alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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-955]
 AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
 ACTION: Notice of application.
 SUMMARY: Scottsdale Research Institute, has applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to Supplemental Information listed below for further drug information.
 DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before April 25, 2022. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before April 25, 2022.
 ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on January 10, 2022, Scottsdale Research Institute, 5436 East Tapekim Road, Cave Creek, Arizona 85331, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s): Controlled substance
Drug 
                             code
SchedulePsilocybin
7437
IPsilocyn
7438
I
 The company plans to bulk manufacture the listed controlled substances for clinical trials. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration. Matthew J. Strait, Deputy Assistant Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2022-03900 Filed 2-23-22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
#### LAAPUI, Plaintiff v. TAUA, Defendant

No. 30-1901

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Trial Division [Land “Tifimalae”]

December 12, 1901

URIEL SEBREE, Commander, U.S. Navy, Commandant U.S. Naval Station Tutuila, *President;*E. M. GURR, *Judge of High Court;*and TUIMANIPA, *Member of Court*

JUDGMENT

This cause coming on for hearing on the 12th day of December in the year 1901 in the High Court of 'Tutuila convened at Manua by precept issued by the Captain Uriel Sebree, U.S.N. Commandant of the U.S. Naval Station, President of the High Court and appointing Captain Uriel Sebree U.S.N. President, Hon. E. M. Gurr, Judge of the High Court, both parties to the issue being present in person, and having tendered all testimony, the Court considers, after due deliberation that the Plaintiff Laapui has proved his cause, and that the Plaintiff has, besides proving his cause as alleged in the particulars of claim hereon, been in undisputed possession and cultivation of the land in dispute for a period exceeding a term of 10 years prior to the dispute which occurred, forming the cause of the action, and such occupation gives a prescriptive title of the land to the Plaintiff; and for these reasons stated, therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to Judgment as prayed for.

Now, it is hereby ordered and adjudged by the Court that:—

*251. The Defendant, Taua, his heirs and all the members of his family by Samoan custom or otherwise, be forever restrained from trespassing upon the said land or in any other way interfering with the rights of the Plaintiff Laapui, his heirs and assigns to the same, and that a decree be issued by this Court decreeing the Plaintiff Laapui to be the owner of the land “Tifimalae”.

2. The Defendant is hereby ordered to pay costs of Court accruing up to date.

3. And the Plaintiff is hereby ordered to pay costs of decree and its registration.
#### Phillip SANDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15100

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 17, 2017

Phillip Sands, Pro Se

Andrew Whisnand, Esquire, AGCA-Of-fíce of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM ***

California state prisoner Phillip Sands appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth Amendment excessive force claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000); *Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Sands’ action because the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, as a state agency, is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, *see Brown v. California Dep’t of Corr.,*554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009), and Sands failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants Swift and Marsh personally participated in the alleged constitutional violations, *see Starr v. Baca,*652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth requirements for establishing supervisory liability under § 1983); *Jones v. Williams,*297 F.3d 930, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2002) (“In order for a person acting under color of state law to be liable under section 1983 there must be a showing of personal participation in the alleged rights deprivation. ...”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Sands’ complaint without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. *See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,*656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard of review).

We do not consider facts, documents, and declarations presented for the first time on appeal. *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.”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in *560the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Review of the IMPROVE Equation for 

Estimating Ambient Light Extinction 

Coefficients - Final Report

Jenny L. Hand and William C. Malm

March 2006

Abstract - The Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) 

protocols for reconstructing ambient light extinction from measured aerosol species is 

the basis for evaluating compliance under the Regional Haze Rule. We review the 

assumptions involved in computing reconstructed light extinction using the IMPROVE 

protocol. This review includes examining the biases in the measurements of aerosol 

composition, the assumed chemical forms of aerosol species, particle hygroscopicity, 

and assumed mass scattering efficiencies. We present a thorough survey of estimates 

of mass scattering efficiencies from recent peer-reviewed literature. Furthermore, we 

use IMPROVE nephelometry and composition data to estimate mass scattering 

efficiencies using a variety of methods. The current mass scattering efficiencies applied 

in the IMPROVE equation are then interpreted in the context of this survey and results 

derived from the IMPROVE data analyses. Finally, a summary of provisional 

recommendations for refinements to the IMPROVE equation and a discussion of 

important uncertainties to consider in the assumptions is presented. Although tentative 

recommendations of refinements to the IMPROVE equation are presented, final 

refinements to the IMPROVE equation await future discussions of the results presented 

here.

