alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 178 (Friday, September 13, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 74969]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-20788]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    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: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel; PAR Panel: Innovative Research in Cancer Nanotechnology.
    Date: October 10-11, 2024.
    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: AC Hotel Bethesda, 4646 Montgomery Avenue, Bethesda, MD 
20814.
    Contact Person: Raj K Krishnaraju, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6190, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 
20892, (301) 435-1047, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4922223b203a212728092a3a3b67272021672e263f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e08b8b928993888e81a0839392ce8e8988ce878f96">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 9, 2024.
Lauren A. Fleck,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-20788 Filed 9-12-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 32.1



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 Netopia, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), Alan B. Lefkof, as President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | i. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | ii. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ Alan B. LefkofAlan B. LefkofPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: August 9, 2005
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 3 , 2024

NO. 03

- 24

- 00215

- CV

In re Commitment of George Johnson , Appellant

APPEAL FROM PROBATE COURT NO. 2 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, SMITH, AND THEOFANIS

DISMISS ED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE THEOFANIS

This is an appeal from the order signed by the tr i a l court on Ma rch 21, 2024 . Having reviewed

the record , the Court holds that appellant has not prosecuted his appeal and did not comply with

a notice from the C lerk of this C ourt

. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want of

prosecution. Because appellant is indigent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs is

made.
<PAGE>   1
Proteon, Inc.                                                        EXHIBIT 21
Subsidiaries of the registrant:

I.    Proteon International Ltd.
      Lockington Hall
      Derby  DE74 2RH
      England
      Organized under the laws of England

II.   Proteon International SARL
      2000 route des Lucioles
      Les Algorithmes
      Bat Aristote  A-BP 29
      Sophia Antipolis  06901
      France
      Organized under the laws of France

III.  Proteon International GMBH
      Falkensteiner Strasse 11
      Kelkheim D 65779
      Germany
      Incorporated under the laws of Germany

IV.   Proteon Networks PTE Ltd.
      30 Bideford Road #02-02
      Thongsia Building
      Singapore  229922
      Organized under the laws of Singapore

V.    OpenROUTE Networks, Inc.
      Nine Technology Drive
      Westborough, Massachusetts  01581-1799
      USA
      Incorporated in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

VI.   Proteon Securities Corporation
      Nine Technology Drive
      Westborough, Massachusetts  01581-1799
      USA
      Incorporated into the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

VII.  Proteon Federal Systems, Inc. (Inactive)
      Nine Techology Drive
      Westborough, Massachusetts  01581-1799
      USA
      Incorporated in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

VIII. Proteon FSC, Inc.
      55-11 Curaco Gade
      Charlotte Amalie
      Virgin Islands  00803
      Incorporated in the U.S. Virgin Islands

IX.   Proteon Australia PTY
      80 Mount Street
      Level 8
      North Sydney  NSW 2060
      Australia
      Organized under the laws of Australia
# --------------

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105



## NOV 1 7 2011
Mr. DavidN. Bittel Arizona Portland Cement Company P. O. Box 338 Rillito, Arizona 85654

Dear Mr. Bittel:

I am writing to infonn you that EPA Region 9 is developing a partial Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for the state ofArizona. The purpose ofthe Regional Haze FIP is to improve visibility in national parks and wilderness areas in Arizona and surrounding states as required by Section 169A ofthe Clean AirAct (Act). During the process ofdeveloping the Arizona Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted to EPA on March 2, 2011, the Arizona Departmentof Environmental Quality (ADEQ) detennined thatthe Arizona Portland Cement facility was exempt from Best Available RetrofitTechnology (BART) requirements. As part ofthe FIP development process, we will revisit that detennination, perfonning an analysis to detennine whetherthis facility is subject to BARTrequirements under section 169A(b)(2)(A) ofthe Act, and EPA's implementing regulations and BARTguidelines at 40 CFRPart 51, Subpart P and Appendix Y.

