alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
By Notice dated October 8, 1999, and published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on October 18, 1999, (64 FR 56226), Glaxo Wellcome, Inc., Attn: Jeffrey A. Weiss, 1011 North Arendell Avenue, PO Box 1217, Zebulon, North Carolina 27597-2309, made application to the Drug Enforcement Administration to be registered as an importer of Remifentanil (9739), a basic class of controlled substance listed in Schedule II.                

The remifentanil is being imported for the production of Ultiva dosage forms and for research and new product development.

No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in Title 21, United States Code, Section 823(a) and 952(a), and determined that the registration of Glaxo Wellcome, Inc. to import remifantanil is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971, at this time. DEA has investigated the firm on a regular basis to ensure that the company's continued registration is consistent with the public interest. These investigations have included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, audits of the company's records, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to section 1008(a) of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act and in accordance with Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, § 1301.34, the above firm is granted registration as an importer of the basic class of controlled substance listed above.

Dated: January 4, 2000.

John H. King,

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.

[FR Doc. 00-2874  Filed 2-8-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
EXHIBIT 32.1

                             CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
                TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

                                     BY THE
               CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


       In connection with the Quarterly Report of LION, Inc., a Washington
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), each of
Randall D. Miles, Chief Executive Officer, and Steve Thomson, Chief Financial
Officer, of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.1350), that to his 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.




CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER                  CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


/s/ Randall D. Miles                     /s/ Steve Thomson
------------------------------------     -----------------------------------
Randall D. Miles                         Steve Thomson

May 17, 2004                             May 17, 2004
------------------------------------     -----------------------------------
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 15, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 68980]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29254]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


Central Institute for the Deaf; Notice of Decision on Application 
for Duty-Free Entry of Electron Microscope

    This is a decision pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, 
Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-
651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed 
between 8:30 A.M. and 5 P.M. in Room 4211, U.S. Department of Commerce, 
14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
    Docket Number: 00-030. Applicant: Central Institute for the Deaf, 
St. Louis, MO 63110. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model H-7500. 
Manufacturer: Hitachi, Japan. Intended Use: See notice at 65 FR 59175, 
October 4, 2000. Order Date: March 3, 2000.
    Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of 
equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such 
purposes as the instrument is intended to be used, was being 
manufactured in the United States at the time the instrument was 
ordered. Reasons: The foreign instrument is a conventional transmission 
electron microscope (CTEM) and is intended for research or scientific 
educational uses requiring a CTEM. We know of no CTEM, or any other 
instrument suited to these purposes, which was being manufactured in 
the United States at the time of order of the instrument.

Gerald A. Zerdy,
Program Manager, Statutory Import Programs Staff.
[FR Doc. 00-29254 Filed 11-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

         The undersigned, Bami Bastani, President and Chief Executive Officer of
ANADIGICS, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report of
the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 3, 2004 fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


Dated:  April 28, 2004
                                                  By:  /s/ Bami Bastani
                                                       -----------------------
                                                       Bami Bastani
                                                       President and
                                                       Chief Executive Officer





This certification shall not be deemed to be "filed" for the purpose of Section
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and will not be
incorporated by reference into any registration statement filed under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, unless specifically identified therein as
being incorporated by reference.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to ANADIGICS, Inc. and will be
retained by ANADIGICS, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 11 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 11

Designating October 1993 as ``National Breast Cancer Awareness Month''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

  Mrs. Collins of Illinois introduced the following joint resolution; 
  which was referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Designating October 1993 as ``National Breast Cancer Awareness Month''.

