alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 38 (Friday, February 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 10804]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04001]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney 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 Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Pediatric Centers of 
Excellence in Nephrology.
    Date: April 11, 2022.
    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6707 Democracy Blvd., 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Teleconference).
    Contact Person: Paul A. Rushing, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, 
Room 7345, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 
594-8895, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#176562647f7e79706757726f63657639797e73737c39797e7f39707861"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="067473756e6f68617646637e72746728686f62626d28686f6e28616970">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 18, 2022.
David W. Freeman,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-04001 Filed 2-24-22; 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>
#### Stacy L. CONNER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division; Michael A. Roesler, Head Warden Stiles Unit; Darren B. Wallace, Assistant Warden Stiles Unit; Gene A. Kroll, Assistant Warden Stiles Unit; David G. Pille, Correctional Officer; Latasha Joseph, Correctional Officer; Angelique N. Dennis, Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-40324 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 13, 2017

Stacy L. Conner, Pro Se

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Stacy L. Conner, Texas prisoner # 1428940, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, Conner alleged in his complaint that prison officials violated his due process rights by unlawfully seizing his personal and legal property. He also alleged that the prison officials’ actions denied him access to the courts and were done in retaliation for his filing a grievance. Conner further alleged that certain prison officials were liable for the unconstitutional actions of their subordinates.

We start with the due process claim regarding the seizure of property. Conner fails to challenge the district court’s determination that he failed to state a cognizable claim because Texas state law provided an adequate remedy for conversion claims, Therefore, the claim is deemed abandoned. *See Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 224-25 *289(5th Cir. 1993). Similarly, Conner’s claims against the supervisory defendants are deemed abandoned since Conner fails to raise the claims before this court. *See id.*

Conner’s claims alleging denial of access to the courts and retaliation are conclusory and insufficient to state valid constitutional claims. *See Christopher v. Harbury,*536 U.S. 403, 414-22, 122 S.Ct. 2179, 153 L.Ed.2d 413 (2002); *Woods v. Smith,*60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995). Thus, he has failed to show that the district court erred in dismissing his action as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); *Ashcroft v. Iqbal,*556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); *Geiger v. Jowers,*404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The district court’s dismissal of Conner’s complaint counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). *See Adepegba v. Hammons,*103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Conner is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be allowed to proceed in forma pauper-is in any civil action or appeal unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. *See*§ 1915(g).

*

 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 32.1**

# ** **

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

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

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with theAnnual Report of Blue Wireless & Data, Inc.  (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the periodending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I Dennis G. McLaughlin, III ,Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifiesthat:

 

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

 

2.                                       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| */s/*Dennis  G. McLaughlin, III                      |   |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                 |
| Dennis G. McLaughlin,  III                           |
| Chief Executive Officer  and Chief Financial Officer |
|                                                 |
| January 13, 2005                                |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Companyand will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Capital Corp of the West (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ending June 30, 2002 As filed with Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, R. Dale McKinney , ChiefFinancial 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:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| August 13 ,  2002 |                     |
|-------------------|--------------------------|
|              |                     |
|              | /s/ R. Dale  McKinney    |
|              | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 10.7(b)

 

	

    	
27200   West Agoura Road
   Suite 200
   Calabasas, CA 91301
    	
818.587.4500   Phone
   818.587.4591 Fax
   kytherahiopharma.com
    


 

January 5, 2010

 

Dr. Arthur I. Zweben

Director, New Business Ventures

Technology Management and Facilities

Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at

Harbor-UCLA Medical Center

1124 West Carson Street

Building N-14, Room 11

Torrance, California 90502

 

Re:          License Agreement effective as of August 29, 2005 by and between Kythera Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. (formerly known as AESTHERx, Inc.) and Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor/UCLA Medical Center (the “License Agreement”)

 

Dear Art:

 

This letter is to confirm our earlier conversation in which LA Biomed approved Kythera’s request, per section 3.4(i) of the License Agreement, for a twenty-four month extension of time to achieve all Performance Milestones set forth in the License Agreement.

 

Please sign below to confirm LA Biomed’s agreement to Kythera’s request for this extension.

 

Thank you,

 

	
/s/ Amit Munshi
    	
 
    


Amit Munshi

Chief Business Officer, Kythera Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.

