alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 2958.

#### Same *v.*Same.

April Term, 1892.

This was an order PER curiam May 28, 1892, refusing a motion for continuance, and dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution, the court saying:

It is true, this is a motion addressed to the discretion of the *606court; but this discretion is not a mere capricious one, but is a discretion having regard to the due and efficient administration of justice. One of the crying evils of the day is the tardy and unwarranted delay in the administration of justice, especially in criminal cases. To prevent such delinquencies, the court has framed rules, and it is our duty to administer them. In this case it appears that the case was settled by the Circuit Judge on the 16th of February, 1892, more than three months ago. The solicitor, in accepting service of the proposed “Case” January 22nd, 1892, gave notice in writing that “no further agreement will be made — the ‘Case’ must be perfected, as required by the rules of the court.” When the case was called for a hearing on the 2oth inst., the Briefs had not been filed, though over three months had elapsed. The solicitor then moved to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution, which motion was suspended and the appellant was allowed until to-day to prepare his “Case” for hearing; and now he is still unprepared. The court is unanimously of opinion that there is no excuse for the delay. Motion to continue refused, and motion to dismiss appeal for want of prosecution granted.

No. 2962.

Thereupon this same appellant filed his petition to have the said appeal reinstated, and for further time within which to perfect his appeal. Upon this petition the following order was passed per curiam June 14, 1892:

This is a motion to reinstate an appeal heretotofore dismissed by the order of this court, and. is therefore in the nature of a petition for rehearing. We are unable to discover that this court committed any error in granting the previous order; and we are unable to perceive that the showing made upon the hearing of this motion is substantially different from that heretofore made. It is therefore ordered, that the motion be refused, and that the stay of the *remittitur*heretofore granted be and the same is hereby revoked. It is further ordered, that the clerk of this court do, without further delay, send' down the *remittitur*to the Circuit Court of General Sessions for Barnwell County.

Note. — This case of State *v.*McFail has been taken to the Supreme Court of the United States under writ of error granted by Mr. Justice Lamar of that court, on August 10, 1892.
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 Veterans Affairs

          - [OMB Control No. 2900-0682]

# AGENCY:

Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.

# ACTION:

Notice; withdrawal.

# SUMMARY:

                        On December 16, 2021, the Veterans Benefits Administration (VA), published a notice in the                         **Federal Register**                         announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection “Advertising, Sales, Enrollment Materials, and Candidate Handbooks” OMB #2900-0682. This notice was published in error; therefore, this document corrects that error by withdrawing this FR notice, document number 2021-27255.                    

# DATES:

As of December 27, 2021, the FR notice published at 86 FR 27255 on Thursday, December 17, 2021, is withdrawn.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Maribel Aponte, Office of Enterprise and Integration, Data Governance Analytics (008), 1717 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20006, (202) 266-4688 or email                         *maribel.aponte@va.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

FR Doc. 2021-27255, published on December 17, 2021 (86 FR 27255), is withdrawn by this notice.

By direction of the Secretary.

Maribel Aponte,

VA PRA Clearance Officer, Office of Enterprise and Integration/Data Governance Analytics, Department of Veterans Affairs.

[FR Doc. 2021-28407 Filed 12-30-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 11.1
                                                                     (1997 10-K)

                         First Northern Capital Corp.

                  Computation of Net Income Per Common Share
                                        

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  Year Ended December 31,
                                           -------------------------------------
                                             1997          1996          1995
                                          ----------    ----------    ----------
<S>                                       <C>           <C>           <C> 
BASIC:
Weighted average common shares
  outstanding during each period           8,834,937     8,922,526     9,047,380
                                          ==========    ==========    ==========

DILUTED:
Weighted average common shares
  outstanding during each period           8,834,937     8,922,526     9,047,380
Incremental share relating to:
  Dilutive stock options outstanding at
  end of each period (1)                     245,300       207,918       225,576
                                          ----------    ----------    ----------

                                           9,080,237     9,130,444     9,272,956
                                          ==========    ==========    ==========

NET INCOME FOR EACH PERIOD                $6,036,000    $3,283,000    $4,590,000


NET INCOME PER COMMON
  SHARE AMOUNTS:

