the appeal on November 18th and requesting an additional 

10 days to prepare the record. The Reporter’s Record still has not been filed. 

It is therefore ORDERED that the reporter file the records in this court on or before 

December 21, 2015. FURTHER REQUESTS FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO FILE 

THE RECORD WILL NOT BE ALLOWED.

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

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

court on this 18th day of December, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CARL ALLEN KIRKSEY,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 631 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 14th day of April, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Exhibit 23CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMWe hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No.333-138029) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-144873, 333-144872, 333-00099, 333-23857, 333-57869, 333-53366,333-55488, 333-82674, 333-82678, 333-82668, 333-82670, 333-82672) of Digi International Inc. of ourreport dated November 27, 2007 relating to the consolidated financial statements, financialstatement schedule and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, whichappears in this Form 10-K./s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NOS. WR-90,904-01 & 90,904-02

EX PARTE FREDRICK JACKSON, Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NOS. 1546496-A & 1546498-A IN THE 179TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM HARRIS COUNTY 

Per curiam. YEARY, J. concurred.

O P I N I O N

Applicant entered open pleas of guilt to aggravated robbery and possession of a prohibited

weapon. He was sentenced to eighteen years’ imprisonment on each offense, to run concurrently. 

Applicant filed these applications for writs of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the

district clerk forwarded them to this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07. 

Applicant contends that he was denied his right to appeal because counsel failed to

adequately inform him of and preserve his appellate rights. The trial court recommends that

Applicant be allowed to file out-of-time appeals based on a breakdown in the system.

Relief is granted. Applicant mayfile out-of-time appeals of his convictions in cause numbers

1546496 and 1546498 from the 179th District Court of Harris County. Within ten days from the date
of this Court’s mandate, the trial court shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. If Applicant

is indigent and wants to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel to represent

him on direct appeal. Should Applicant decide to appeal, he must file written notice(s) of appeal in

the trial court within thirty days from the date of this Court’s mandate.

Copies ofthis opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and the Board of Pardons and Paroles. 

Delivered: May 8, 2024

Do not publish
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 of Cornerstone Realty Income Trust, Inc. (the company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), 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 that, to
the best of his knowledge: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the company as of December 31, 2003 and for the period then ended.



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/S/  STANLEY J. OLANDER, JR.                   
|                                               
|Stanley J. Olander, Jr. Chief Financial Officer



March 12, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                    5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM MARCH 28,
1998 FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS CONTAINED THEREIN.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                         1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                   MAR-28-1998
<CASH>                                  77
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                       13,238
<ALLOWANCES>                             0
<INVENTORY>                         30,538
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    48,650
<PP&E>                               9,613
<DEPRECIATION>                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     102,782
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               23,521
<BONDS>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<COMMON>                                65
<OTHER-SE>                          65,025
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       102,782
<SALES>                             17,821
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    17,821
<CGS>                               11,196
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       11,196
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     9,383
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   1,191
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (3,949)
<INCOME-TAX>                            23
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (3,972)
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                        (3,972)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        (0.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (0.61)
        



</TABLE>
BRIAN QUINN

Chief Justice

JAMES T. CAMPBELL Justice

MACKEY K. HANCOCK Justice

PATRICK A. PIRTLE Justice 

# Court of Appeals

Seventh District of Texas Potter County Courts Building

501 S. Fillmore, Suite 2-A Amarillo, Texas 79101-2449 www.txcourts.gov/7thcoa.aspx VIVIAN LONG

Clerk

MAILING ADDRESS:

P. O. Box 9540

79105-9540

(806) 342-2650

April 16, 2015

Damara H. Watkins Attorney at Law

1541 Princeton Corsicana, TX 75110

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * R. Lowell Thompson

Criminal District Attorney

300 W. 3rd Ave., Suite 203 Corsicana, TX 75110

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

RE: Case Number: 07-15-00011-CR, 07-15-00012-CR

Trial Court Case Number: C-35611-CR, C-35612-CR

Style: Mark Hoff v. The State of Texas

Dear Counsel:

By Order of the Court, the motion for an extension of time to file appellant’s brief

is granted. Therefore the appellant’s brief was filed on Friday, April 10, 2015.

