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 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), 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 Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel.                    

*Date:*                         November 29, 2000.                    

*Time:*                         8 AM to 5 PM.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         5520 Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy Chase, MD 20815.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Robert H. Stretch, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5E01, MSC 7510, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-6912.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program; 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
      ( print page 65868)    
Dated: October 25, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-28110  Filed 11-1-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1


                        DIAMOND MULTIMEDIA SYSTEMS, INC.

         STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE

                     (in thousands, except per share data)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   THREE MONTHS ENDED 
                                                                        MARCH 31,
                                                                 ------------------------
                                                                   1997           1996
                                                                 -------          -------
<S>                                                              <C>           <C>
Weighted average common shares outstanding for period             34,179           34,493
                                                                               
Dilutive employee stock options                                       --              849
                                                                 -------          -------

Shares used in per share calculations                              34,179          35,342
                                                                 ========        ========

Net income (loss)                                                ($5,951)         $11,194

Net income (loss) per share                                       ($0.17)           $0.32
                                                                  =======        ========
</TABLE>


The difference between the calculation of net income (loss) per share
calculated on the primary and fully diluted basis is not material.
#### JONES v. STATE.

No. 26026.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 12, 1952.

*464No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for driving a motor vehicle upon a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The punishment assessed is a fine of $100 and confinement in the county jail for a period of one year.

The complaint and information, as well as all other matters of procedure, appear in regular form. The record is- before us without a statement'of facts or bills of-exception, in the absence of which no question is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 65336]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28002]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice 00-132]


Notice of Prospective Patent License

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of prospective patent license.

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

SUMMARY: NASA hereby gives notice that Tektronix, Inc., of Beaverton, 
OR has applied for an exclusive license to practice the inventions 
disclosed in U.S. Patent Nos. 5,629,780 and 5,426,512 both entitled 
``Image Data Compression Having Minimum Perceptual Error'' which are 
assigned to the United States of America as represented by the 
Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 
Written objections to the prospective grant of a license should be sent 
to NASA Ames Research Center.

DATES: Responses to this notice must be received by January 2, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Padilla, Patent Counsel, NASA 
Ames Research Center, Mail Stop 202A-3, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000, 
telephone (650) 604-5104.

    Dated: October 26, 2000.
Edward A. Frankle,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 00-28002 Filed 10-31-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-P
NUMBER 13-22-00178-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

 

IN RE THE STATE OF TEXAS

 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

 

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Tijerina

Order Per Curiam

On April 20, 2022, relator the State of Texas filed a petition for writ of mandamus

asserting that “the trial court acted outside of its jurisdiction and abused its discretion in 

granting [a] motion to abate condemnation proceedings for alleged violations of the Texas 

Property Code.” 

The Court requests that the real parties in interest, George Roberts, Olivia Roberts, 

and Rita Collier, or any others whose interest would be directly affected by the relief 
2

sought, file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before the expiration of 

ten days from the date of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed on the

22nd day of April, 2022.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. C ESAR JOSE FLOR

ES, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-50356

D.C . No. 8:05-c r-00145-JVS M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Jam e s V. Se lna , Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 13, 2014 ** B e fore : SC HR O EDER , THOM AS, and HUR W ITZ, C i rc uit Judge s . C e sa r Jose Flore s a

ppe a ls from

the 26-m onth se nte n c e im p ose d upon re voc ation of supervise d re l e a se . Pursua nt to Ande rs v . C

alifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Flore s’ s c o unse l ha s file d a brie f stating tha

t the re are no grounds for re lie f, a long with a

m o tion to withdra

w a s c ounse l of re c o rd. W e have provide d Flore s



# F IL ED AUG 19 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).the o pportunity to filea pro se supple m e nta l brie f. No pro se supple m e nta l brie f or answe ring brie f ha s be e n file d. Our indepe nde nt re v i e w of the re c ord pursua nt to Pe nson v . Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), disc lose s no a rgua ble grounds for re lie f on dire c t a ppe a l. C ounse l’ s m otion to withdra w is G RANT E D. AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 5 0 3 5 6 2
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 7 A0 21 7

. TI YE M UHAMMAD et a l

. v. ACCEPTANCE A UTO SALES, I NC.

