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 Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Feasibility of Novel Diagnostics for TB in Endemic Countries (FEND for TB) (R01—Clinical Trial Not Allowed).                    

*Date:*                         November 22, 2024.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3E72A, Rockville, MD 20892 (Video Assisted Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Frank S. De Silva, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3E72A, Rockville, MD 20892,  (240) 669-5023,                         *fdesilva@niaid.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: October 18, 2024.

Lauren A. Fleck, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2024-24543 Filed 10-22-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Exhibit 12.1
  Mediacom
    LLC
  Schedule
    of Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
  For the Years Ended December 31,2009


2008


2007


2006


2005Earnings:Income (loss) before income taxes

$
51,818


$
7,389


$
(14,626
)

$
(19,419
)

$
(4,294
)Interest expense, net


89,829



99,639



118,386



112,895



102,000Amortization of capitalized interest


255



1,706



1,939



1,702



1,525Amortization of debt issuance costs


1,961



2,039



2,225



2,427



3,009Interest component of rent
    expense(1)


3,041



3,133



2,617



2,716



2,776Earnings available for fixed charges

$
146,904


$
113,906


$
110,541


$
100,321


$
105,016Fixed Charges:Interest expense, net

$
89,829


$
99,639


$
118,386


$
112,895


$
102,000Capitalized interest


1,564



2,131



1,729



1,893



2,106Amortization of debt issuance cost


1,961



2,039



2,225



2,427



3,009Interest component of rent
    expense(1)


3,041



3,133



2,617



2,716



2,776Total fixed charges

$
96,395


$
106,942


$
124,957


$
119,931


$
109,891Raito of earnings to fixed charges


1.52



1.07











Deficiency of earnings over fixed charges

$



$



$
(14,416
)

$
(19,610
)

$
(4,875
)     (1)
    
    A reasonable approximation (one-third) is deemed to be the
    interest factor included in rental expense.
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th

Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

MAY 6 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

RONNIE DIAL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ROBERT D. HANNIGAN and

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

KANSAS,

Respondents - Appellees.

No. 97-3235

(D.C. No. 97-CV-3031)

(D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before PORFILIO, KELLY, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.**

Mr. Dial seeks to appeal from the denial of his habeas corpus petition, 28

U.S.C. § 2254. In his petition, Mr. Dial argues that the Kansas Sentencing

Guidelines Act, as amended effective July 1, 1993, see Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 21-

4701 to 21-4728 (1995), and its retroactivity provision, see id. § 21-4724, violate
- 2 -

equal protection. Mr. Dial’s view essentially is that all convictions should be

eligible for retroactive application of the Guidelines and that any equal protection

challenge should be evaluatated on the basis of strict scrutiny.

Both the Kansas state courts and the district court have rejected similar

arguments. See Chiles v. State, 869 P.2d 707, 714-18 (Kan.), cert. denied, 513

U.S. 850 (1994); Jones v. Bruce, 921 F. Supp. 708, 710-12 (D. Kan. 1996). We

are likewise unpersuaded. Mr. Dial has not shown that his circumstances are

similar to those in State v. Fierro, 895 P.2d 186, 189-91 (Kan. 1995), thus, Fierro

does not support his position. 

We DENY Mr. Dial’s Application for a Certificate of Appealability and

DISMISS the appeal. All pending motions are denied.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge
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





The
undersigned, Lavi Krasney, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and
Director of Cardio Vascular Medical Device Corp. (the “Company”), certifies,
under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his
knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter
ended March 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that
Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.




Date May
8, 2009





By:
                /s/ Lavi KrasneyName:
                Lavi
      KrasneyTitle:
                Treasurer,
      Chief Financial Officer andSecretary
      and Director(Principal
      Financial and AccountingOfficer)





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-60632

Summary Calendar

XIU HUA REN,

Petitioner

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A095 455 446

Before KING, SOUTHWICK, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Xiu Hua Ren, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, was 

removed from the United States in 2003, returned in 2008, and obtained 

withholding of removal. After she married and obtained derivative asylee 

status through her husband, she filed a motion to reopen her removal 

proceedings on that basis. An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied her motion as 

untimely, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed her appeal. 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 25, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-60632 Document: 00514697684 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/25/2018
No. 17-60632

2

Ren now petitions for review of the BIA’s decision. “In reviewing the denial of 

a motion to reopen, this court applies a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion 

standard, regardless of the basis of the alien’s request for relief.” GonzalezCantu v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 302, 304 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks 

and citation omitted), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 677 (2018).