As we begin ourFIP analysis, we have requested that ADEQ provide us with all background materials, including subject-to-BART analyses, that were perfonned bythem orthe affected facilities. We may also request that you provide us with additional infonnation on the Arizona Portland Cementfacility as our analysis proceeds. In the meantime, we welcome the submission ofany additional, relevant infonnation that you would like to provide to our office. Ifwe detennine that this facility is subjectto BART requirements, we will perfonn a five-factor BART analysis to detennine whether any additional emissions controls are warranted.

EPA has entered into a consent decree that requires the Agency to propose approval ofArizona's Regional Haze SIP and/or propose a Regional Haze FIP that meets the requirements ofthe Act and EPA's regional haze regulations by May 15,2012. The consent decree also requires the Agency to take final action onthe Arizona Regional Haze SIP and/or FIP by November 15, 2012. EPA Region 9 will hold publichearings in Arizona and solicit public comments on a proposed Arizona Regional Haze FIP in the months preceding the November 15 deadline.

Ifyou would like to submit any additional information or analysis, we request that you send it by January 31,2012. Any modeling ofthe facility should use the regulatoryversions ofCALPUFF (version 5.8, level 070623), CALMET (version 5.8, level 070623), and CALPOST (version 6.221). You maywish to prepare a modeling protocol and consult with EPARegion 9 about the preparation ofmodeling inputs in accord with EPA guidance. Submit any infonnation to:

### Thomas Webb US EPA (AlR-2) 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105

You can also reach Thomas at webb.thomas@epa.go orbyphone at415-947-4139.

Thankyou for your attentionto this matter. Ifyou have any questions, please contact Thomas Webb or myself(mckaughan.colleen@epa.gov, 520-498-0118).

# ;;;;~M~~ Colleen McKaughan Associate Director, AirDivision

cc: HenryR. Darwin, ADEQ Eric Massey, ADEQ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6467

JACK ARNOLD MCINTYRE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GARY D. MAYNARD, Director, South Carolina

Department of Corrections; CHARLES MOLONY

CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South

Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (CA-02-1335-2-17AJ)

Submitted: July 24, 2003 Decided: July 30, 2003

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jack Arnold McIntyre, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Jack Arnold McIntyre seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, , 123 S. Ct.

1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S.

941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that McIntyre has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.1

    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 GCI, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A
for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ronald A. Duncan, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of
         the Company.


Date:  December 13, 2006        /s/ Ronald A. Duncan
                                Ronald A. Duncan
                                Chief Executive Officer
                                GCI, Inc.

                                       1
#### AMYX et ux. v. HOWERTON et al.

No. 9174.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Nov. 22, 1933.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 10, 1934.

*382Roy Buckley and G. E. Dohrn, both of Mission, for appellants.

Brown & Bader, of Edinburg, for appel-lees.

MURRAY, Justice.

This is a suit for the rescission of a contract wherein appellant C. B. Amyx transferred a house and lot situated in McAllen, Hidalgo county, to J. V. Howerton; the consideration being ten shares of stock of the Central State Bank of Abilene, Tex.

Rescission was sought on the grounds that Howerton had perpetrated a fraud upon appellant, in that he represented this stock to be worth $1,800, when as a matter of fact it was worthless. It was alleged by appellant that appellee had ■ represented to him that this stock was worth 1.82 on the dollar, that there was on hand in the bank $33,-000 in undivided profit, and that he had spent five years in cleaning the bank out and that he knew it was clean. It was shown that appellee Howerton was vice president of the bank.

The negotiations for this trade began in August, 1930, and were closed in October, 1930. The bank closed its doors in April, 1931. One E. G. Utzman was the real estate agent that negotiated the deal.

It is further shown from the record ap-pellee disclosed to appellant that his statement that the stock was worth $1,800 was based upon the bank statement, a copy of which he furnished to appellant, and the further fact that said statement valued the bank building at only $50,000, when they could sell it for $100,000. The only evidence tending to show these statements were false was the failure of the bank in April, 1931, and the depositions of the president and cashier to the effect that they realized in October that due to crop failures the bank was getting, into a shaky condition, and unless something happened they would be forced to liquidate. They further testified that the reason the bank had to close was that they were out of money. They also testified that they did not have any money during 1930 out of which to pay dividends.