Basic                                          $0.68         $0.37         $0.51
Diluted                                        $0.66         $0.36         $0.49
</TABLE>

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

Notes:
(1) Based on treasury stock method using average market price.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Kensey Nash Corporation (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Wendy F. DiCicco, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) 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: September 15, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    WENDY F. DICICCO,
CPA
|                         |  |  |  |     |  |                              |  | Wendy F. DiCicco, CPA  
|                         |  |  |  |     |  |                              |  | Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 23.1







CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM







We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-109413) of PhytoMedical Technologies, Inc. and Subsidiaries ("the Company") of our report dated January 27, 2010, on our audits of the consolidated balance sheets of PhytoMedical Technologies, Inc. as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows for the years then ended.



Our report, dated January 27, 2010, contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming the Company will continue as a going concern.  The Company has experienced recurring losses from operations since inception, and has a substantial accumulated deficit.  These conditions raise substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern.





/S/ PETERSON SULLIVAN LLP





January 27, 2010

Seattle, Washington

---
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of ZIOPHARM
Oncology, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Report”), we Jonathan Lewis, the Principal Executive Officer of the Company and Jason A. Amello,
the Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to our knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (2) | the information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: August 2, 2012



|/s/ Jonathan Lewis                                         
|-----------------------------------------------------------
|Jonathan Lewis, M.D., Ph.D.
        Chief Executive Officer
|(Principal Executive Officer)                              



Dated: August 2, 2012



|/s/ Jason A. Amello                                                         
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Jason A. Amello
        Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1699

MICHAEL EDWARD KENNEDY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

L. BRUCE WADE, Judge, District Court of Maryland for Wicomico County; ROBERT M. BELL, Chief Judge, Court of Appeals for the State of Maryland; SALLY D. ADKINS, Judge, Court of Appeals for the State of Maryland; GLENN T HARRELL, JR., Judge, Court of Appeals for the State of Maryland; LYNNE ANN BATTAGLIA, Judge, Court of Appeals for the State of Maryland; CLAYTON GREENE, JR., Judge, Court of Appeals for the State of Maryland; JOSEPH F. MURPHY, JR., Judge, Court of Appeals for the State of Maryland; MARY ELLEN BARBERA, Judge, Court of Appeals for the State of Maryland,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:09-cv-01433-RDB)

Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 19, 2009

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Edward Kennedy, Appellant Pro Se. Kendra Young Ausby, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Michael Edward Kennedy appeals the district court’s

order dismissing his motion seeking a temporary restraining

order and preliminary injunction. We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. Kennedy v. Wade , No.

1:09-cv-01433-RDB (D. Md. June 8, 2009). We deny Kennedy’s

motion for injunctive relief. 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
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 on Form 10-K of Open Text Corporation (the Company) for the year ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, John Shackleton, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 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, as amended; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.



/s/ John ShackletonJohn Shackleton President and Chief Executive Officer




Dated: September 27, 2005
TradeOn Inc.: Exhibit 10.21 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com











Exhibit 10.21 


Summary of Working Capital Loan Contract 


Summary of Working Capital Loan Contract Entered into by and between Changzhou Wujin Best Cable Co., Ltd. ("the Company") and Changzhou Wunjin Branch, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China ("the
Creditor") dated January 2, 2010 


Main contents

	
Contract number: Year 2009, Wujin Zi 1859 Hao;

	
Loan principal: RMB 9.8 million;

	
Loan term: from January 1, 2010 to July 1, 2010;

	
Floating interest rate: 10% above the benchmark interest rate published by the People’s Bank of China, rate adjustment in a month cycle;

	
Full repayment of the principle shall be made on May 19, 2010 at one time;

	
Interest accrued per day and settled per month, interest settlement day is the 20th day of each month;

	
Penalty interest rate for delayed repayment: 50% above the loan rate under this contract;

	
Penalty interest rate for use of loan not for the provided purpose: 100% above the loan rate under this contract;

	
Purpose of the loan is to purchase materials;

	
Advanced repayment of loan needs to be approved by the Creditor;

	
Breach of contract penalties: correct the breach of contract in time limit; suspension of loan unprovided; release loan agreement, demand prepayment of loan principal and interest before maturity; imposition of punitive interest incurred due to
delayed loan; imposition of punitive interest for embezzlement of loan; imposition of plural interest for unpaid interest; withdraw from any accounts of the Company the loan principal, interest and other fees; compensation for the Creditor’s
expenses incurred due to demanding the loan principal and interest in case of litigation, etc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

D’JANGO HENDRIX

Petitioner,

vs.

