alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 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; Centers for HIV Structural Biology (U54 Clinical Trial Not Allowed).                    

*Date:*                         March 2-3, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         9:30 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 3G11A, Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         J. Bruce Sundstrom, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G11A, Rockville, MD 20892, 240-669-5045,                         *sundstromj@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: January 31, 2022. 

Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-02346 Filed 2-3-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
**Exhibit32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Lorna Nagler, President and Chief Executive Officerof Christopher & Banks Corporation (the “Company”) certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.  Thequarterly report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 1,2007 as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;  and

 

2.  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 
| Date: January 10, 2008 |   |
|------------------------|--------|
|                   |   |
|                   | By:    | /s/ Lorna Nagler |   |
|                   |   | Lorna Nagler |
|                   |   | *President and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
#### Anthony BUSSIE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Judge KEENAN; Judge Floyd; Judge Harris; Judge Britt; Judge Bumb, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 16-6943

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 17, 2016

Decided: November 22, 2016

Anthony Bussie, Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Bussie seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his petition for a writ of mandamus for failure to allege sufficient facts in support of his petition. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 *821U.S.C. §' 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by filing an amended petition, we conclude that the order Bussie seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Bussie to amend his petition. See Goode, 807 F.3d at 630. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED AND REMANDED
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6128 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6128

    To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to exempt certain 
    employees engaged in outdoor recreational outfitting or guiding 
               services from maximum hours requirements.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 1, 2023

   Mr. Moore of Utah (for himself and Ms. Pettersen) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 
                             the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to exempt certain 
    employees engaged in outdoor recreational outfitting or guiding 
               services from maximum hours requirements.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Outdoor Recreational Outfitting and 
Guiding Act''.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN EMPLOYEES ENGAGED IN OUTDOOR 
              RECREATIONAL OUTFITTING OR GUIDING SERVICES.

    Section 13(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. 213(b)) is 
amended by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
            ``(4) any employee principally engaged in outdoor 
        recreational outfitting or guiding services and employed by an 
        employer principally engaged in the business of providing such 
        outfitting or guiding services that--
                    ``(A) does not operate for more than seven months 
                in any calendar year; or
                    ``(B) had average receipts for any six months of 
                the preceding calendar year that were not more than 
                33\1/3\ per centum of its average receipts for the 
                other six months of such year; or''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Jose Isaias ZEPEDA, also known as Jose Isias Zepeda, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III,1 Attorney General of the United States, Respondent

No. 16-2033

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: March 7, 2017

Filed: March 14, 2017

Joseph Lopez Wilson, Omaha, NE, for Petitioner

Kathryn Deangelis, Karen Yolanda Drummond, Carl H. McIntyre, Siu P, Wong, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC; OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before COLLOTON, ARNOLD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

1

. Jefferson B. Sessions, III has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the United States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c).

PER CURIAM.

Jose Zepeda, a citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding an immigration judge’s (IJ’s) order denying asylum and withholding of removal. This court reviews the BIA’s decision as the final agency action, and to the extent the BIA adopted the IJ’s findings or reasoning, as it did here, this' court also reviews the IJ’s decision. See Diaz-Perez v. Holder, 750 F.3d 961, 963-64 (8th Cir. 2014) (IJ’s finding of facts are reviewed under deferential substantial evidence standard, and findings must be treated as conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to reach contrary conclusion). To establish eligibility for asylum, Mr. Zepeda had to show that he is unwilling or unable to return to El Salvador because of persecution, or a well-founded fear of future persecution, on account of his membership in the particular social group he identified. See Flores v. Holder, 699 F.3d 998, 1002-03 (8th Cir. 2012). We find that no reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude that Mr. Zepeda met his burden of proving his entitlement to asylum; and thus that his claim for withholding of removal necessarily failed as well, see Sow v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 953, 956 (8th Cir. 2008) (alien who fails to meet standard for asylum cannot meet more rigorous standard for establish-*505mg eligibility for withholding of removal). The petition for review is denied.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                     EXHIBIT 99


           REVIEW REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


To Catalina Marketing Corporation:

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of
Catalina Marketing Corporation (a Delaware corporation) as of December 31, 1996,
and the related condensed consolidated statements of income for the three-month
and nine-month periods then ended, and the condensed consolidated statement of
cash flows for the nine-month period then ended. These financial statements are
the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A review of interim financial
information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial
data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting
matters.  It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in
accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of which is
the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a
whole.  Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the financial statements referred to above for them to be in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 1996, and the related
consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the
year then ended (not presented separately herein), and in our report dated 
April 24, 1996, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial
statements. In our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying
condensed consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 1996, is fairly stated in
all material respects in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which
it has been derived.


ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Tampa, Florida,
  January 10, 1997
Michael WELSH, Appellant, v. Drew A. JOBIN, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1987

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Kobi J. MULLINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; Samuel I. White, P.C.; Shuttleworth, Ruloff, Swain, Haddad & Morecock, PC, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1536

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 20, 2017

Decided: July 24, 2017

Kobi J. Mullins, Appellant Pro Se. Terry Catherine Frank, KAUFMAN & CA-ÑOLES, PC, Richmond, Virginia; Michele Adams Mulligan, GOLIGHTLY MULLIGAN PLC, Richmond, Virginia; Samuel I. White, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

*234Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit,

PER CURIAM:

Kobi J. Mullins appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. *Mullins v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,*No. 3:16-cv-00841-REP, 2017 WL 1202656 (E.D. Va. Mar. 30, 2017). We also deny Mullins’ motion to add a party. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 29 (Friday, February 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 8013]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02959]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL OP-OFA-003]


Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information 202-564-5632 or https://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly Receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed January 31, 2022 10 a.m. EST Through February 7, 2022 10 a.m. EST
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public 
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment 
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20220013, Draft Supplement, USFS, NAT, Nationwide Aerial 
Application of Fire Retardant on National Forest System Land, Comment 
Period Ends: 03/29/2022, Contact: Laura Conway 406-802-4317

Amended Notice:

EIS No. 20210187, Draft, USFS, UT, Southern Monroe Mountain Allotments 
Livestock Grazing Authorization, Comment Period Ends: 02/22/2022, 
Contact: Jason Kling 435-896-1080. Revision to FR Notice Published 12/
23/2021; Extending the Comment Period from 02/07/2022 to 02/22/2022.
EIS No. 20220003, Draft, BLM, UT, Pine Valley Water Supply Project, 
Comment Period Ends: 03/11/2022, Contact: Brooklynn Cox 435-865-3073. 
Revision to FR Notice Published 01/07/2022; Extending the Comment 
Period from 02/22/2022 to 03/11/2022.

    Dated: February 7, 2022.
Cindy S. Barger,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2022-02959 Filed 2-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
La Tissha M. JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D17-3432

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 25, 2018

La Tissha M. Johnson, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Steven E. Woods, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

Petitioner seeks certiorari review of the trial court's denial of her motion to reduce or modify her sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). The trial court dismissed the motion as untimely. However, the motion was filed within sixty days of the date that this Court issued the mandates in her direct appeals. *See* *Bailey v. State* , 136 So.3d 615, 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) ("[A] rule 3.800(c) motion is considered filed when entrusted to prison officials for further delivery or processing."). As the State concedes, the motion was timely filed. *See* Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(c).

The trial court's failure to consider Petitioner's rule 3.800(c) motion on the merits was a departure from the essential requirements of law. *See* *Bacchus v. State* , 958 So.2d 1016, 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari, vacate the order dismissing Petitioner's rule 3.800(c) motion, and remand with directions to consider the motion on its merits.

Osterhaus, Winokur, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Umbrella Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Frank J.
Shinnick, 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 results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Frank J. Shinnick

Frank J. Shinnick
Chief Financial Officer
May 16, 2003
#### Lance WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEGEORGES, Correctional Officer at C.S.P. Solano, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-16106

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 17, 2017

Lance Williams, Pro Se

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Lance Williams, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay the filing fee after denying him in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status because he had three strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). *Andrews v. King,*398 F.3d 1113, 1118 n.6 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.

The district court properly denied Williams’ motion to proceed IFP because at the time Williams filed thé complaint, he had filed three actions that qualified as “strikes,” and he did not plausibly allege *239that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he lodged the complaint. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); *Coleman v. Tollefson,*— U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1759, 1763, 191 L.Ed.2d 803 (2015) (“[Pjrior dismissal on a statutorily enumerated ground counts as a strike even if the dismissal is the subject of an appeal.”); *Belanus v. Clark,*796 F.3d 1021, 1030 (9th Cir. 2015) (dismissal for failure to state a claim because claims were time barred properly counted as a strike); *Andrews v. Cervantes,*493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)).

We reject as without merit Williams’ contention that he was not a California state prisoner at the time he filed the complaint.

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. *See United States v. Elias,*921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Maurice David JOHNSON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2179

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 11, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM REGISTRATION
STATEMENT FORM S-1 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                        58,975,906
<SECURITIES>                                  12,761,659
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,425,013
<ALLOWANCES>                                      96,607
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              74,348,288
<PP&E>                                         9,446,627
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,479,759
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                90,836,844
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5,768,468
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                         561,764
<OTHER-SE>                                    82,561,019
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  90,836,844
<SALES>                                        5,328,675
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5,328,675
<CGS>                                            844,838
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 23,180,808
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               944,660
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (17,504,412)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (17,504,412)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  330,000
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                (19,351,450)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (1.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (1.02)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 15 

 

Acknowledgement Letter of Independent Certified Public Accountants 

 

The Board of Directors 

Catalina Marketing Corporation 

 

We are aware of the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 33-46793, Form S-8 No. 33-77100, Form S-8 No. 33-82456, FormS-8 No. 333-07525 and Form S-8 No. 333-86905) of Catalina Marketing Corporation of our report dated February 5, 2003, relating to the unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial statements as of December 31, 2002 and for the three- andnine-month periods then ended of Catalina Marketing Corporation that are included in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2002. 

 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

 

Tampa, Florida 

February 10, 2003