Click on the title below to view PDF files of these documents:

Main Body of Report (PDF file - 4.5 Megs)

Appendix 1 (Excel file K- 0.4 Megs)

Appendix 2 (Word file K- 0.9 Megs)

Appendix 3 (Excel file - 0.2 Megs)

Appendix 4 (PPT file - 11 Megs)
**Exhibit 32(a)**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

OF QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB 

OF PINNACLE DATA SYSTEMS, INC. 

FOR THE QUARTERENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2005 

 

The undersigned is the Chief Executive Officer ofPinnacle Data Systems, Inc. (the “Issuer”). This Certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This Certification accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Issuer for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2005. 

 

I, John D. Bair, certify that theQuarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 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 that information contained in theQuarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer. 

 

This certification is executed as of November 14, 2005.
**EXHIBIT 32.01**

 

SECTION 1350CERTIFICATION

 

In connection with this quarterly report of ML Trend-Following FuturesFund L.P. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,2008 as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this “Report”),I, Paul Morton, Chief Executive Officer, President and Manager of Merrill LynchAlternative Investments LLC, the general partner of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1. This Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| Date: May 14, 2008                        |
|------------------------------------------------|
|                                           |   |
| By                                             | /s/ PAUL MORTON |   |
| Paul Morton                                    |
| Chief Executive Officer ,President and Manager |
| (Principal Executive Officer)                  |
|                                                |  |  |

 

----
---

Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 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 Micromem Technologies
Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the Fiscal Year Ended October 31, 2016
(the Report), I, Dan Amadori, 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, based on my knowledge, 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: | March 10, 2017 | /s/ Dan Amadori              
|----- | -------------- | -----------------------------
|      |                | Dan Amadori                  
|      |                | Chief Financial Officer      
|      |                | (Principal financial officer)

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Carlos FRANCO-VILLAGRANA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 15-51225 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 2, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Mara Asya Blatt, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Laura G. Greenberg, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Maureen Scott Franco, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Juan Carlos Franco-Villagrana, Pro Se

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Juan Carlos Franco-Villagrana pleaded guilty to illegal reentry and was sentenced to 46 months of imprisonment. He argues that the district court erred in applying the crime-of-violence enhancement of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) (2014) based on his prior Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation.

Section 30.02(a) of the Texas Penal Code is divisible, the state court documents reflect that Franco-Villagrana violated § 30.02(a)(1), and a violation of § 30.02(a)(1) constitutes generic burglary of a dwelling. *See United States v. Uribe,*838 F.3d 667, 670-71 (5th Cir. 2016), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1359, 197 L.Ed.2d 542 (2017); § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) *&*comment. (n.l(B)(iii)) (2014). Accordingly, the district court did not err in applying the crime-of-violence enhancement. *See Uribe,*838 F.3d at 671.

The judgment of the district court is 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited financial statements dated February 28, 1999 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              AUG-31-1999  
<PERIOD-END>                                   FEB-28-1999  
<CASH>                                         1,087        
<SECURITIES>                                   8,641,834    
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0            
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0            
<INVENTORY>                                    0            
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               8,642,921    
<PP&E>                                         0            
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0            
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 9,244,341    
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          796,998      
<BONDS>                                        0            
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0            
<PREFERRED>                                    1            
<COMMON>                                       10,560       
<OTHER-SE>                                     8,315,315    
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   8,404,109    
<SALES>                                        0            
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               232,498      
<CGS>                                          0            
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0            
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               75,963       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0            
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0            
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                156,535      
<INCOME-TAX>                                   50,000       
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            106,535      
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0            
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0            
<CHANGES>                                      0            
<NET-INCOME>                                   106,535      
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.10         
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.10         
                                                            
