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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting 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 Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel; ZNS1 SRB-B (02) NST-1 Member Conflict SEP.                    

*Date:*                         January 29, 2024.                    

*Time:*                         4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Hilton Alexandria Old Town,  1767 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.                    

*Contact Person:*                         William C. Benzing, Ph.D, Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, NINDS, NIH, NSC, 6001 Executive Blvd., Rockville, MD 20852, 301-496-0660,                         *benzingw@mail.nih.gov*.                    

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. 93.853, Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes of Health, HHS.)

Dated: January 16, 2024.

Lauren A. Fleck, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2024-01025 Filed 1-18-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### STATE OF TEXAS and Texas Department of Human Resources, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 91-8042.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 27, 1993.

Edwin N. Horne, Will Pryor, Mary F. Keller, Asst. Attys. Gen., James C. Todd, Chief Gen. Lit. Div., Dan Morales, Atty. Gen., Austin, TX, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Katherine L. Smith, Asst. U.S. Atty., Austin, TX, Sheila Lieber, Raymond Larizza, Bruce G. Forrest, William Kanter, Civil Div., Appellate Staff, Dept, of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendants-appellees.

*

 Chief Judge of the Eastern District of Texas, sitting by designation.

**

 Chief Judge Charles Clark was a member of the original panel but resigned from the Court on January 15, 1992 and, therefore did not participate in this decision. This matter is being decided by quorum. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

ON REMAND FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

Before JONES, Circuit Judge and PARKER *, District Judge: **

PER CURIAM:

The Supreme Court reversed this court’s holding that under the Debt Collection Act of 1982, the State of Texas and its Department of Human Services were not liable to the United States for prejudgment interest on mail issuance losses for which the Texas Food Stamp program must reimburse the federal government. *United States v. Texas,*- U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1631, 123 L.Ed.2d 245 (1993). The district court’s judgment awarding such interest was vindicated. There is no need to revisit this appeal insofar as we previously affirmed the remainder of the district court’s decision. We now also AFFIRM its award of prejudgment interest.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of LitFunding Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Morton Reed, President and Chief Executive 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:

 

|   | (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/ Morton Reed                                 |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Morton Reed                                                                                                                                                                                                     |  
 

President and Chief Executive Officer

 

May 22, 2006

  |
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1634 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1634

  To amend the resolution establishing the Franklin Delano Roosevelt 
     Memorial Commission to extend the service of certain members.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 21, 1996