Whereas breast cancer will strike an estimated 182,000 women and 1,000 men in 
        the United States in 1993;
Whereas the risk of developing breast cancer increases as a woman grows older;
Whereas breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in women, and 
        will kill an estimated 46,000 women and 300 men in 1993;
Whereas the 5-year survival rate for localized breast cancer has risen from 78 
        percent in the 1940's to over 90 percent today;
Whereas most breast cancers are detected by the woman herself;
Whereas educating both the public and physicians about the importance of early 
        detection will result in reducing breast cancer mortality;
Whereas appropriate use of screening mammography, in conjunction with clinical 
        examination and breast self-examination, can result in the detection of 
        many breast cancers early in their development and increase the survival 
        rate to nearly 100 percent;
Whereas data from controlled trials clearly demonstrate that deaths from breast 
        cancer are significantly reduced in women who have been screened by 
        mammography;
Whereas many women are reluctant to have screening mammograms for a variety of 
        reasons such as the cost of testing, lack of information, and/or fear;
Whereas access to screening mammography is directly related to socioeconomic 
        status;
Whereas increased awareness about the importance of screening mammography will 
        result in the procedure being regularly requested by the patient and 
        recommended by the health care provider; and
Whereas it is projected that more women will use this lifesaving test as it 
        becomes increasingly available and affordable: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That October 1993 is 
designated as ``National Breast Cancer Awareness Month'', and the 
President is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling 
upon the people of the United States to observe the month with 
appropriate programs and activities.

                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-32598, 333-39054, 333-40182, 333-48170,
333-51518, 333-54808) and Form S-3 (File No. 333-97461) of FairMarket, Inc. of
our report dated February 7, 2003 relating to the financial statements and
financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 28, 2003
4. Macroeconomic Environ
United States Secret Service 

DISPOSITION INSTRUCTIONS FOR CURRENCY HELD IN TREASURY SUSPENSE ACCOUNT 

This form is used to initiate the final disposition of funds held in the Treasury Suspense Account. 

Please e-mail this form, with backup documentation, to the Treasury Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture 

(TEOAF) mailbox: TEOAF_Disposition@treasury.gov 

Cash Receipt Number (entered by National Office/TEOAF): 

Seizure #: - - - Forfeiture date (if applicable) 

Enter the Amount of Funds Seized Under This Asset Number: $ 

Enter the Amount Previously Forfeited or Refunded: $ 

Enter the Amount to Remain in the Treasury Suspense Account 

Pending Future Action: $ 

Enter the Amount Forfeited (Account Code _____________ (Entered by TEOAF)): $ 

Enter the Amounts to be Returned to Owner or 

Other Third Parties (other than sharing agencies):

Party #1: Amount: $ 

Party #2: Amount: $ 

Party #3: Amount: $ 

Please issue checks payable to the above-listed parties, and mail these checks to the 

following address: 

Mail to: 

How Many Sharing Requests Were Filed in Regard to This Asset? 

Expenses (Complete only if equitable sharing request(s) has been filed): 

Case Related Expenses: $ 

Award Payments Made to Treasury Informants: $

Prior Reimbursements to Requesting Agency: $ 

Was a Cost Bond Filed In Regard to These Funds? Yes No 

Was the Cost Bond Deposited to the Treasury Suspense Account? Yes No 

If you answered “Yes” to BOTH of the above questions, you must complete the form titled 

Cost Bond Disposition Instructions.” 

Additional Instructions: TEOAF Use Only: 

SEIZURE #: _______________________________________ 

FUND: ________________ COST CENTER: ___________ 

FUNDS CENTER: _______ MATERIAL GROUP: ________ 

ORDER: ______________ AMOUNT: ________________ 

FUNCTIONAL AREA: ________________________________ 

SIGNATURE: 

This transmission was initiated by: 

Name: Approval: 

Telephone Number: Date: 

Form 2:Version 3.5 Revised September 2020
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6321

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

SHAHBORN EMMANUEL, a/k/a Lord Shahborn

Emmanuel, a/k/a Michael O’Neil,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,

Chief District Judge. (5:95-cr-00006-2)

Submitted: May 16, 2006 Decided: May 24, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shahborn Emmanuel, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C. F. Shappert,

United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Shahborn Emmanuel appeals a district court order denying

his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We have reviewed the

record and the district court order and affirm for the reasons

cited by the district court. See United States v. Emmanuel, No.

