alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 2, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11725-11726]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04359]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; 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 of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID Resource-Related Research 
Projects (R24 Clinical Trial Not Allowed).
    Date: March 25, 2022.
    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

[[Page 11726]]

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G42, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Sandip Bhattacharyya, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G42, 
Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 292-0189, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2e5d4f404a475e004c464f5a5a4f4d464f5c57574f6e40474600494158"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bfccded1dbd6cf91ddd7decbcbdedcd7decdc6c6deffd1d6d791d8d0c9">[email protected]</span></a>.

(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: February 24, 2022.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-04359 Filed 3-1-22; 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. Miguel Angel JAIMES-JURADO, also known as Migual Token, also known as Angel Ruiz, also known as Tony Martinez, also known as Token, also known as Miguel Jaimes Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-51395 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed July 28, 2017

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

Miguel Angel Jaimes-Jurado, Pro Se

Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Miguel Angel Jaimes-Jurado has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Jaimes-Jurado has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur *287with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

However, there exists a clerical error in the written judgment. The written judgment reflects that Jaimes-Jurado was convicted under “8 U.S.G, § 13263(a) and (b)(2).” The correct statute of conviction is § 1326.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2. The case is REMANDED to the district court for the limited purpose of correcting a clerical error in the judgment. *See*Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.

*

 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.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6697 

To authorize the Attorney General to carry out a pilot program to make 

grants to entities to develop gun safety technology, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 11, 2023 

Mr. DESAULNIER (for himself, Ms. LOFGREN, and Mr. BEYER) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To authorize the Attorney General to carry out a pilot program to make grants to entities to develop gun safety 

technology, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Advancing Gun Safety 

5 Technology Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. GUN SAFETY TECHNOLOGY PILOT PROGRAM. 

7 (a) AUTHORIZATION.—The Attorney General, acting 

8 through the Director of the National Institute of Justice, 

9 is authorized to carry out a pilot program to make grants 

10 to eligible entities to develop gun safety technology. 

2 

•HR 6697 IH

1 (b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the grant program 

2 under this section is to support the commercialization of 

3 technology that decreases the likelihood that a gun can 

4 be used accidentally or by unauthorized users. 

5 (c) APPLICATION.—An eligible entity seeking a grant 

6 under this section shall submit to the Attorney General 

7 an application at such time, in such manner, and con8 taining such information as the Attorney General may rea9 sonably require, which information shall include a descrip10 tion of the entity’s commitment and plans to develop gun 

11 safety technology and an initial gun safety product design. 

12 (d) NUMBER OF GRANTS.—The Attorney General 

13 shall make not less than 3 grants and not more than 5 

14 grants under the pilot program under this section. 

15 (e) REPORT.—An eligible entity receiving a grant 

16 under this section shall report to the Attorney General, 

17 at such times and including such information as the Attor18 ney General may reasonably require, related milestones for 

19 the gun safety technology funded under this section, in20 cluding the following: 

21 (1) Building a prototype. 

22 (2) Conducting reliability testing. 

23 (3) Planning for trial production. 

24 (4) Preparing to commercialize. 

3 

•HR 6697 IH

1 (f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 

2 authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 for fiscal year 

3 2024. 

4 (g) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

5 (1) The term ‘‘eligible entity’’ means a small 

6 business concern (as defined under section 3 of the 

7 Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632)) that has less 

8 than 500 employees. 

9 (2) The term ‘‘gun’’ has the meaning given the 

10 term ‘‘firearm’’ in section 921 of title 18, United 

11 States Code. 

12 (3) The term ‘‘gun safety technology’’ means 

13 technology that is designed to reduce the likelihood 

14 of an accidental or unauthorized use of a gun, in15 cluding smart guns, user-authorized handguns, 

16 childproof guns, personalized guns, and safes and 

17 locking devices that include personalized technology. 

Æ
Opinion of the Procuradoria-Geral da Fazenda Nacional



 Exhibit 4(4) 
 May 17, 2012 
 Minister of Finance 
 Ministry of Finance 
 Federative Republic of Brazil 

Esplanada dos Ministérios 
 Bloco P

 70048-900, Brasília-DF 

BRAZIL 
  

	 	Re:	Federative Republic of Brazil 


Registration Statement on Schedule B 
 Ladies and Gentlemen: 
 I, a duly authorized Acting Deputy Attorney General of the
National Treasury of the Ministry of Finance of the Federative Republic of Brazil (“Brazil”), have reviewed the above-referenced Registration Statement (the “Registration Statement”) filed on the date hereof with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”), including the Prospectus constituting a part thereof, the form of the Fiscal Agency Agreement including the forms of Note attached thereto, each as amended by Amendment No. 1 dated as of
April 28, 2003, Amendment No. 2 dated as of March 30, 2004, Amendment No. 3 dated as of June 28, 2004 and Amendment No. 4 dated as of August 31, 2011 (the “Fiscal Agency Agreement”) previously filed as
part of Brazil’s Registration Statement on Schedule B (Registration No. 333-6682) and made a part of the Registration Statement and the form of the Underwriting Agreement (the “Underwriting Agreement”) filed and made a part of
the Registration Statement, pursuant to which Brazil is registering certain debt securities and warrants to purchase such debt securities (collectively, the “Securities”). 