  Mr. Levin (for himself, Mr. Dole, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Inouye, and Mr. 
   D'Amato) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
         referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the resolution establishing the Franklin Delano Roosevelt 
     Memorial Commission to extend the service of certain members.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the first section 
of the Act entitled ``An Act to establish a commission to formulate 
plans for a memorial to Franklin Delano Roosevelt'', approved August 
11, 1955 (69 Stat. 694) is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
following: ``A Commissioner who ceases to be a Member of the Senate or 
the House of Representatives may, with the approval of the appointing 
authority, continue to serve as a Commissioner for a period of up to 
one year after he or she ceases to be a Member of the Senate or the 
House of Representatives.''.
                                 <all>
```
I N T H E



# Indiana Supreme Court

Supreme Court Case No. 20S

- CR

- 569 

## Brian Kinman, Appellant

- Defendant,



### – v – 

## State of Indiana, Appellee

- Plaintiff

.
Decided: September 28, 2020 Appeal from the Fayette Circuit Court No s. 21C01

- 1802

- F5

- 131, 21C01

- 1906

- F5

- 467 The Honorable Hubert Branstetter, Jr., Judge On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals

Case No. 19A

- CR

- 2718
Per Curiam Opinion Rush, C.J., and David, Massa , Slaughter, and Goff, JJ., concur.Indiana Suprem e Court | Ca se No. 20S

- CR

- 569 | September 28, 2020 Page 2 of 3



### Per curiam. On July 3, 2019, Brian Kinman ple ade d guilty to Level 5 felony possession of a narcotic drug and Level 6 felony residential entry

. Kinman orally moved to withdraw his guilty plea at the October 18 sentencing hearing, but the trial court denied th e motion and sentenced Kinman that day. On November 7, Kinman filed a pro se motion to vacate judgment and withdraw his plea , followed shortly thereafter by a petition to amend his sentence and a motion for transport. The trial court summarily denied the se motion s on November 18, and the Court of Appeals affirmed , finding no abuse of discretion

. Kinman v. State , 14 9 N.E.3d 619 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). We grant transfer, vacating the Court of Appeals opinion. See Ind. App ellate R ule 58(A)

. But we summarily affirm the portion of the Court of Appeals opinion finding that Kinman’s oral motion to withdraw his guilty plea was procedurally defective , so the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying it
. See Kinman , 14 9 N.E.3d at 627. We also ag ree with the Court of Appeals that because Kinman’s post

sentencing motion to vacate the judgment and withdraw the guilty plea was written and verified, as required by Ind

. Code section 35

- 35

- 1

- 4(b) , it is governed by Indiana’s Post

- Conviction Rules and “s hall be treated by the court as a petition for postconviction relief[

. ]” See 149 N.E.3d at 627, citing I.C. § 35

- 35

- 1

- 4(c)

. Ind iana Post

- Conviction Rule 1(6) provides that the trial court “shall make specific findings of fact, and conclusions of law on all issues presented, whether or not a hearing is held.” However, t h e trial court failed to include in its summary order any findings or conclusions on the issues Kinman raised in his de facto petition for post

- conviction relief

. We therefore remand this matter for entry of a revised order that complies with Indiana ’s Post

- Conviction Rule s, including Rule 1(6). 

### All Justices concur.Indiana Suprem e Court | Ca se No. 20S

- CR

- 569 | September 28, 2020 Page 3 of 3 A T T O R N E Y F O R A P P E L L A N T Kimberly A. Jackson Indianapolis, Indiana
A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L E E Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General of Indiana Samuel J. Dayton Deputy Attorney General Lauren A. Jacobsen Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
#### Wilfredo ALVARADO-ORTIZ, Petitioner, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Respondent, Appellee.

No. 02-1224.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Jan. 31, 2003.

Wilfredo Alvarado-Ortiz, on brief, pro se.

H.S. Garcia, United States Attorney, Sonia I. Torres, Assistant United States Attorney, and Thomas F. Klumper, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief, for ap-pellee.

Before CAMPBELL and STAHL, Senior Circuit Judges, and LYNCH, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

*Pro se*petitioner Wilfredo Alvarado Ortiz seeks a writ of coram nobis to vacate his 1991 federal drug convictions. The district court summarily denied petitioner’s motion. In his motion, petitioner maintains that his convictions and sentence were illegal based on *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and other arguments. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the denial of the writ.

