alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11444-11445]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04260]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


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, and the Determination of the Director, Strategic 
Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, CDC, 
pursuant to Public Law 92-463. 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: Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and 
Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP)--PAR 20-297, NIOSH Centers of 
Excellence for Total Worker Health (TWH).
    Date: April 21, 2022.
    Time: 1:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m., EDT.
    Place: Video-Assisted Meeting.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    For Further Information Contact: Dan Hartley, Ed.D., Scientific 
Review Officer, Office of Extramural Programs, National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health, CDC, 1095 Willowdale Road, Morgantown, 
West

[[Page 11445]]

Virginia 26505, Telephone: (304) 285-5812; Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#54101c35262038312d143730377a333b22"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3175795043455d5448715255521f565e47">[email protected]</span></a>.
    The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the 
Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices 
pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and 
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Kalwant Smagh,
Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief 
Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2022-04260 Filed 2-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 32.2

Written Statement of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to
Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority (the Authority), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge,
on the date hereof:



| | (a) | this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Authority for the three months ended March 31, 2011 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Authority.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/s/    LEO M.
CHUPASKALeo M. ChupaskaChief Financial Officer,Mohegan Tribal Gaming AuthorityMay 16, 2011


A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Authority and will be retained by the Authority and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1617

RICHARD E. FOSTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF GREENVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT; CHIEF W. T. (TOMMY) MCDOWELL, Fire Marshall; L. H. GODFREY, Assistant Fire Marshall; R. A. COOK; KENNY V. CROSBY, Director of Human Resources, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-01-4824) Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: July 31, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard E. Foster, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah Casey Brown, GALLIVAN, WHITE & BOYD, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Richard E. Foster appeals the district court’s order dismissing individual defendants from his employment discrimination action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 678 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 678

    To eliminate the position of the Chief Diversity Officer of the 
             Department of Defense, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 31, 2023

    Mr. Roy (for himself, Mr. Norman, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. 
Rosendale, Mr. Ogles, Mrs. Miller of Illinois, Mr. Brecheen, Mr. Mills, 
   Mr. Bishop of North Carolina, and Mr. McClintock) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To eliminate the position of the Chief Diversity Officer of the 
             Department of Defense, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Restoring Military Focus Act''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF THE CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 
              DEFENSE.

    (a) Repeal of Position.--Section 147 of title 10, United States 
Code, is repealed.
    (b) Conforming Repeal.--Section 913 of the William M. (Mac) 
Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 
(Public Law 116-283) is repealed.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON ESTABLISHMENT OF SIMILAR POSITIONS.

    No Federal funds may be obligated or expended to establish a 
position within the Department of Defense that is the same as or 
substantially similar to--
            (1) the position of Chief Diversity Officer, as described 
        in section 147 of title 10, United States Code, as such section 
        was in effect before the date of the enactment of this Act; or
            (2) the position of Senior Advisor for Diversity and 
        Inclusion, as described in section 913(b) of the William M. 
        (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
        Year 2021 (Public Law 116-283), as such section was in effect 
        before the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### IN RE: Lawrence CRAWFORD; Yahya Muquit, a/k/a Yahya Muquit; Anthony Cook; Robert Mitchell; David Duren; Vincent Jerode Beaton, a/k/a Vincent J. Beaton, Petitioners.

No. 17-1415

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 24, 2017

Decided: August 28, 2017

*639Lawrence Crawford, Yahya Muquit, Anthony Cook, Robert Mitchell, David Duren, Vincent Jerode Beaton, Petitioners Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioners seek multiple forms of mandamus relief, including writs of mandamus against multiple federal judges and a state court judge.' Petitioners also seek to proceed in forma pauperis and have filed a motion for change of venue. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. *Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court,*426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); *United States v. Moussaoui,*333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. *In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n,*860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). We have reviewed Petitioners’ filings and conclude that Petitioners have not established that extraordinary circumstances exist warranting mandamus relief. To the extent Petitioners challenge the district court’s rulings in their respective federal court actions, mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. *In re Lockheed Martin Corp.,*503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). And to the extent Petitioners ask that the named judges be ordered to recuse themselves from participation in their respective actions, Petitioners have not established extrajudicial bias. *See In re Beard,*811 F.2d 818, 826-27 (4th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, although we grant Petitioners’ applications to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the motion for change of venue and deny mandamus relief. 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q
FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-20-2000
<CASH>                                          14,900
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  212,877
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,375
<INVENTORY>                                    107,610
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               336,560
<PP&E>                                         203,248
<DEPRECIATION>                                  79,617
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 688,555
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          275,311
<BONDS>                                        151,775
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           250
<OTHER-SE>                                     182,147
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   688,555
<SALES>                                        215,099
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               215,099
<CGS>                                          156,662
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  156,662
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,223
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,233
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,138
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,030
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,030
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### McIlvoy *against*McIlvoy’s Executor.