5:95-cr-00006-2 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 2, 2006). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Pauline Jasne, Plaintiff, *v.*Louis J. Jasne, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

October 23, 1952.

Walter, J.

A general examination before trial of a defendant in a matrimonial action ordinarily is not allowed *(Tausik*v. *Tausik,*280 App. Div. 887; *Shatz*v. *Shatz,*248 App. Div. 594; *Immerman*v. *Immerman,*230 App. Div. 458; *Appelbaum*v. *Appelbaum,*273 App. Div. 966; *Levi*v. *Levi,*182 Misc. 445; *Whittaker*v. *Whittaker,*126 Misc. 640). The factors and considerations which led to the adoption of that policy have no application to an examination of a defendant husband confined to his assets and income. Nevertheless, it has been held that a plaintiff wife in such an action may not examine defendant husband before trial even with respect to his means, upon the theory that the husband’s financial condition is not material unless and until the wife first establishes her right to a separation or divorce *(Danziger*v. *Danziger,*68 Misc. 452; *Reynolds*v. *Reynolds,*81 Misc. 362; *Van Valkenburgh*v. *Van Valkenburgh,*149 App. Div. 482; *Safrin*v. *Safrin,*205 App. Div. 628; *Horsch*v. *Horsch,*206 App. Div. 710; *Hutaff*v. *Hutaff,*208 App. Div. 745; *Fried*v. *Fried,*230 App. Div. 708). But the contrary, also, has been held *(Linnekin*v. *Linnekin,*96 Misc. 56; *Altman*v. *Altman,*160 Misc. 600); and I followed those cases in *Hemming*v. *Hemming*(N. Y. L. J., Nov. 8, 1951, p. 1172, col. 2) and *Thalheim*v. *Thalheim*(N. Y. L. J., Nov. 21, 1951, p. 1326, col. 4). As is clearly pointed out in those cases, the practice is to try out the right to alimony and the amount thereof at one and the same time, and it hence is necessary for the plaintiff wife to have her evidence as to the husband’s means at the time she tries her right to alimony (see *Boisnot*v. *Wilson,*95 App. Div. 489, 490; *Freeman*v. *Miller,*157 App. Div. 715, 719). I hence conclude that an examination as to the husband’s assets and income is necessary and material and should be allowed. *60
      *Harding*v. *Harding*(203 App. Div. 721, affd. 236 N. Y. 514); *Brown*v. *Brown*(209 App. Div. 835, affd. 239 N. Y. 518); *Rosenthal*v. *Rosenthal*(230 App. Div. 483); and *Frank*v. *Frank*(267 App. Div. 505) may not be directly in point inasmuch as they involved actions to set aside separation agreements, but I think that they repudiate the reasoning in *Van Valkenburgh v. Van Valkenburgh (supra)*and the similar cases above cited and in essence support the conclusion I have just stated.

The motion to vacate the notice of defendant’s examination before trial is therefore granted to the extent of striking out all except items 4 and 5 thereof, thus limiting the examination to defendant’s financial condition and ability to pay alimony. Books and papers relevant to that subject are to be produced upon the examination for use for all purposes authorized by section 296 of the Civil Practice Act. Let the examination proceed at Special Term, Part II of this court on October 30, 1952, at 10 o’clock in the forenoon.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 15, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 69035]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29133]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting

    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 Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel.
    Date: December 4, 2000.
    Time: 8:30 am to 10:30 am.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Bethesda Holiday Inn, 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 
20814.
    Contact Person: Henry J. Haigler, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute 
of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., 
Rm. 6150, MSC 9608, Bethesda, MD 20892-9608, 301/443-7216.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.242, 
Mental Health Research Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development Award, 
Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, and Research Scientist 
Award; 93.282, Mental Health National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: November 6, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-29133 Filed 11-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Case 4:22-cr-00168-P Document 21 Filed 06/22/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 27
Case 4:22-cr-00168-P Document 21 Filed 06/22/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 28
Page 1 of 1

Diby Ako v. Arriva Best Security, Inc., et al.