The writ of coram nobis is an “extraordinary remedy” which may be issued only *7under circumstances that compel such action “to achieve justice.” *United States v. Morgan,*346 U.S. 502, 511, 74 S.Ct. 247, 98 L.Ed. 248 (1954); *see United States v. Michaud,*925 F.2d 37, 39 (1st Cir.1991). In general, the writ of coram nobis is not available to a petitioner when another statutory remedy exists. *See United States v. Barrett,*178 F.3d 34, 54 (1st Cir.1999); *see also Carlisle v. United States,*517 U.S. 416, 429, 116 S.Ct. 1460, 134 L.Ed.2d 613 (1996) (“Where a statute specifically addresses the particular issue at hand, it is that authority, and not the All Writs Act, that is controlling.”). Because petitioner is currently in custody for the convictions at issue, he may seek relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. *Barrett,*178 F.3d at 54-55; *see Matus-Leva v. United States,*287 F.3d 758, 761 (9th Cir.), *cert. denied*, — U.S. -., 123 S.Ct. 544, 154 L.Ed.2d 431 (2002). Because a § 2255 petition is available to him, the writ of coram nobis is not. *See id.*

Petitioner argues that he is barred from seeking relief under § 2255. He may not resort to coram nobis, however, merely because he cannot meet the AEDPA’s requirements. *See Barrett,*178 F.3d at 55 (stating that “[t]he writ of coram nobis may not be used to circumvent the clear congressional directive embodied in the ‘second or successive’ provisions of § 2255”). Petitioner’s coram nobis motion is no different from a second § 2255 petition.

The judgment of the district court is *affirmed.*
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, J. Patrick Lashinsky, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that the Quarterly Report of ZipRealty, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of ZipRealty, Inc.



|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  |                                                           
|---------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------------ |  | ----------------------------------------------------------
|                       |  |  | 
|Date: November 7, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ J. Patrick Lashinsky
|                       |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  | J. Patrick Lashinsky Chief Executive Officer and President

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided by
ZipRealty, Inc. and will be retained by ZipRealty, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Adams, Kevin (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Richard M. Smylie <rsmyliell@hotmail.com> 

Thursday, May 30, 2013 2:42 PM 

Adams, Kevin (OST); Devany, Dennis (OST) 

richard@makanikai.com 

Makani Kai Aviation support 

Dear Mr Adams and Mr. DeVany 

·- -

As a frequent visitor to the Kamuela area, I fully support the Makani Kai Aviations' proposal to provide service 

to this area. These flights will have a significant impact on local residents and visitors, who would prefer direct 

service to this area without having to transit via Kailua-Kana. It will save time and money for all 

concerned. The proposed schedule offered by Richard Schuman is beneficial to both travelers from Honolulu 

and Kamuela. 

We all know that Schuman family has been a leader in transportation in Hawaii over over a 100 years. Richard 

Schuman's experience and reputation in the aviation industry is outstanding and his devotion to customer 

service makes him a leader in the industry. The Schuman name reflects integrity and honesty. I sincerely 

hope that you will grant Makani Kai Aviation this contract and continue the family tradition of service 

everyone in Hawaii. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. 

Richard M. Smylie 

Hawaii Kai. 

1
# OAR Box 

# 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 153 ) ll-K - (B ) -15 2 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:53 AM Sheet 153 of 325 P. 1P. 2


## ENERG Y AN D ENVIRONMENTA L ANALYSIS , INC . j A
_O O m 

## O 7 165 5 NORTHFORT MYERDRIVE ARLINGTON , VIRGINI A 2220 9 703/528-190 0 ' #1 \ J KJ tmm I I i i 1 II-K-CEO-15 2 i Septembe r 27 , 198 4 ;

Mr . Rober t Shor t Economi c Analysi s Branc h U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y Mai l Drop-1 2 Researc h Triangl e Park , N C 2771 1 Subject : EPAContrac t No . 68-02-3564 , Wor k Assignmen t #1 9 Dea r Robert : Attache d i s a summaryo f tota l projecte d soli d wast e an d liqui d discharg e disposa l requirement s fro mfift h roun

d S0 2 NSP S analysi s IFCA M runs . Thes e value s ma yb e neede d i n th e revise d S0

_NSP S preamble . Theywer e als o requeste d i n you r meetin g o n Septembe r 26 . Sincerely ,
Ti mHoga n ^ TH/c e Enclosur e cc : Dr . A . Weh e

MANAGEMEN T / ECONOMIC S / ENGINEERIN G199 0 IFCA M PROJECTIONS ^ P. 3

Shor t wast e (IO 3 shor t tons ) Liqui ddischarg e (1 0 cubi c meters ) Referenc e Cas e fue l price s Regulator y

baselin e Optio nCas e 5 0 10 7 13 0 81 1 4,31 8 Highe r oi l an

