alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 9631]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03665]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    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 on Minority Health and 
Health Disparities Special Emphasis Panel; HIV Health Disparity 
Research in Primary Care Settings.
    Date: March 30, 2022.
    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Gateway Plaza, 7201 
Wisconsin Ave., Bethesda, MD 20817 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Xinli Nan, M.D., Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Division of Scientific Programs, National Institute on 
Minority Health and Health Disparities, National Institutes of 
Health, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, 
301-594-7784, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#adf5c4c3c1c483e3ccc3edc3c4c583cac2db"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e1b9888f8d88cfaf808fa18f8889cf868e97">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: February 16, 2022.
David W. Freeman,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-03665 Filed 2-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Brandon STROUSE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-41384 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 14, 2017

*377Traci Lynne Kenner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

James Brandon Strouse, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

James Strouse filed a notice of appeal from an order denying his motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 to correct the presentence report (“PSR”) after his conviction of possession of child pornography. He does not address that motion in his appellate brief, however, and thereby has effectively not appealed that issue. *See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); *see also Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

Instead, Strouse’s brief challenges an order by the district court, in a separate case, that denied a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. He also moves to vacate the Rule 60(b) order and to remand that case to the district court. The Rule 60(b) motion is pending before this court in another appeal. Thus, with respect to Strouse’s Rule 36 and Rule 60(b) issues, the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. *See Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983).

To the extent that Strouse also seeks review of the order denying his recusal motion under 28 U.S.C. § 455, we lack jurisdiction because the notice of appeal designated the Rule 36 order and was filed before the § 455 order was issued, so the appeal in that respect is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(B); *Warfield v. Fid. & Deposit Co.,*904 F.2d 322, 325-26 (5th Cir. 1990). Strouse’s motions to disqualify the judge, vacate the judge’s orders, and remand are DENIED, as is Strouse’s motion to consolidate the two appeals.

*

**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.
EXHIBIT 32



WRITTEN STATEMENT



PURSUANT TO



18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



The undersigned, Donald B.
Murray, the Chief Executive Officer of Resources Connection, Inc., and Stephen J. Giusto, the Chief Financial Officer of Resources Connection, Inc. (the Company), pursuant to Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and 18 U.S.C. §1350, hereby certify that, to the best of their knowledge:



(i) the Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended May 31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



Dated: August 10, 2004



/s/ Donald B. MurrayDonald B. MurrayPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Stephen J. GiustoStephen J. GiustoChief Financial Officer andExecutive Vice President of Corporate Development(Principal Financial Officer)




The foregoing certification
accompanied the Report on Form 10-K pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is being reproduced herein for information only. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided by the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





---
**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 onForm 10-Q of Cotelligent, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain 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 such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial 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, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others with those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand 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 report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial 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, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

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

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely 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 asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 12, 2005
Susan E. Hough, PhD

United States Geological Survey

Induced Seismicity:

Knowns and Unknowns

This draft presentation is distributed solely for purposes of advance review. Its content is deliberative and predecisional, so it must not be 

reproduced or distributed further. Because the presentation has not been approved for publication by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 

it does not represent any official USGS finding or policy

Earthquakes: 

1RW-XVWD3&DOLIRUQLD3UREOHP ́
2011 Magnitude 5.8 Virginia 

Earthquake

$100M 



Earthquakes Prior to 2009?


Coincidence?
Hough and Page, 2015
What Causes Induced Earthquakes?

Weingarten et al., Science 2015
Theory 1. Magnitude limited by total injected volume
7KHRU\6DPH3Mmax ́DVIRUQDWXUDOHDUWKTXDNHV
Possible but not Likely

 Natural earthquakes: 1000 M3s Æ 1 M6

 Induced earthquakes: 8000- 30,000 M3s Æ 1 M6
What does this mean for hazard? 

Hazard Depends on Shaking
6KDNLQJGHSHQGVRQ«
But not all earthquakes with the 

VDPHPDJQLWXGHDUHFUHDWHGHTXDO«
Induced earthquakes: 

less bang for the buck

Hough, 2014
8QOHVV\RXDUHULJKWRQWRSRIWKHP«
WKDW¶VWKHERWWRPOLQH"
1. Induced earthquakes are real

Walsh and Zoback, Science Advances 2015
2. Most induced earthquakes are small
3. Potentially strong shaking near epicenter,

 lower shaking/hazard otherwise
4. Infrequent larger events:

 unlikely but probably possible
Hazard: 1% chance in 1 year
#### Floyd DeL. Brown, Respondent, *v.*The Chaminade Velours, Inc., et al., Appellants. Charles J. Amm, Appellant, *v.*United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, Respondent, and Floyd DeL. Brown, Impleaded Respondent.