Very truly yours, 

# Vivian Long

VIVIAN LONG, CLERK
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20 23

- 1169

_____________________________ G EORGE L. J OHNSON ,
Petitioner
,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel

— Original Jurisdiction

.

December 4, 2023

P ER C URIAM

. The Court denies the petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel on the merits.

K ELSEY , M.K. T HOMAS , and N ORDBY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 George L. Johnson, pro se
, Petitioner

. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Respondent

.
#### Teller v. Teller

205718

4/28/1998

Granted
# C_2019103EN.01003801.xml

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2019 — Bekat v EUIPO — Borbet (ARBET)

(Case T-79/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative EU mark ARBET - Prior national word mark BORBET - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 103/49)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Arif Oliver Bekat (Esslingen, Germany) (represented by: P. Kohl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: M. Eberl, D. Hanf and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Borbet GmbH (Hallenberg, Germany) (represented by: J. Krenzel, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 December 2017 (Case R 1117/2017-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Borbet and Mr Bekat.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Arif Oliver Bekat to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Arif Oliver Bekat to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 58 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 58

 Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Armed Services 
                in the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 27, 2015

 Mr. Thornberry submitted the following resolution; which was referred 
                to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Armed Services 
                in the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

    For the expenses of the Committee on Armed Services (hereafter in 
this resolution referred to as the ``Committee''), including the 
expenses of all staff salaries, there shall be paid, out of the 
applicable accounts of the House of Representatives for committee 
salaries and expenses, not more than $15,869,093 for the One Hundred 
Fourteenth Congress.

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

    Of the amount specified in section 1--
            (1) not more than $7,841,250.00 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2015, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2016; and
            (2) not more than $8,027,843 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2016, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2017.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

    Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized 
by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, and approved 
in the manner directed by the Committee on House Administration.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

    Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Administration.
                                 <all>
```
#### State v. Makekau

22483

12/22/2000

Reversed
June 9, 2005

24082

#### Samonte v. State

Affirmed
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT LEE STEWART, Jr., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

MARICOPA COUNTY JAIL; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 21-15061 

D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00979-SPL-ESW 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 12, 2021**

Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Arizona state prisoner Robert Lee Stewart, Jr. appeals pro se from the 

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging 

inadequate medical care and conditions-of-confinement claims arising from his 

pretrial detention. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de 

* 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

OCT 20 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-15061 

novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 

213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Stewart’s action because Stewart failed 

to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Gordon v. County of 

Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1122, 1125 (9th Cir. 2018) (setting forth objective 

deliberate indifference standard for Fourteenth Amendment inadequate medical 

care and conditions-of-confinement claims brought by pretrial detainees); Castro v. 

County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1073-76 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) 

(discussing requirements to establish municipal liability under Monell v. 

Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 

338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a 

plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim).

Stewart’s motion for a response from the court (Docket Entry No. 11) is 

denied.

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 on Form 10-Q of Centennial
Communications Corp. (the "Company") for the quarter ended February 29, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), 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, that, to
such officer's 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.

Date: April 14, 2004

By: /s/ Thomas J. Fitzpatrick
    ------------------------------
Name:  Thomas J. Fitzpatrick
Title: Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer

                                       43
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6362

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTWANE JAMALE JOHNSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever, III, 

Chief District Judge. (7:07-cr-00043-D-1; 7:12-cv-00001-D)

Submitted: April 16, 2015 Decided: April 20, 2015

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Antwane Jamale Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Aubrey West, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Shailika S. Kotiya, Timothy 

Severo, Augustus D. Willis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Antwane Jamale Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) and 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motions and denying his motion under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The orders addressing § 2255 are not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 

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) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Johnson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny Johnson’s motion for a certificate of appealability and 
3

dismiss the appeal as to the § 2255 motion and denial of the 

Rule 59(e) motion. 

As to the 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence 

reduction, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. United States v. Johnson, Nos. 7:07-cr-00043-D1; 7:12-cv-00001-D (E.D.N.C. Aug. 14, 2013; Jan. 16, 2014)

We deny Johnson’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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.

DISMISSED IN PART;

AFFIRMED IN PART