dga s price s wit h NAT H scrubber s Regulator y

baselin e Optio nCas e 50 d Optio nCas e 90 e 1,35 4 77 3 71 8 66 7 5,58 4 6,06 2 Highe r oi l an dga s price s wit h dua l alkal i scrubber s Optio nCas e 5 0 Optio nCas e 90 e 1,04 0 1,09 3 0 0

a Ne w industria l fossi l fuel-fire dboiler s installe dafte r 198 5 whic har e large r tha n10 0 MMBtu/hr . Fift hroundS0 2 NSP S analysi s results . Include s coa l boile r botto m ash , fl y

as hcollecte db

y particulat e matte r emission s contro l equipmen t anddua l alkal i FG D an dlim e spray dryin g FG D waste . 'Sodiu m throwawa y

FG D waste . Minimu m 5 0 l bS0 2 /MMBt i

percen t S0 2 remova l an d0. 9 l bS0 2 /MMBt uceilin g fo r coal ; 0. 3 uceilin g fo r residua l fue l oil . "Minimu m 9 0 percen t S0 2 remova l an d 0. 6 l bS0 2 /MMBt uceilin g fo r coal ; 0. 3 l bS0 9 /MMBt uceilin g To r residua l fue l oil .
#### LEADER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, a California Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 93-35921, 94-35005.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted to Motions Panel March 8, 1994.

Decided March 16, 1994.

Stewart Andrew Estes, Keating, Bucklin *&*McCormack, Seattle, WA, for plaintiff-appel-lee.

Mark S. Northcraft and Eileen I. McKQ-lop, Northcraft, Tierney & Hüleman, Seattle, WA, for defendant-appellant.

Before: FLETCHER, BRUNETTI and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss appeal no. 93-35921 for lack of jurisdiction. Appellee contends that the notice of appeal was filed during the pendency of a timely Fed.R.Civ.P. 59 motion to amend the judg*445ment, and, therefore, under the Appellate Rules in effect at the time, the notice of appeal is a nullity. *See*Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4); *Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount,*459 U.S. 56, 60, 103 S.Ct. 400, 403, 74 L.Ed.2d 225 (1982).

Effective December 1, 1993, however, the applicable provisions of Rule 4(a)(4) were amended. Rule 4(a)(4) now provides that “[a] notice of appeal filed after announcement or entry of the judgment but before disposition of any of the ... [specified post-judgment] motions is ineffective to appeal from the judgment or order, or part thereof, specified in the notice of appeal, until the date of the entry of the order disposing of the last such motion outstanding.” Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4). Thus, a notice of appeal filed while a Fed.R.Civ.P. 59 motion is pending is no longer a nullity, but, rather, is merely held in abeyance until the motion is resolved. *Id.; Burt v. Ware,*14 F.3d 256, 258 (5th Cir.1994) (per curiam).

The Supreme Court has ordered that the amended Rules “shall govern all proceedings in appellate eases [commenced after December 1, 1993] and, insofar as just and practicable, all proceedings in appellate cases then pending.” Supreme Court Order, Amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, 113 S.Ct. [preliminary pages at 819]; 147 F.R.D. 287, 290 (Apr. 22, 1993).

We conclude that retroactive application of the amended provisions of Fed.RApp.P. 4(a)(4) is appropriate in this appeal. *See Burt v. Ware,*14 F.3d at 258 (holding that the amended Rules should apply retroactively unless to do so would work injustice). Accordingly, appellee’s motion to dismiss appeal no. 93-35921 for lack of jurisdiction is denied.
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1624

AN ACT

To reauthorize the Hate Crime Statistics Act, and for other

purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION.

4 The first section of the Hate Crime Statistics Act (28

5 U.S.C. 534 note) is amended—

6 (1) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘for the cal7 endar year 1990 and each of the succeeding 4 cal8 endar years’’ and inserting ‘‘for each calendar year’’;

9 and

10 (2) in subsection (c), by striking ‘‘through fiscal

11 year 1994’’.

Passed the Senate May 21, 1996.

Attest:

Secretary.
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1624

AN ACT

To reauthorize the Hate Crime Statistics Act, and

for other purposes.
**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 Landmark Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, MarkA. Herpich, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result ofoperations of the Company.
| /s/ Mark A. Herpich                                        |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Mark A. Herpich  Chief Financial Officer  November 3, 2006 |   |   |

 

 

32

----
Final report 

# Final Report



# Acute Inhalation Toxicity Study of MTDID 800 and in Rats Study Director: Study Toxicologist: Testiug Facility: Sponsor:

CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT This report contains the unpublished results of research sponsored by 3M. These results may not be published, either wholly or in part, or reviewed or quoted in any other publication without the prior authorization of 3M. Page I of 7