The issuance of the Securities has been authorized pursuant to Resolution No. 20 dated November 16, 2004 of the Federal Senate
of Brazil, enacted pursuant to Article 52 of the Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil. 
 It is my opinion that the
Securities have been duly authorized, and when executed and delivered by Brazil and authenticated pursuant to the Fiscal Agency Agreement and delivered to and paid for by the underwriters pursuant to the Underwriting Agreement, the Prospectus
(including, without limitation, the applicable Prospectus Supplement and Pricing Supplement) and any amendment or supplement thereto, the Securities will constitute valid and legally binding direct and unconditional obligations of Brazil under the
present laws of Brazil. 
 I hereby consent to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit to the Registration Statement and to the
use of my name under the heading “Validity of the Securities” in the Registration Statement. In giving the foregoing consent, I do not thereby admit that I am in the category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of the
Act or the rules and regulations of the Commission thereunder. 
  

	
	Very truly yours,
	
	/s/ Sonia de Amendra Freitas Portella Nunes
	 Sonia de Amendra Freitas Portella Nunes

Acting Deputy Attorney General of
 the National Treasury of Brazil
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 Nanoscience Technologies, Inc.,
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Edward F. Cowle, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act
of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or
         15 (d) of the Securities and 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.



/s/ EDWARD F. COWLE



Edward F. Cowle
Chief Executive Officer
January 27, 2004


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon request.
The foregoing  certifications  are accompanying the Company's Form 10-QSB solely
pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section  1350,  chapter 63 of title 18,  United  States  Code) and is not
being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.
Exhibit 13.2

| **Certification of Chief Financial Officer        Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, as Adopted         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of WAVECOM S.A. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

|  | (i) | the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, 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: April 8, 2008 | By:    |           /s/Chantal        Bourgeat                                              |  |
|----------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|
|                      |   |           Chantal        Bourgeat                  Chief Financial        Officer |  |

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 1350 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended or incorporated by reference in any registration statement of the Company filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

**A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.**
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Concierge Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the Report), I, Allen E. Kahn, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:



(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §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: November 13, 2007 | /s/ Allen E. Kahn       | 
|                        | Allen E. Kahn           | 
|                        | Chief Financial Officer | 



The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.
01,

C " 1 

II =I Ni; riJ 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

RYAN PATRICK SULLIVAN, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

JIM SALMONSEN, 

Warden, Montana State Prison, 

Deer Lodge, 

Respondent. 

OP 21-0415 

FILED 

AUG 3 1 2021 

Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Suprema Court State of Montana 

ORDER 

Ryan Patrick Sullivan represents himself and has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus, alleging that he due credit for time served. Citing to Killam v. Salmonsen, 

2021 MT 196, he states that he "is entitled to all the credit for incarceration as the dates set 

forth on page 1." 

Sullivan currently has four appeals pending before this Court. Sullivan represents 

himself in an appeal of the Yellowstone County District Court's denial of his petition for 

postconviction relief that has been classified for a decision. Sullivan v. State, 

No. DA 20-0558. Sullivan has counsel representing him in his other appeals. In this 

Petition, Sullivan references Yellowstone County Cause No. DC 18-0321, which is the 

basis for two appeals: State v. Sullivan, No. DA 20-0588, for the original conviction and 

sentence, and State v. Sullivan, No. DA 21-0282, for the sentence upon revocation. 

Sullivan's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is not a separate proceeding during 

the pendency of his appeal. An appeal is the proper forum in which to litigate issues 

arising from his conviction and sentences. State v. Wright, 2001 MT 282, 1 36-37, 

307 Mont. 349, 42 P.3d 753. Habeas corpus does not offer an alternative remedy to a direct 

appeal, nor does it supplernent the appellate process. Without considering the merits of his 

Petition, it must be dismissed. 

08/31/2021

Case Number: OP 21-0415
Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that Sullivan's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED 

without prejudice. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to Austin Knudsen, Attorney 

General; to Scott D. Twito, Yellowstone County Attorney; to Sarah Hyde, Deputy County 

Attorney; to Tammy Plubell, Assistant Attorney General; to Katie F. Shulz, Assistant 

Attorney General; to Chad M. Wright, Appellate Defender Division; to Deborah S. Smith, 

Assistant Appellate Defender; to Colleen Ambrose, Department of Corrections; and to 

Ryan Patrick Sullivan pers9nally. 

s...". 

