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

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [CAN 1990470]

                    Section 30.18 of the Department of Health and Human Services' claims collection regulations (45 CFR part 30) provides that the Secretary shall charge an annual rate of interest, which is determined and fixed by the Secretary of the Treasury after considering private consumer rates of interest on the date that the Department of Health and Human Services becomes entitled to recovery. The rate cannot be lower than the Department of Treasury's current value of funds rate or the applicable rate determined from the “Schedule of Certified Interest Rates with Range of Maturities” unless the Secretary waives interest in whole or part, or a different rate is prescribed by statute, contract, or repayment agreement. The Secretary of the Treasury may revise this rate quarterly. The Department of Health and Human Services publishes this rate in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

                    The current rate of 9                    1/8                    %, as fixed by the Secretary of the Treasury, is certified for the quarter ended December 31, 2021. This rate is based on the Interest Rates for Specific Legislation, “National Health Services Corps Scholarship Program (42 U.S.C. 254o(b)(1)(A))” and “National Research Service Award Program (42 U.S.C. 288(c)(4)(B)).” This interest rate will be applied to overdue debt until the Department of Health and Human Services publishes a revision.                

David C. Horn,

Director, Office of Financial Policy and Reporting.

[FR Doc. 2022-03342 Filed 2-15-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4150-28-P
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 97-10107 Conference Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JAMES STANLEY LUKE, also known as Stanley Luke, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:96-CR-037-1-J
- - - - - - - - - - August 14, 1997 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * James Stanley Luke appeals his conviction for retaliating against a witness under 18 U.S.C. § 1513(b)(2), arguing that the statute is vague. Luke waived this challenge by not raising it in the district court. F ED . R. C RIM . P . 12(b)(1), (2); (f); see United States v. Chavez-Valencia , 116 F.3d 127, 130 (5th Cir. 1997) (failure to raise motion to suppress in the district courtNo. 97-10107 -2- waives appellate review). Luke also contends that the district court abused its discretion by ordering that he receive substance-abuse testing and treatment while on supervised release. The district court did not plainly err by requiring drug testing during Luke's period of supervised release. See United States v. Calverley , 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc). AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

Certifications Pursuant to Section 302 

of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 

 

I, Curtis J. Parker, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Cotelligent, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others with those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b)Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusion about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and 

 

c) Disclosed in this report anychange in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, oris reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: 

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting. 

 

Date:November 14, 2005 

 

/s/ Curtis J.Parker                            

Curtis J. Parker 

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Antonio Reynaldo WILLIAMSON, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2243

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 19, 2017

Following review of the petition for belated appeal, it is ordered that said petition is hereby denied without prejudice to petitioner filing an appropriate petition in the circuit court.

LOGUE, LUCK and LINDSEY, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT - 31.2**

 

MOSSIMO, INC.

 

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

I, EdwinLewis, Vice Chairman and Co-Chief Executive Officer of the registrant, certifythat:

 

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Mossimo, Inc.;

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.     The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant andhave:

 

(a)          Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant is made known to usby others, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

(b)         Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)          Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonable likely to affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and

 

5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a)          All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)         Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.

 
| /s/ EDWIN LEWIS                               |   |
|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
| Edwin Lewis                                   |
| Vice-Chairman and Co-Chief Executive  Officer |
| November 14, 2005                             |

 

----
[LETTERHEAD OF MCGLADREY & PULLEN, LLP]
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT

To the Board of Directors
Wake Forest Bancshares, Inc.
Wake Forest, North Carolina

We have audited the accompanying  consolidated  statement of financial condition
of Wake Forest Bancshares,  Inc. and subsidiary as of September 30, 1999 and the
related consolidated statements of income,  stockholders' equity, and cash flows
for the year then ended. These financial statements are the responsiblity of the
Company's  management.  Our  responsibility  is to  express  an opinion on these
financial statements based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards.
Those standards  require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable
assurance   about  whether  the  financial   statements  are  free  of  material
misstatements. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.  An audit also includes
assessing the  accounting  principles  used and  significant  estimates  made by
management,  as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion,  the financial  statements  referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects,  the financial  position of Wake Forest Bancshares,  Inc.
and subsidiary as of September 30, 1999 and the results of their  operations and
their cash flows for the year then ended in conformity  with generally  accepted
accounting principles.


/s/ McGladrey & Pullen, LLP
---------------------------
McGladrey & Pullen


Raleigh, North Carolina
October 27, 1999
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.3
                        PROMISSORY NOTE                
                                        
$12,500.00                                                   Bothell, Washington
                                                             November 9, 1998


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Orca Technologies, Inc. (the undersigned) agrees to pay to
the order of Roger P. Vallo, the sum of Twelve Thousand Five Hundred and
00/100ths Dollars ($12,500.00) in lawful money of the United States of America.

(a) This Note bears interest at the rate of 8% (eight percent) per annum.

(b) This Note is payable February 8, 1999.

After default, at the option of the holder, the entire indebtedness evidenced
hereby shall become immediately due and payable.  Failure to exercise the rights
and remedies available to the holder of this Note shall not waive the right to
exercise them in the event of any subsequent default.  In the event of default,
the undersigned promises to pay collection expenses, including reasonable
attorneys' fees, incurred by the holder of this note, with or without suit on
appeal and in bankruptcy or other insolvency proceedings.