                                                            

</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
    This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of
the Registrant under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether
made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q ), irrespective of any general incorporation language
contained in such filing.
 Date: July 24, 2006
    
    /s/ John L. HiggansJohn L. HigginsChief Financial Officer;
Executive Vice President, Finance
and Corporate Development
Exhibit
23.1




Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm






Perficient,
Inc.
 Austin,
Texas
  We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-3 (No. 333-100490, No. 333-116549, No. 333-117216, No. 333-123177, No.
333-129054, No. 333-138602, No. 333-142267, No. 333-145899, No. 333-147687 and
No. 333-148978) and Form S-8 (No. 333-42626, No. 333-44854, No. 333-75666, No.
333-118839, No. 333-130624and
333-147730) of Perficient, Inc. of our reports dated March 1, 2007, except Note
2 relating to the 2006 consolidated financial statements, as to which date is
August 13, 2007, which appears in this Form 10-K.
 
 
 /s/ BDO
Seidman, LLP
 
 Houston,
Texas
 March 3,
2008
## Ap **plication to A mend**  **Section 333 Exemption No. 12841 Regulatory** 

**Docket No. FAA -** **2015 -**  **2079** October 27, 2015 Patti J. Rithamel, CFO Redhawk Aerial Imaging, Inc. 341 Harden Street Antioch, IL 60002 Tel: 844 - 344 - 8200 Greetings, By letter from the FAA dated September 14, 2015, an exemption was granted to Redhawk Aerial Imaging for relief under Section 333. That letter was marked Section 333 Exemption No. 12841 Regulatory Docket No. FAA - 2015 - 2079. Redhawk Aerial Imaging hereby req uests that the exemption so granted be amended to include DJI Inspire 1 models. Relevant facts and reasoning are: • Respecting the DJI Inspire 1, petitioner offers and incorporates by reference all of the data and analyses included in prior grants of exem ption for that model aircraft such as Exemption No. 11458 and 11463.  The findings, rationale and conclusions contained in the FAA’s Exemption No. 12841 apply without modification to this application to include the DJI Inspire 1 model in Exemption No. 128 41. Thank you for your consideration of this important request. Please advise us of any additional information that is required. Sincerely, Patti J. Rithamel CFO, Redhawk Aerial Imaging
#### Joseph CRUSSIAH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INOVA HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant-Appellee, and Medstar Family Choice, Inc., Intervenor.

No. 16-2191

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 26, 2017

Decided: May 5, 2017

Joseph Crussiah, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Francis DeTurris, BLANKINGSHIP & KEITH, PC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appel-lee.

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Crussiah appeals the district court’s order denying his motions to amend the complaint, to transfer to state court, for joinder, and for a preliminary injunction. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.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, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The district court’s denial of the motions to amend, to transfer, and for joinder are neither final orders nor appeal-able interlocutory ór collateral orders. Accordingly, we dismiss Crussiah’s appeal of those rulings for lack of jurisdiction.

The denial of Crussiah’s motion for a preliminary injunction is an appealable interlocutory order. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (2012); *Dewhurst v. Century Aluminum Co.,*649 F.3d 287, 290-93 (4th Cir. 2011). In denying relief, the district court did not make specific findings of fact, *see*Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(2), nor did it mention the factors set forth in *Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,*
      *219555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008). Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s denial of preliminary injunc-tive relief and remand so that those findings and factors may be addressed. We express no view on the merits of Crussi-ah’s motion.

Finally, we deny Crussiah’s motions for declaratory relief, to exceed length limitations, to file a flash drive, and for judicial notice. We deny as moot Crussiah’s motion to expedite review. 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 IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED*
---

---

Exhibit 13.2

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 Annual Report of AudioCodes Ltd. (the Company) on Form
20-F for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Nachum Falek, Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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; 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: June 27, 2007/s/ Nachum Falek
Nachum FalekVice President andChief Financial Officer
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---