Ghancery;

[Mi-. Owsley for plaintiff: Mr. Harlan for defendant.]

From the Circuit Court eor Anderson County;

*June*1, 1835.*

A second dissolution of an .junction with da* ipages^ when but one injunction had been granted—erroneous. The act giving ten per ct. damages, specifies an injunction “ to any judgment at law,” and do'eá not apply to dei crees. But— i2eM;that it doeá ajrply lo *repipiin*bonds—whe¿ decrees ave *xt*Plevied‘ , Decree for damages, upon thé dissolution of aii injunction; reversed, because it do'es not ap* pear that it was for the proper amount. Teh *pr- ct.*oti the shm due (and enjoined) whert the injunctiph was served,is ths propel' amount.

*

The opinion in this case, should have been published in. the third volume, but was mislaid,, and did not come to the hands of the Reporter in time.'

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the Opinion of the Court,

As there was but one order for an injunction in this case, .. *-*. . .. , . , . . . the Circuit Judge erréd m dissolving the injunction twice, and in giving two distinct and separate decrees for *ten*° c A *par cent*damages.

As the statute which directs a decree for damages on the dissolution of an injunction against a *“judgment”*has been construed not to apply to injunctions against decrees, and, as it was a replevin bond given in satisfaction of a decree for money which was enjoined in this case, the counsel for the plaintiff in error insists, that no decree for damages was proper.

But we entertain a different opinion. A replevin bond, whether given in discharge of a decree or a judgment, has equally the essential attributes of a judgment. , ihe replevin bond merged and discharged the decree as effectually as a formal judgment in aii action of debt on the decree would have done; and, in the case of *Fawcet et al. v.*Pendleton; *5 Litt. Rep.*136, this Court decided that, on the dissolution of an injunction restraining the enforcement of a *sale*bond, it was proper to decree *ten per cent*damages, because such a bond bad wthé force and effect of a judgment,”

We are, therefore, of the opinion that the decree for damages on one dissolution wrould be proper in this case. *290Wherefore, as we are not satisfied that the true amount was decreed on either dissolution, both decrees for damages are reversed, and the cause remanded with instructions to decree *ten per cent,*damages on the amount enjoined, to be calculated at the time when the injunction was served.

As we perceive no other error, the decree, in other respects, is affirmed.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 2157

ANDREW E. ZUPKO , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; K. CROSSLEY, Official Capacities

- Family Nurse Practitioner; R. ENGEL, Mr., Individual Capacities/Associate Warden / Overseer of Medical; M. DICOCCO, Dr., Individual Capacities/Clinical Director; K. LAYBOURN, Medical Administrator; J. POSEY, Individual Capacities/SHU Correctional Officer; A. CHATMAN, Individual Capacities/Health Se rvice Administrator , Defendants

- Appellees , and A. ZAYAS, Individual Capacities/Mid Level Practitioner/Now Retired , Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. ( 3:18

- cv
- 00493

- MHL

- RCY )

Submitted : February 23, 2021 Decided: February 25, 2021

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. USCA4 Appeal: 20-2157 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/25/2021 Pg: 1 of 32 Andrew E. Zupko , Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Wu, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Richmond, Virginia , for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 20-2157 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/25/2021 Pg: 2 of 33 PER CURIAM: Andrew E. Zupko appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed

. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971) , and the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1), 2671

- 2680. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Zupko v. United States , No. 3:18

- cv
- 00493

- MHL

- RCY (E.D. Va. Oct. 14, 2020) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts a nd legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 20-2157 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/25/2021 Pg: 3 of 3
#### Thomas O’Reilly *et al.,*Resp'ts, *v.*The New York Elevated R. R. Co. *et al.,*App’lts.

Appeal from a judgment entered on the decision-of the court after a trial at an equity term.

*Davies & Rapallo,*for app’lts; *Sackett*& *Bennett,*for resp’ts.

Per Curiam.—Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### Thomas Orr and Others *versus*Jonathan Amory.

T'he voluntary assignee of an insolvent debtor in another state cannot maintain an action in his own name against a debtor of the assignor in this state.