 

AGREED AND ACCEPTED

 

	
/s/   Dr. Arthur I. Zweben
    	
 
    


Dr. Arthur I. Zweben

Director, New Business Ventures,

An Authorized Representative of LA Biomed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (AS RESTATED) AS AT AND FOR THE
PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2000, 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>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          27,725
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  155,214
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,700
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               193,794
<PP&E>                                         219,918
<DEPRECIATION>                                  34,974
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 417,705
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          310,185
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                      93,582
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   417,705
<SALES>                                        126,549
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               126,549
<CGS>                                          113,854
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  114,367
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,664
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,300
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (216)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (30,566)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       121
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (30,687)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (30,687)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.57)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.57)


</TABLE>
#### The People *ex rel.*William E. Demarest, App’lt, *v.*John J. Gorman, Sheriff, Resp’t.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,*

*Filed May 15, 1891.)*

Execution—Irregular judgment.

An irregularity in the form of a judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction does not render invalid an execution issued thereon which contains the recitals required by the Code, and such irregularity cannot be taken advantage of on *habeas corpus*proceedings.

Appeal from order of special term, dismissing writ of *habeas corpus.*

*G. H. Smith,*for app’lt; *W. F. Severance,*for resp’t.

Van Brunt, P. J.

It is claimed by the appellant that the execution upon which he was arrested is void upon its face.

The only papers presented to the court are the writ of *habeas corpus*and the return of the sheriff containing the execution under which he claims to hold the defendant

It is urged that the court not having, the power to enter a judgment in the form described in the execution, therefore such exe*892cution is void on its face and insufficient to hold the relator upon the ground that as no liability attaches against the appellant as guardian *ad litem*except for costs awarded against the infant plaintiff, and as the judgment is not described as being for costs, the execution is void and insufficient to hold the relator, because if the judgmeút is for costs it is not intelligibly described in the execution, which § 1306 of the Code provides must be done.

This proposition assumes facts which are in no way established before the court The execution contains all the recitals required by the Code; and if there is any irregularity in the judgment it appears from the judgment, and not from the execution, and such judgment is not before the court, and if it were, such irregularity could not be availed of upon these proceedings. If the judgment is in a form unauthorized by the Code, the proper course to be pursued would be by motion to have the judgment corrected.

It is conceded that the party under arrest is liable for the judgment described in the execution, but because the judgment is irregular in form that therefore the execution is void. This is by no means the rule.

The court of common pleas, in which the judgment was entered, had jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties, and having such jurisdiction, whatever irregularities it may .have committed must be corrected in that court and cannot be availed of in this summary way.

We think, therefore, that the order appealed from was correct, and should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Daniels, J., concurs.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6787 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6787

  To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 to modify the 
authorization of appropriations for the Las Vegas Wash program, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 14, 2023

Ms. Lee of Nevada (for herself, Mr. Horsford, and Ms. Titus) introduced 
      the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 to modify the 
authorization of appropriations for the Las Vegas Wash program, 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 ``Las Vegas Wash Program Extension 
Act''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE LAS VEGAS WASH PROGRAM.