WARDEN, LEBANON

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 1:17-cv-623

Judge Timothy S. Black

Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

TO REINSTATE HABEAS ACTION (Doc. 18)

The matter is before the Court on petitioner’s motion to reinstate this habeas 

corpus action (Doc. 18), which was administratively stayed and terminated on the Court’s 

active docket in September 2018, while petitioner exhausted his state court remedies. 

(See Docs. 14, 15). Respondent opposes the motion on the ground that petitioner did not 

file it within thirty days after exhausting his state court remedies, as directed by the stay 

order. (Doc. 19).

It appears from the present record that petitioner has now exhausted all available 

state court remedies. Although petitioner did not file the motion to reinstate his case 

within thirty days after exhausting his state court remedies, petitioner provided the Court 

with an update during the stay and there appears to be no intentional delay on his part. 

Petitioner’s motion for reinstatement of the petition (Doc. 18) is hereby GRANTED. 

The Order entered on September 5, 2018 administratively staying the action and 
2 

terminating the case on the Court’s active docket (Doc. 15) is hereby VACATED. 

It is FURTHER ORDERED that respondent shall file an answer conforming to 

the requirements of Rule 5 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases within sixty (60) days of 

the date of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 4/2/2020

Timothy S. Black

United States District Judge

s/Timothy S. Black
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 Quintek  Technologies,  Inc. on Form
10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof,  I, Robert  Steele,  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  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: November 10, 2004


/S/ ROBERT STEELE
-------------------------------
Robert Steele,
Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7825

MAURICE D. BUCKNER, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus KENNETH K. HARPER, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Sheriff of Louisa County; HENRY A. KENNON, individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of Louisa County, Virginia; LOUISA COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, individually and in his/her official capacity as Administrator of Louisa County, Virginia; DIRECTOR, Albemarle-Charlottesville Joint Security Complex, individually and in his/herofficial capacity as Director; ALBEMARLECHARLOTTESVILLE JOINT SECURITY COMPLEX; MARGARET MCLEOD CAIN, individually and as plaintiff’s former attorney, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-1029-7) Submitted: April 16, 2003 Decided: May 5, 2003 Before LUTTIG, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Maurice D. Buckner, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Maurice D. Buckner appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Buckner v. Harper , No. CA-02-1029-7 (W.D. Va. Oct. 31, 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
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 Justice Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA-392]
 ACTION: Notice of registration.
 SUMMARY: Actavis Pharma, Inc. applied to be registered as an importer of certain basic classes of controlled substances. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) grants Actavis Pharma, Inc., registration as an importer of those controlled substances.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By notice dated May 28, 2014, and published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     on June 4, 2014, FR 79 32315, Actavis Pharma, Inc., 2455 Wardlow Road, Corona, California 
                    ( print page 22562)
                    92880-2882 applied to be registered as an importer of certain basic classes of controlled substances. No comments or objections were submitted for this notice. The DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823, 952(a) and 958(a) and determined that the registration of Actavis Pharma, Inc. to import the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA investigated the company's maintenance of effective controls against diversion by inspecting and testing the company's physical security systems, verifying the company's compliance with state and local laws, and reviewing the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above-named company is granted registration as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances: Controlled substance
ScheduleAmphetamine (1100)
IIMethylphenidate (1724)
IIOxycodone (9143)
IIHydromorphone (9150)
II
 The company plans to import the listed controlled substances for analytical testing and clinical trials. The import of the above listed basic classes of controlled substances will be granted only for analytical testing and clinical trials. This authorization does not extend to the import of a finished FDA approved or non-approved dosage form for commercial distribution in the United States. Dated: April 14, 2015. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2015-09349 Filed 4-21-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09P