DATED this 3 i day of August, 2021. 

Chief Justice 

i_____44/10wie 

7
Exhibit 99.1      Press Release



PRESS RELEASE
February 1, 2002

                                 For further information contact:
                                 David M. Bradley
                                 Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
                                 North Central Bancshares, Inc.
                                 825 Central Avenue
                                 Fort Dodge, Iowa 50501
                                 515-576-7531

                    NORTH CENTRAL BANCSHARES, INC. ANNOUNCES
                            STOCK REPURCHASE PROGRAM

Fort Dodge, Iowa, February 1, 2002 - North Central Bancshares, Inc. (Nasdaq:
"FFFD") (the "Company"), the holding company for First Federal Savings Bank of
Iowa, announced today that it will commence a stock repurchase program. The
program authorizes the Company to repurchase up to 100,000 shares of its
outstanding shares of common stock during the next twelve months. The
repurchases will be made from time to time, in open market transactions, at the
discretion of management.

This new program will commence immediately upon the completion of the Company's
current repurchase program which was announced on September 20, 2001, of which
10,700 shares remain to be purchased. The Company has 1,700,280 shares of common
stock currently outstanding.

North Central Bancshares, Inc., with over $379 million in assets, as of December
31, 2001, is the holding company for First Federal Savings Bank of Iowa, a
federally chartered stock savings bank. First Federal is a community-oriented
institution serving Iowa through 8 full service locations in Fort Dodge, Nevada,
Ames, Perry, Burlington and Mt. Pleasant, Iowa. First Federal's deposits are
insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Exhibit 10.2

 

SENIOR HOUSING PROPERTIES TRUST

 

Summary of Trustee Compensation

 

The following is a summary of the currently effective compensation of the Trustees of Senior Housing Properties Trust (the “Company”) for services as trustees, which is subject to modification at any time by the Board of Trustees.

 

·                  Each Independent Trustee receives an annual fee of $35,000, plus a fee of $750 for each meeting attended.  Up to two $750 fees are payable if a board meeting and one or more board committee meetings are held on the same date.

 

·                  The chairpersons of the audit committee, the compensation committee and the nominating and governance committee, each of whom is an Independent Trustee, receive an additional annual fee of $10,000, $5,000 and $5,000, respectively.

 

·                  Each Trustee receives a grant of 2,000 of the Company’s common shares of beneficial interest on the date of the first board meeting following each annual meeting of shareholders (or, for Trustees who are first elected or appointed at other times, on the day of the first board meeting attended).

 

·                  The Company generally reimburses all Trustees for travel expenses incurred in connection with their duties as Trustees and for out of pocket costs incurred from their attending certain continuing education programs.

 

1
#### Joseph Alfonso DURAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeffrey A. BEARD, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 15-55652

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 4, 2017 * Pasadena, California

Filed October 17, 2017

Martha McNab Hall, Attorney, Law Office of Martha M. Hall, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant

Stephanie Chow, Kevin Vienna, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AGCA— Office of the Attorney General (San Diego), San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appel-lee

*630Before: KLEINFELD, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Joseph Alfonso Duran appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Reviewing de novo the district court’s decision, Robinson v. Schriro, 595 F.3d 1086, 1099 (9th Cir. 2010), we affirm.

1. The state court’s decision concerning Petitioner’s Faretta waiver was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003). Petitioner argues that the trial court was required to inform him, at his Faretta hearing, of the possible penalties he could face if the, charges, against him were later amended. No Supreme Court case requires that the court advise a petitioner of the penalties associated with potential future amended charges. Wright v. Van Patten, 552 U.S. 120, 125, 128 S.Ct. 743, 169 L.Ed.2d 583 (2008) (per curiam).

Moreover, no clearly established federal law required the trial court to reaffirm Petitioner’s waiver of counsel after the charges against him were amended to include a second strike. Therefore, the trial court did not act unreasonably. Moses v. Payne, 555 F.3d 742, 754 (9th Cir. 2009).

2. Petitioner’s claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining is procedurally barred. The California Superior Court found that this claim was procedurally barred because of California’s timeliness rule, which is an independent and adequate state ground for denying review here. Walker v. Martin, 562 U.S. 307, 315, 131 S.Ct. 1120, 179 L.Ed.2d 62 (2011). Petitioner has not shown cause, prejudice, or a miscarriage of justice. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 749-50, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991).

AFFIRMED.

**

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