First, Ren’s arguments regarding purported errors in the IJ’s decision 

are misplaced because, under these circumstances, we review only the BIA’s 

decision. See Marques v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 549, 552-53 (5th Cir. 2016). Second, 

by failing to cite any authority in support or to explain her argument that the 

purpose of her motion to reopen made time limitations inapplicable, Ren has 

forfeited that argument. See Penalva v. Sessions, 884 F.3d 521, 526 n.3 (5th 

Cir. 2018). Third, this court lacks jurisdiction to review Ren’s argument that 

the BIA erred when it declined to exercise its discretion to sua sponte reopen

her removal proceedings. See Gonzalez-Cantu, 866 F.3d at 306.

Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED IN PART and 

DISMISSED IN PART for lack of jurisdiction.

 Case: 17-60632 Document: 00514697684 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/25/2018
#### Bextel and others, Respondents, vs. Franks, Appellant.

*April 15*

May *11, 1948.*

*570
      *E. C. Smith*of Tomahawk, for the appellant.

For the respondents there was a brief by *Frank E. Hebert*and *Robert G. Hebert,*both of Tomahawk, and oral argument by *Robert G. Hebert.*

Hughes, J.

While it is true that under the circumstances which surround this contract there might ordinarily be a question of whether there was such a substantial performance of the contract as to entitle the appellant to an interest in the produce of his labors, no such defense was pleaded by him; and inasmuch as his sole defense was an attempt to emasculate the contract and claim the right to half the logs without sawing, which he was entitled to only after sawing, the trial' court was entirely justified in concluding that since that was the only defense offered, it must be his best. The court rightfully determined the answer to be sham and entered summary judgment in favor of the respondents.

The appellant ^offered no counteraffidavit in opposition to the respondents’ motion for summary judgment, and the evi-dentiary matters therein stated must be deemed to be uncon-troverted. From the affidavit it appears that the only interference with the appellant by respondents was in refusing to allow him to remove one half of the logs before completing performance of the contract.

Since the record shows that the appellant abandoned the contract without cause or excuse, the trial court was right in entering summary judgment in favor of respondents.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
| 1. | to      the  best of my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the      requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of      1934; and |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | to      the best of my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of      operations of Registrant. |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| April      13, 2010 | By:           /s/      Buddy      Young                        Buddy YoungChief Executive officer      andChief Financial      Officer |
|---------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
1

**MEMORANDUM** From: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection Agency To: Docket EPA - HQ - OAR- 201 3 - 0 603 : Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas

Emissions from Modified and Reconstructed Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units Date: August 3 , 201 5 Subject: In corporation by Reference of Docket No. EPA - HQ - OAR- 20 13 - 0 495

– Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units This docket contains information that is relevant to Docket No. EPA - HQ - OAR- 201 3 - 0 603 entitled, “ Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Modified Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units . ” Docket No. EPA - HQ - OAR- 20 13 - 0 495 is incorporated by reference into Docket No. EPA - HQ - OAR- 201 3 - 0 603 .
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-2030

_____________________________

LOCAL UNION 108,

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD 

OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS,

TAMPA, FLORIDA,

Appellant,

v.

CITY OF LEESBURG and PUBLIC 

EMPLOYEES RELATIONS 

COMMISSION,

Appellees.

___________________________

On appeal from a Final Order of the Public Employees Relations 

Commission.

January 10, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, BILBREY, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Tobe Lev and Nick Wolfmeyer of Egan, Lev & Siwica, P.A., 

Orlando, for Appellant.