The plaintiffs, citizens of *Philadelphia,*declare in *assumpsit,*as assignees of the goods and effects of *William Birnie*and *John F. Rockendorff,*also of *Philadelphia,*merchants and copartners, against the defendant, as surviving partner of the firm of *Thomas C. Amory if Co.*

From an agreed statement of facts, upon which the action was submitted to the decision of the Court, it appeared that *Birnie if Rockendorff,*being by misfortunes rendered unable to discharge their debts, by indenture, dated January 14, 1811, assigned all their lands, goods, chattels, and debts, to the present plaintiffs, in trust to pay the proceeds thereof to such of their creditors as should execute a discharge to them, in proportion to the amount of then-respective demands, and to pay the'surplus, if any should remain, to their other creditors in like manner, and the residue, if any, to the assignors.

*M ’ Cleary*for the plaintiffs.

*W. Sullivan*for the defendant.

*By the Court.*

It has been heretofore settled, that the assignees of bankrupts, duly appointed under the laws of a foreign country, cannot maintain actions, in their own- names, in our courts, for demands due to such bankrupts, *(a)*
      **A chose in action, such as is the subject of the present action, is not assignable at the common law, nor by any statute provision recognized in this commonwealth, where the remedy is sought to be maintained. The contract of *Birnie if Rockendorff*with the defendant is not to be [ * *26*] varied in its import * and effect by a voluntary assign rnent on their part. The action is not maintained.

*Plaintiffs nonsuit.*

*Chitty, Plead.*17, 7th ed. — Sed vide *Goodwin*vs. *Jones,*3 *Mass. Rep.*517. — *Ingraham,*vs. Geyer, 13 *Mass. Rep.*146.
Exhibit 35.1

                                     [LOGO]
                                     OCWEN



                      ANNUAL SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
                     PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB

March 8, 2007

RE: GSAMP 2006-S6

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 (the "Reporting Period"), Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC ("OLS") furnishes this annual servicer compliance statement
pursuant to Item 1123 of Regulation AB, indicating its compliance with the
servicing standards of the Securities & Exchange Commission as set forth in
Regulation AB, 17 CFR ss.229.1100, et seq., ("Regulation AB"). In this regard, I
make the following representations, which are true to the best of my knowledge
and belief in all material respects.

1.    A review of the servicing activities of OLS during the Reporting Period,
      and of its performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as
      of October 1, 2006 (the "Agreement"), has been performed under my
      supervision.

2.    To the best of my knowledge, based on this review, OLS has fulfilled all
      of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout
      the Reporting Period.


                                        By: /s/ Ronald M. Faris
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Name: Ronald M. Faris
                                            Title: President




                            Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC
                         1661 Worthington Road Suite 100
                                 Centrepark West
                            West Palm Beach, FL 33409
#### In the Matter of Randy M. Butler, Petitioner, v County of Dutchess et al., Respondents.

[770 NYS2d 648]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondents, dated April 1, 2002, which, after a *564hearing, terminated the petitioner’s employment as a correction officer.

Adjudged that the petition is granted, on the law, without costs or disbursements, to the extent that the matter is remitted to the respondents for computation of the amount of back pay owed to the petitioner in accordance herewith, and the determination is otherwise confirmed and the proceeding is otherwise dismissed on the merits.

Contrary to the petitioner’s argument, the hearing officer’s findings are supported by substantial evidence *(see generally Matter of Briggs v Scoralick,*147 AD2d 694 [1989]). Moreover, the penalty of dismissal was not so disproportionate to the offense as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness *(see Matter of McQueeney v Dutchess County Sheriff,*223 AD2d 710 [1996]; *Matter of Briggs v Scoralick, supra).*However, the petitioner correctly contends that he was entitled to back pay for the period he was suspended without pay in excess of 30 days, excluding any delay occasioned by him, and less any money received by him during that period, as provided in Civil Service Law § 75 (3) *(see generally Matter of Moorehead v New York City Tr. Auth.,*190 AD2d 674, 675 [1993]; *Matter of Briggs v Scoralick, supra).*Altman, J.P., Cozier, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.
### -82 -80 -78 -76
38 40


## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 07/18 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 18 Jul 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.86 N 77.06 WMeters AGL
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





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Landec
Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending November 28, 2010
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Gregory S. Skinner, Vice President of Finance and Adminstration
and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





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





Date: January 6, 2011





/s/ Gregory S. SkinnerGregory S. SkinnerVice President and Chief Financial
      Officer(Principal Accounting
    Officer)





*
            The
      foregoing certification is being furnished 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-Q or as a separate disclosure
    document.