Appellee admitted that he saw the bank statement and was able to read and understand it. This being true, he could not have been misled by appellant’s statement about dividends, as this statement did not show any dividends, but only a surplus of $33,C00.

It appears to us that the representations made by appellee were mere expressions of opinions based upon the bank statement and other facts in the possession of both parties. The evidence was insufficient to establish actionable fraud, and the trial court properly instructed a verdict for appellee.

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DOUGLAS COBURN,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 197 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 31st day of October, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          62,885
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,570
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,022
<INVENTORY>                                     13,252
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               110,896
<PP&E>                                          32,799
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,502
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 130,485
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,545
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            31
<OTHER-SE>                                     105,653
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   130,485
<SALES>                                        220,174
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               225,909
<CGS>                                          124,125
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  124,948
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                36,470
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    32
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (405)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,368
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,479
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,368
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,889
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .26


</TABLE>
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 4, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 131593(27) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, LOUIS ARTHUR LAFFIN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 131593 COA: 266299 Oakland CC: 1999-620238-DM MARIZA LAFFIN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for re consideration of this Court’s November 29, 2006 order is consider ed, and it is GRANTED. We VACATE our order dated November 26, 2006. On reconsideration, the application for leave to appeal the May 26, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is cons idered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted.

d0328 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 4, 2007

Clerk
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 2- 26 36

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Mi ch ael J. Co nv il le
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l App el la nt

v. Dep art m en t o f Edu cat io n, U.S. Sec ret ary Arn e Duc an

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l App el le e

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ctof Ark an sa s - F t. Sm it h

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Feb ru ary 6, 2 01 3 Fi le d: Ju ly 12, 2 01 3 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re BYE, ARNOLD, andSHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Mi ch ael Co nv il le fil e d a co m pl ai nt fo r jud ic ia l rev ie w of an ad m in is tra ti ve de ci si on of th e Dep art m en t of Edu cat io n ( D O E) d e n yin g di sc ha rg e of hi s fed eral ly gu aran te ed st ud en t lo an s. Bo th pa rti es m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. Dete rm in in g t he re was no ev id en ce th at th e DOE’ s de ci si on was un reas on ab le , arb it r a r y, o rcap ric io us , th e di st ric t co ur t d en ie d Co nv il le ’s m ot io n, gr an te d th e DOE’ s, an d 1 di sm is se d t he co m

pl ai nt . Con vi ll e ap pe al s.

Fo r th e reas on s th e di st ric t co ur t st at ed , we co nc lu de th at th e DOE was en ti tl ed to su m m ary jud gm en t. See So ut h Dak ot a v. Dep ’t of In te rio r, 48 7 F.3 d 54 8, 55 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) ( s t a n d a rd of rev ie w). The ex is te nc e of th e st ud en t lo an de bt s was
un di sp ut ed

. Not wit hs ta nd in g Co nv il le ’s ar gum ents, the D O E re as ona bly de ci de d th at hi s de bt s were en fo rceabl e an d t h a t t h ere was no ba si s fo r th ei r di sc ha rg e. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco ur t. See 8t h C ir. R . 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le Ro be rt T. Dawso n, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju d g e fo r th e 1 W es te rnDis tri ctof Ark an sa s. -2

-
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q 
FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         16,447
<SECURITIES>                                   18,393
<RECEIVABLES>                                   8,277
<ALLOWANCES>                                      615
<INVENTORY>                                     1,401
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               42,896
<PP&E>                                          1,923
<DEPRECIATION>                                 10,190
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 52,279
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           9,995
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           12
<OTHER-SE>                                     42,148
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   52,279
<SALES>                                         7,923
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                7,923
<CGS>                                           2,806
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   2,806
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               11,733
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (570)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,046)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,046)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,046)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.50
        



</TABLE>