Th i s cas e b eg an as an act i o n fo r d am ag es i n m ag i s t rat e co u rt

. Fo l l o wi n g an ad v ers e ru l i n g i n t h at co u rt , p l ai n t i ffs Ti y e M uh am m ad an d Sh arro n Ban ks ap p eal ed

t o t h e s up eri o r co u rt , wh i ch ru l ed i n fav o r o f Accep t an ce Au t o Sal es , I n c

. M u h am m ad an d Ban k s t h en ap p eal ed d i rect l y t o th i s Co u rt

. We
, h o w e v er, l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n

.

“ [A] p p eal s fro m d eci s io ns o f t h e s up eri o r co urt s rev i ewi n g d eci si o n s o f l ower

co u rt s b y cert i o rari o r d e n o v o p ro ceed i n g s s h al l be b y ap p l i cat i o n fo r d i s cret i o n ary
ap p eal .” Bu l l o ck v. S

an d
, 26 0 Ga. Ap p

. 8 7 4
, 8 7 5 (5 81 SE2 d 3 3 3) (2 0 0 3 ) (p u n ct u at i o n

o m it t ed ); s ee al s o OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (a) (1 ). Th e p lai n ti ffs ’ fai l u re t o fo l l o w t h e p ro p er
ap p el l at e p ro ced u re d ep ri v es u s o f ju ri s d i ct i o n o v e r t h i s ap p eal
, wh i ch i s h ereb y DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t
h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 09/21/2016 September 21, 2016
#### Ex parte Joe SAVAGE.

No. 24713.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 11, 1950.

None on appeal for appellant.

A. C. Winborn, Crim. Dist. Atty., Houston, E. T. Branch, Asst. Crim. Dist. Atty., Houston, George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

This is a companion case to that of Fred L. Magee, No. 24712 on our Docket, Tex.Crim.App., 225 S.W.2d 831. The hearing on habeas corpus was a joint hearing, the evidence being the same as to both Savage and Magee. What has been said in the opinion in No. 24712, Ex parte Fred L. Magee, 'is equally applicable in the present case, and under the authorities cited in Magee’s case the judgment remanding relator Savage is affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6777

PHILLIP LENARD NEAL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN, USP LEE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (7:21-cv-00632-MFU-JCH)

Submitted: November 17, 2022 Decided: November 23, 2022

Before KING, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Phillip Lenard Neal, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6777 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/23/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Phillip Lenard Neal, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying 

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he sought to challenge his conviction by 

way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Pursuant to § 2255(e), a prisoner may 

challenge his conviction in a traditional writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241 if a § 2255 

motion would be inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.

[Section] 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of a 

conviction when: (1) at the time of conviction, settled law of this circuit or 

the Supreme Court established the legality of the conviction; (2) subsequent 

to the prisoner’s direct appeal and first § 2255 motion, the substantive law 

changed such that the conduct of which the prisoner was convicted is deemed 

not to be criminal; and (3) the prisoner cannot satisfy the gatekeeping 

provisions of § 2255 because the new rule is not one of constitutional law.

In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000).

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm 

for the reasons stated by the district court. Neal v. Warden, USP Lee, No. 7:21-cv-00632-

MFU-JCH (W.D. Va. filed Apr. 22, 2022 & entered Apr. 25, 2022). 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.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6777 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/23/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           7,630
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,205
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,291
<INVENTORY>                                      1,399
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                48,264
<PP&E>                                          41,380
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,019
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 160,937
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,331
<BONDS>                                         19,204
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           118
<OTHER-SE>                                     113,655
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   160,937
<SALES>                                          1,737
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                50,606
<CGS>                                            1,341
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   42,755
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (12)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   186
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 187
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,811
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,322
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,489
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,489
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .29
        

</TABLE>
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-15165

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-21083-RSR

MARLENY CASAS, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

USCIS DISTRICT DIRECTOR MIAMI, 

SECRETARY, US DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

US ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(May 1, 2013)

Before HULL, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 12-15165 Date Filed: 05/01/2013 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Marleny Casas, a native and citizen of Cuba, appeals the summary judgment 

in favor of the District Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 

the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and the Attorney General 

of the United States. After the entry of a final order of removal against her, Casas 

complained that the denial of her second application for an adjustment of status 

under the Cuban Adjustment Act, Pub. L. 89-732, 80 Stat. 1161 (1966), violated

the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706, and she sought relief under the 

Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and the Mandamus Act, id. § 1361. 