U.S.D.C. (N.D. Tex.) Case No. 3:22-cv-1751-S

Declaration of Attorney Josh Sanford

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

DIBY AKO PLAINTIFF

vs. No. 3:22-cv-1751-S

ARRIVA BEST SECURITY, INC., DEFENDANTS

and AMOIFO KOFFI

 

DECLARATION OF ATTORNEY JOSH SANFORD

Attorney Josh Sanford hereby states on oath as follows:

1. I am over the age of 18 and legally qualified to execute this Declaration.

2. I am licensed to practice law in all courts in the State of Texas, including this 

one.

3. I am an attorney for Plaintiff Diby Ako.

4. As of the filing of Plaintiff’s Motion for Clerk’s Entry of Default, I have 

received no responsive pleading or motion to dismiss relating to this lawsuit from or on 

behalf of Defendant Arriva Best Security, Inc.

5. I have granted no extension of any kind to Defendant Arriva Best Security, 

Inc.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I verify under penalty of perjury under the laws 

of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: August 29, 2023

/s/ Josh Sanford______

JOSH SANFORD

Case 3:22-cv-01751-S Document 25-1 Filed 08/29/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 91
<page>
EXHIBIT 32.02






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 Dean Witter Diversified
Futures Fund Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q
for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Kevin Perry, Chief Financial Officer, Demeter
Management Corporation, the general partner of the Partnership,
certify, 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 my knowledge:
(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13 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 Partnership.









By:	  /s/	Kevin Perry

Name:		Kevin Perry
Title	:	Chief Financial Officer

Date:		November 15, 2004
#### ROBERDEAU et al. v. RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS et al.

No. 9942.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.

Dec. 5, 1951.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 9, 1952.

*888Smith & Steakley, by Zollie C. Steakley, Austin, for appellant.

Price Daniel, Atty. Gen., and Everett Hutchinson, Executive Asst., for appellee, R. Commission of Texas.

A. M. Felts, Austin and H. S. Beard, Waco-, for Motor Carrier, appellees-.

PER CURIAM.

On October 17, 1951, the Supreme Court reversed our judgment in this case and remanded the cause to this .court for such further proceedings as might be proper in light of the opinion of the Supreme Court. Railroad Commission v. Roberdeau, Tex., 242 S.W.2d 881.

Our opinions are found in 239 S.W.2d at page 889, et seq.

Upon receipt of the mandate from the Supreme *Court we*called upon the respective parties to state their views concerning the effect o-f.the opinion of the Supreme Court and the proper disposition now to be made of this case.

Appellees responded by requesting us to affirm the trial court’s judgment and reinstate our original opinion.

Appellants responded by filing a motion for resubmission and reargument of the cause and in the alternative a motion for rehearing.

Upon the statement made in such motion that all issues had been fully briefed in the briefs on file, we denied the request for re-argument. We granted resubmission of the cause upon the entire record and briefs heretofore filed.

Appellants concede that the opinion of the Supreme Court has adversely disposed of the first two of the three points upon which they based their appeal.1

Appellants urge their third point as not having been decided by the Supreme Court and as having been erroneously decided by us in our original opinion.

We have re-examined appellants’ third point but remain convinced that it does not reflect error.

*In*order *to*conserve book space we reinstate and adopt our original opinion of February 7, 1951, reported in 239 S.W.2d 889 as part of our present opinion and incorporate the same herein by reference.

Supplementing such opinion we cite the opinion of the Supreme Court in this case and the case of Thompson v. Railroad Commission, Tex., 240 S.W.2d 759 in support o-f our judgment that the original orders involved in this suit are not subject to collateral attack.

In our opinion the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed and it is so ordered.

Appellants may file a motion for rehearing herein as in other cases.

1

. All three points are fully set out on page 890 of Vol. 239 S.W.2d.