Stephanie McCulloch, Leesburg, for Appellee City of Leesburg 

and Carlos R. Lopez, Staff Attorney, Public Employees Relations 

Commission, Tallahassee, for Appellee Public Employees 

Relations Commission.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 23, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 84600]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24534]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

[Docket No. 24-09]


Notice of Filing of Amended Complaint; TZ SSE Buyer, LLC, 
Complainant v. COSCO Shipping Lines Co., Ltd., Respondent

Served: October 17, 2024.
    Notice is given that an amended complaint has been filed with the 
Federal Maritime Commission (the ``Commission'') by TZ SSE Buyer, LLC 
(the ``Complainant'') against COSCO Shipping Lines Co., Ltd. (the 
``Respondent''). Complainant states that the Commission has 
jurisdiction over the amended complaint pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 41301 
through 41309 and personal jurisdiction over the Respondent as an ocean 
common carrier, as defined in 46 U.S.C. 40102(18), that has entered 
into a service contract, as defined in 46 U.S.C. 40102(21), with the 
original complainants.
    Complainant is a Delaware limited liability company with a 
principal place of business in Toledo, Ohio. Impact Products, LLC and 
Safety Zone, LLC (the ``original complainants'') filed the verified 
complaint in this proceeding on February 7, 2024, and subsequently 
filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and sold the claims asserted in this 
proceeding to Complainant. The original complainants are shippers as 
this term is defined under 46 U.S.C. 40102(23) with offices in Ohio, 
Tennessee, and Connecticut, among other locations.
    Complainant identifies Respondent as a company organized under the 
laws of China with its United States office located in Secaucus, New 
Jersey and as a global ocean carrier.
    Complainant alleges that Respondent violated 46 U.S.C. 41102(c) and 
41104(a)(10) and 46 CFR 545.5. Complainant alleges these violations 
arose from assessment of demurrage, detention, per diem, and yard 
storage charges during periods of time in which the charges were not 
just or reasonable because of circumstances outside the control of the 
original complainants and their agents and service providers, and from 
the acts or omissions of the Respondent that led to the assessment of 
these charges.
    An answer to the amended complaint must be filed with the 
Commission as provided in Administrative Law Judge Alex M. Chintella's 
October 16, 2024, Order Granting Motion for Leave to File Second 
Amended Complaint. The full text of the amended complaint and this 
order can be found in the Commission's electronic Reading Room at 
https://www2.fmc.gov/readingroom/proceeding/24-09/.
    The initial decision of the presiding judge shall be issued by 
February 14, 2025, and the final decision of the Commission shall be 
issued by August 29, 2025.

David Eng,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-24534 Filed 10-22-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-02-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6185

DARRYL GREEN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

PATRICK CONROY, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA02-92-DKC)

Submitted: April 18, 2002 Decided: April 30, 2002

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darryl Green, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Darryl Green appeals the district court’s order denying relief

on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint and

dismissing without prejudice the complaint insofar as if could be

construed as having been filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994). We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s memorandum and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning

of the district court. See Green v. Conroy, No. CA-02-92-DKC (D.

Md. Jan. 17, 2002). 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
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

Board of Directors and Stockholders
WorldWide Web NetworX Corporation
Mount Laurel, New Jersey

We consent to the inclusion of our report dated April 13, 1999, with respect to
the audit of the consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders'
equity, and cash flows for the year ended September 30, 1998, which report
appears in the September 30, 2000 annual report on Form 10-K of WorldWide Web
NetworX Corporation.


/s/ Richard A. Eisner & Company, LLP
New York, New York
January 10, 2001
ATTACHMENT A

Best Available Retrofit Technology Applicability Analysis submitted by 

O-N Minerals (Chemstone) Company, September 2006
EXHIBIT 32

                                  CERTIFICATION
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Northern Minerals
Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Damian
O'Hara, as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies, 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 results of operations
          of the Company.


Date: February 11, 2011              By: /s/ Damian O'Hara
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Damian O'Hara
                                         Chief Executive Officer
                                         Chief Financial Officer

     This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OC TOBER 30, 2015

NO. 03

- 15

- 00619

- CV

Keith Wiley, Appellant

v.

Hocutt, Inc., Appellee

APPEAL FROM 201ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES PEMBE RTON AND FIELD

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the order signed by the district court on September 11, 2015. Having

reviewe d the record , it appears that the C ourt lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. Therefore, the

C ourt dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The appellant shall pay all costs relating to

this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.