Submitted January 5, 1943;

decided February 25, 1943.

*586
      *Benjamin Heffner*and *Philip Stanley Abrahams*for appellants.

*George Heitler*and *George R. Coughlan*for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs. First question certified answered in the negative. Other questions certified not answered. No opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ,
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


                         ENDOVASCULAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
                          (A DEVELOPMENT STAGE COMPANY)

                        COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                      Three Months Ended              Nine Months Ended
                                                                         September 30,                   September 30,
                                                                 ---------------------------     ------------------------------
                                                                     1995            1996            1995               1996
                                                                 -----------     -----------     -----------        -----------

<S>                                                              <C>             <C>             <C>                <C>         
Net Loss                                                         $(2,136,890)    $(3,507,033)    $(5,872,991)       $(9,398,914)
                                                                 -----------     -----------     -----------        -----------

Weighted average common shares outstanding                         6,087,783       8,354,857       6,087,915          8,042,398

Common shares and options granted (using the treasury
       stock method assuming an initial public offering price
       of $12.00) between December 15, 1994 and the
       Company's initial public offering: included pursuant
       to Securities and Exchange Commission Rules                   138,743                         138,743             62,419 (1)
                                                                 -----------     -----------     -----------        -----------

Weighted average common and equivalent shares                      6,226,526       8,354,857       6,226,658          8,104,817
                                                                 ===========     ===========     ===========        ===========

Net loss per common and equivalent share                         $     (0.34)    $     (0.42)    $     (0.94)       $     (1.16)
                                                                 ===========     ===========     ===========        ===========
</TABLE>


(1)    Pursuant to the Securities and Exchange Commission rules the shares
       and options were treated as outstanding through the quarter in which
       the initial public offering was completed (the first quarter of
       fiscal 1996).




                                 Page 20 of 20
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

August 27, 2010

Mr. Mike A. Hatchell

Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell, LLP

100 Congress Avenue, Suite 300

Austin, TX 78701-4042

Mr. Juan A. Magallanes

Magallanes & Hinojosa, P.C.

1713 Boca Chica Blvd.

Brownsville, TX 78520

Honorable Benjamin Euresti

Judge, 107th District Court

974 E. Harrison

Brownsville, TX 78520

RE:Case Number:  08-0995

Court of Appeals Number:  13-08-00136-CV

Trial Court Number:  2006-06-2741-G

Style:IN RE  COLUMBIA VALLEY HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, L.P. D/B/A VALLEY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas issued an opinion in the above-referenced cause.  You may obtain a copy of the opinion at: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/recent.asp.  If you would like the opinion by email, please contact Claudia Jenks at claudia.jenks@courts.state.tx.us or call (512)463-1312 ext. 41367.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

**Case No. 08-0995Page 2**
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

____________________________________________________________________________________

In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of USA Truck, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2009 (the “Report”), I, Clifton R. Beckham, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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:  | October 30, 2009 | By:    | /s/ Clifton R. Beckham                    |   |
|--------|------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |             |   | **Clifton R. Beckham**                    |   |
|   | * *         |   | *President and Chief Executive Officer*** |   |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to USA Truck, Inc. and will be retained by USA Truck, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT14.4****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No.333-112226) of Micromem Technologies Inc. of our report dated February 10, 2006 relating tothe consolidated financial statements of Micromem Technologies Inc. which appear in the AnnualReport on Form 20-F for the year ended October 31, 2005. Our report dated February 10, 2006,contains additional comments for US readers on Canada-US reporting differences.The consolidated financial statements as at October 31, 2004 and for the year then ended andfor the cumulative period from September 3, 1997 to October 31, 2004, have been incorporatedby reference herein and were audited by other auditors who expressed opinions withoutreservation on those statements in their reports dated February 11, 2005, December 5, 2003,January 27, 2003, November 16, 2001, December 13, 2000, February 25, 2000 and December 20,1999./s/ SCHWARTZ LEVITSKY FELDMAN LLP
#### Thomas Murray, Respondent, *v.*The Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant.