Casas argues that a genuine factual dispute exists about whether she presented a 

fraudulent passport to an immigration inspector and that dispute barred summary 

judgment in favor of the defendants. We affirm.

The district court did not err. Casas misunderstands the standard of review

of an agency action. Under the Administrative Procedures Act, the “task of the 

reviewing court is to apply the appropriate APA standard of review . . . to the 

agency decision based on the record [provided by] the agency.” Florida Power & 

Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 743–44, 105 S. Ct. 1598, 1607 (1985). The 

administrative record establishes, as the district court concluded, that the agency 

based its decision to deny Casas’s application for adjustment of status on 

substantial evidence that she submitted a fraudulent passport to immigration 

officials. The question before the district court was whether that decision of the 

Case: 12-15165 Date Filed: 05/01/2013 Page: 2 of 3 
3

agency was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Casas cannot relitigate 

de novo the underlying factual dispute that the agency resolved.

We AFFIRM the summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

Case: 12-15165 Date Filed: 05/01/2013 Page: 3 of 3
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  Elite
Pharmaceuticals,  Inc. (the  "Company")  for the year ended March 31, 2005 filed
with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  (the  "Report"),  I,  Mark  I.
Gittelman,  Chief  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:

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

(2) The  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
respects,  the consolidated  financial  condition of the Company as of the dates
presented and consolidated  results of operations of the Company for the periods
presented.

Dated:  June 28, 2005


By: /s/ Mark Gittelman
    ---------------------------------
        Chief Financial Officer


This  certification  has been  furnished  solely  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Elite  Pharmaceuticals,   Inc.  and  will  be  retained  by  Elite
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**VAMSIDHAR VURIMINDI,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**OFFICE OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY,**

**PHILADELPHIA AND OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 

**COMMONWEALTH OF PA AND HON.**

**JUDGE SHEILA WOODS-SKIPPER AND COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,** 
**PHILADELPHIA,**

**Respondents :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 141 EM 2015** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 24th day of December, 2015, the Application f or Leave to File** 

**Original Process is** GRANTED **, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is** DENIED **. The**

**Prothonotary is** DIRECTED **to strike the name of the jurist from the caption.**

**Mr. Justice Eakin did not participate in the decision of t his matter.**
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 21

- 1143

_____________________________ A KEEM C OLLINS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Walton County

. David W. Green , Judge

. September 14, 2022

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R OWE , C.J., and B.L. T HOMAS and L ONG , JJ., concur

.

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

.

_____________________________

Akeem Collins, pro se
, Appellant.2 Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Anne C. Conley, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
October 21, 2015 

Dear Mr. Wolnski: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket 

No. FAA−2015−3439). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) to process your petition. 

 Describe the aircraft makes, models, and types (i.e., - fixed-wing, rotorcraft, 

lighter-than-air) for the proposed UAS operation. The descriptions should include the 

maximum weight (including payload). This information can be located in the 

aircraft manuals. 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at 

www.regulations.gov. Once your information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the 

requested information (and any proprietary information), as well as your comment tracking 

number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process 

your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 11/4/15. If we do 

not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-4712. 

Sincerely, 

/S/ 

Program Analyst
**KFS** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 3
- 0048 LAURENCE DEAN JACKSON, JR. ,

P etitioner and Appell an

t , v. STATE OF MONTANA ,

Respondent and Appell ee .

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30
- day extension of ti me, and good cause appearing therefore , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including November 3 , 202 4 , within which to prepare, file, and serve its response brief.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 25 2024

09/25/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0048