    Section 529(b)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 
(114 Stat. 2658; 119 Stat. 2255; 125 Stat. 865; 136 Stat. 4631) is 
amended by striking ``$40,000,000'' and inserting ``$65,000,000''.
                                 <all>
```
Adams, Kevin (OST)
From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Kevin/DennisSinick, Marshall S. < Marshaii.Sinick@squiresanders.com> Thursday, November 08, 2012 11:47 AM Adams, Kevin (OST) Devany, Dennis (OST) EAS--SE Alaska RFP--Request for Extension of Time ..... )

# ~**§i~ a~~** **~**c5:=;:J rn:::nr:F; 

# -o**~>!z** :::--.:::=!--1**~·ro(::>** r;:J ,_J"""-'··-n r-.J**~33**.c-_ On behalfofAlaska Airlines, I am requesting an extension ofthe current propgsal submission date from Nov 26 until Jan 8. This request is occasioned by a combination ofthe intervening holiday/vacation period and the much greater than usual level ofactivity by Alaska's planning and analysis groups. The same individuals who will be considering and preparing Alaska's EAS proposal are also heavily involved with a number ofother pressing matters. We appreciate that the requested extension is somewhat longer than the typical extension request. We, however, believe that favorable consideration ofthe request is warranted for the reasons expressed. We would also be pleased to answer any questions you might have. Sincerely, Sandy Sinick Sandy Sinick Partner marshall.sinick@squiresanders.com
T +1 202 626 6651 0 +1 202 626 6600 F +1 202 626 6780 M +1 301 325 7839 Squire Sanders (US) LLP 1200 19th Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 www.squiresanders.com

37 Offices in 18.Countries This message is confidential and may be legally privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. Ifyou are 1
August 9, 2013

Jeffrey Forrest, Ph.D.

Chair and Professor, Aviation & Aerospace Science

Metropolitan State University of Denver

1250 7th Street, Box 30, P.O. 173362

Denver, CO 80217-3362

Dear Dr. Forrest,

Please allow this letter to substantiate the equal interest of Metropolitan State University Denver 

(herein after referred to as MSU) and Colorado Northwestern Community College (herein after referred 

to as CNCC) in entering into a pilot training partnership. CNCC supports MSU’s petition for exemption.

Below please find a list of ideas agreed to in principle by MSU and CNCC:

1. MSU Denver and CNCC will enter into a formal, long-term partnership to offer collegiate aviation 

degrees and flight and ground training.

2. MSU Denver will construct a program with CNCC where our flight students may seek Part 141 flight 

training and academic Part 141 ground school. Of specific interest is the FAA commercial and 

instrument ratings. We will encourage students to seek all FAA ratings and certificates from CNCC and 

may make this a requirement for one of our degrees - Professional Flight Officer.

3. CNCCC is accredited by The Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges 

and Schools. CNCC and MSU Denver have an existing reciprocal agreement for transfer credit, and thus 

we will cross list our Part 141 program classes for registration at both institutions. We will also list on 

CNCC’s Part 141 certificate our FAA flight instructors such that they may facilitate Part 141 training at 

both institutions.

4. As indicated, CNCC is willing to (a) allow MSU Denver students to remain MSU Denver students, crossenrolled at CNCC; (b) return or have billed all academic tuition collected from our students taking 

academic classes at CNCC; (c) if sought by the student, transfer-in from MSU the first two years of 

academic classes and grant an Associates degree in Av Tech to our students.

5. All fees for flight training will go to CNCC

6. Summer, winter, weekend flight training program (packages) that also include dorm space would be 

beneficial.
Letter to Jeffrey Forrest, Ph.D.

August 9, 2013

Page 2 of 2

4836-4082-7157.1.

We look forward to establishing this partnership with MSU Denver.

John MacMillan

John MacMillan

Program Director, Aviation Technology

Colorado Northwestern Community College
No. 13-0892 Carol Kinsinger v. Todd Pethel 

FILED 

November 13, 2014 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
 

OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

Justice Ketchum, concurring, in part, and dissenting, in part: 

I agree that Mr. Pethel should not be held in contempt. I disagree with our 

holding that Ms. Kinsinger shall be granted a money judgment against Mr. Pethel in the amount 

of $4,018.15, less any appropriate credits. 

The doctrine of laches bars claims when a person unreasonably delays in asserting 

a claim and the delay works to the disadvantage or prejudice the defendant. Grose v. Grose, 222 

W.Va. 722, 671 S.E.2d 727 (2008). In finding that Ms. Kinsinger’s claim was barred by the 

doctrine of laches, the circuit court’s order focused on her six-year delay in submitting an order 

granting her a share of Mr. Pethel’s retirement benefits. However, the order failed to discuss 

whether the delay caused any disadvantage or prejudice to Mr. Pethel. 

Although no finding was made by the circuit court that there was not any 

disadvantage or prejudice to Mr. Pethel, the majority opinion orders that a money judgment be 

entered against Mr. Pethel. There is no evidence in the record to support this mandate. The case 

should have been remanded to the circuit court for factual findings as to whether Ms. Kinsinger’s 

delay caused any disadvantages or prejudice to Mr. Pethel.
#### Thomas Bartholomew LAYDEN IV, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael HEGMANN, Supervisor Doctor at Meadows Unit; Subodh Shroff, Doctor at Meadows Unit, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15896

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*608Submitted June 26, 2017*

Filed July 6, 2017

Thomas Bartholomew Layden, IV, Pro Se

Joseph Scott Conlon, Renaud Cook Dru-ry Mesaros, PA, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Arizona state prisoner Thomas Bartholomew Layden IV appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, We review de novo. *Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Layden failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent in managing Layden’s pain. *See id.*at 1058-60 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).

AFFIRMED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Jejuan L. DIGGS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-4035

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 1, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.01
  SCHEDULE II  VALUATION
    AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
  Years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003
  Balance at


Charged to





Write-offs


Balance atBeginning


Costs and





Net of


End ofof Year


Expenses


Other


Recoveries


Year(In thousands)Allowance for Doubtful
    Accounts2005

$
1,399


$
731


$



$
(753
)

$
1,3772004


5,377



340



367
(1)


(4,685
)


1,3992003


10,698



2,248







(7,569
)


5,377Valuation Allowance for
    Deferred Tax Assets2005

$
379,191


$
20,253


$







$
399,4442004


422,303



(43,112
)










379,1912003


348,793



73,510











422,303     (1)
    
    Charged to Discontinued Operations in 2004.