(Argued May 12,1871;

decided September term, 1871.)

*John H. Reynolds*for the appellant.

*Amasa J. PaJker*for the respondent.

For affirmance, Eabl, G-bay and Hunt, CO.

For reversal, Lott, Ch. C., and Leonabd, C.

*No*opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Donielle Rashi ROSS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11443 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 2, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Kevin Joel Page, Douglas Anthony Morris, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Donielle Rashi Ross appeals the sentence imposed pursuant to his convictions for being a felon in possession of a firearm, possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense. Ross argues that the district court erred in classifying his prior assault conviction under Texas Penal Code § 22.01(a)(1) and (b)(2)(B) as a “crime of violence” for purposes of a U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) enhancement; however, he concedes that the issue is foreclosed by *United States v. Howell,*838 F.3d 489, 501-03 (5th Cir. 2016), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1108, 197 L.Ed.2d 212 (2017), and raises it solely to preserve its further review. *Howell*held that the offense of assault under Texas Penal Code § 22.01(a)(1) and (b)(2)(B) is a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines. 838 F.3d at 501-03. The Government has moved unopposed and pursuant to *Howell*for summary affirmance or, in the alternative, for an extension of time in which to file a responsive brief. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and its alternative motion is DENIED.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
#### Alphonse V. CASTALDI, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 18401.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Nov. 9, 1966.

*186Alphonse V. Castaldi, pro se.

Richard D. FitzGibbon, Jr., U. S. Atty., .and John A. Newton, Asst. U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., filed brief for the United States.

Before VAN OOSTERHOUT and GIBSON, Circuit Judges, and NICHOL, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by Alphonse V. Castaldi, hereinafter called defendant, from order denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion to vacate sentence without according him an evidentiary hearing.

Defendant and Drummond were charged in Count One of an indictment with •counterfeiting a federal reserve note and in Count Three with conspiracy together and with J. P. Long, Jr., to commit .such counterfeiting offense. Drummond alone was charged in Count Two with making a plate in the likeness of the note. Defendant and Drummond were .jointly tried to a jury. Drummond was convicted on all three counts. Castaldi was convicted on the conspiracy count .alone and was sentenced to five years imprisonment. The convictions were affirmed upon appeal. Drummond v. United States, 8 Cir., 350 F.2d 983. The pertinent facts are set out in such opinion and we will not repeat them here.

Defendant in his present motion asserts that subsequent to the trial several of the jurors were asked by the assistant United States Attorney why they found Castaldi guilty only upon the conspiracy count, to which they replied in substance: “We were going to find Castaldi not guilty of conspiracy also, but because of his association with Drummond and Long we felt he may have had some knowledge of the crime.” 251 F.Supp. 681, 682.

The basic errors asserted and relied upon by defendant upon his appeal are thus summarized in his brief: “I was deprived of a fair and impartial trial because of the denial of my Motion for a separate trial and because the jury convicted me on the basis of an improper standard, finding me guilty of ‘association’ instead of conspiracy in which I was charged with.”

Defendant requested that the twelve members of the jury who heard his case be required to appear and testify as to the true facts and that upon the basis of such testimony, the judgment of conviction be vacated.

Judge Meredith, in an opinion reported at 251 F.Supp. 681, held that public policy and proper judicial administration require that under the facts here presented that jurors not be called to testify for the purpose of attempting to impeach their verdict on the basis of matters which inhere in the verdict itself and that the motion presented only questions of law and that no evidentiary hearing was required.

We have carefully examined Judge Meredith’s reported opinion. Such opinion is based upon sound reasoning and is supported by very respectable cited precedents. No purpose will be served in retreading the ground so well covered by Judge Meredith in his opinion. We adopt such opinion as our opinion.

The order dismissing the motion to vacate judgment is affirmed.
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

I, Edith Kam Ying Ho, certify, PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the annual
report of Asia Payment Systems, Inc. on form 10-KSB for the year ended December
31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such annual
report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Asia Payment Systems, Inc.

April _____, 2005     By: /s/ Edith Kam Ying Ho
                          ---------------------
                          Edith Kam Ying Ho
                          Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears typed from within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Asia Payment Systems, Inc. and
will be retained by Asia Payment Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


<PAGE>