The Note is delivered to the payee in the state of Washington and is made with
reference to, and shall be construed in accordance with, the laws of the state
of Washington without  reference to their conflict of law principles.


                                              /s/ Casey F. Seremek
                                             ------------------------
                                             Casey F. Seremek
                                             Orca Technologies, Inc.
                                             Controller
                                             Date:  November, 8, 1998
#### In the Matter of Bernarr Macfadden, Respondent, against Felix C. Benvenga, as One of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, et al., Appellants.

Argued January 4, 1943;

decided February 25, 1943.

*570
      *Maurice V. Seligson*and *Myer I. Kleinberg*for appellants.

*Edward S. McLean, Charles D. Breitel*and *Oscar Stabiner*for respondent.

Order affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ.
**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 Tween Brands, Inc. (the “Company”), on Form 10-K forthe fiscal year ended February 2, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael W. Rayden, Chairman of the Board of Directors of theCompany and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer), hereby certify, pursuant to 18U.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 theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.Dated: March 28, 2008              /s/ Michael W. Rayden   Michael W. Rayden   Chairman of the Board of DirectorsandChief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
#### The State v. Bowman.

1. Grand Jury: calling talesmen: when not lawful. After the judge has informed the grand jurors that they need not appear at the next term unless again summoned, ho is not authorized, on the third day of the next term, without any summons or other notice to the jurors to appear, to impanel a grand jury, by calling talesmen to take the place of such of the regular panel as are absent, and *held*that an indictment found by such grand jury should be quashed.

*Appeal from MarshaM District Court.*

Monday, October 24.

Defendant was indicted and convicted of the crime of committing a nuisance in keeping a saloon for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors. He now appeals to this court.

*J. M.*ParJc'er, for appellant.

*A. J. BaJ&er, Attorney-general,*for the State.

Beck, J.

I. The defendant moved to quash theindictment for the reason that the grand jury were not drawn, summoned and impaneled in the manner required by law. This objection is based upon the alleged fact that a grand jury lawfully summoned was unlawfully discharged, and the grand jury finding the indictment was unlawfully summoned and impaneled in their place on the third day of the term. The motion, in our opinion, ought to have been sustained.

The facts which support the allegations of the motion are shown by affidavits of jurors and others. These affidavits *111show that, at a preceding term, the judge of the court advised the grand jurors that they need not attend the following term unless again summoned, and that on the first day of the term at which the indictment was found he informed one' or two grand jurors that they would not be wanted. No summons was issued to the jurors to appear at the term, or any day thereof, and no notice to that effect was given to them in any other way. The jury was impaneled on the third day of the term. It is not shown how many of the regular panel were present, or how many were put upon the jury. It appears that some two, at least, were absent on account of the direction of the judge for them not to appear as above stated. The jury should not have been impaneled when jurors were absent by direction of the judge, nutil they had been notified and failed to appear. The law does not authorize the judge to control, in this way, the impaneling of the jury, and exclude persons therefrom chosen in the manner prescribed by law. We think the grand jury finding the indictment was illegally impaneled, and the motion to quash the indictment should have been sustained. Other questions in the case need not be considered. Reversed.
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO **

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| 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. |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/                Mark R. Newburg                                                                                          | Dated:                   | May                15, 2006 |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|-----------------------------|
|   | Mark                R. Newburg                                                                                              |                               |                        |
| Title: | President,                Chief Executive Officer                and Treasurer (Principal                Executive Officer) |                               |                        |
|   |                                                                                                                        |                               |                        |
| By:    | /s/                Arnaldo F. Galassi                                                                                       | Dated:                   | May                15, 2006 |
|   | Arnaldo                F. Galassi                                                                                           |                               |                        |
| Title: | Chief                Financial Officer and Secretary (Principal Financial                Officer)                           |                               |                        |

----
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1321 KA 11-01582**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MICHAEL J. LUPER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (BARBARA J. DAVIES OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DONNA A. MILLING OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Sheila A. DiTullio, J.), rendered June 28, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal ( see generally People v Lopez , 6 NY3d 248, 256). Although County Court’s colloquy was brief, defendant signed a detailed written waiver of the right to appeal ( see People v Ramos , 7 NY3d 737, 738), and he acknowledged to the court that he understood that he was foregoing the right to appeal ( cf. People v Bradshaw , 18 NY3d 257, 267). The valid waiver encompasses any challenge by defendant to the severity of the sentence ( see Lopez , 6 NY3d at 255).

Entered: December 21, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### Danny Dewayne IRICK, a/k/a Danny D. Irick, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A. MANSUKHANI, Warden, Respondent-Appellee, and C. Samuels, Director; Jefferson B. Sessions III, United States Attorney General, Respondents.

No. 15-7906

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 8, 2017

Decided: May 12, 2017

Danny Dewayne Irick, Appellant Pro Se.

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Danny Dewayne Irick, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R, Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion for relief from the district court’s previous order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Irick v. Mansukhani,*No. 8:14-cv-00183-TMC, 2015 WL 11121543 (D.S.C. Oct. 13, 2015). We deny the motion to remedy default as moot. 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.

*AFFIRMED*