alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 2, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 11725]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04363]


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

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 30, 2022.
    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    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#790a18171d1009571b11180d0d181a11180b00001839171011571e160f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7f0c1e111b160f511d171e0b0b1e1c171e0d06061e3f11161751181009">[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. 2022-04363 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>
Filed May 15, 1891.

#### The People v. James A.Barker.

Motion denied upon stipulating to argue in June.
#### In the Matter of the Application of Geo. H. Stonebridge, Jr., Rec’r.

*James B. Bill,*for app’lt; *Chas. E. Hughes,*for resp’t.

Order affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Finch, *J.,*absent.

Affirming 37 N. Y. State Rep., 617.
#### Deon Eli ANDERSON Plaintiff-Appellant v. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE Defendant-Appellee

No. 16-3889

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 30, 2017

Filed: June 2, 2017

*465Deon Eli Anderson, Pro Se

Roger Alan Keller, Jr., U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Missouri, Saint Louis, MO, for Defendant-Appellee

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Deon Eli Anderson appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), in which he challenged a term of debarment from entering into federal government contracts. He argued that the length of the term of debarment imposed by the Department of the Air Force violated federal law. We agree with the district court that there is no basis for concluding that the length of the term was not in accordance with the law or was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. See Rohr v. Reliance Bank, 826 F.3d 1046, 1052 (8th Cir. 2016) (reviewing de novo grant of summary judgment); Bettor Racing, Inc. v. Nat’l Indian Gaming Comm’n, 812 F.3d 648, 651 (8th Cir. 2016) (de novo review of district court’s decision on whether agency action violated APA). We deny Anderson’s pending motion to supplement the record. The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fernando DELGADO-ORNELAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-3053

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed June 23, 2017

(D.C. Nos.' &15-CR-10141-EFM-1 and 6:16-CV-01422-EFM), (D. Kansas)

*523Brent I. Anderson, Office of the United States Trustee, Wichita, KS, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Fernando Delgado-Ornelas, Pro Se

Before BRISCOE, HARTZ, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

ORDER DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND DISMISSING THE APPEAL

Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge

This appeal involves the denial of relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The threshold issue is whether the defendant has justified a certificate of appealability. We answer “no” and decline to issue a certificate of appealability. This decision requires us to dismiss the appeal.

The defendant, Mr. Fernando Delgado-Ornelas, wants to appeal a conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Mr. Delgado was charged in federal court with illegal reentry after removal based on a conviction for an aggravated felony. After conferring with counsel, Mr. Delgado pleaded guilty. The district court accepted the plea and imposed a prison term of 37 months. According to Mr. Delgado, his attorney provided ineffective assistance by promising a lower sentence. The district court rejected this claim, reasoning that the plea colloquy belied the alleged promise and that the alleged ineffectiveness would not have been prejudicial.

To appeal this ruling, Mr. Delgado-Ornelas needs a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). Such a certificate may issue only if Mr. Delgado-Ornelas has made a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Where, as here, the district court has dismissed a petitioner’s § 2255 claim on the merits, the petitioner must show that the district court’s conclusion was subject to reasonable debate. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000).

In our view, the district court’s reasoning is not subject to reasonable debate. As a result, we decline to issue a certificate of appealability. And in the absence of a certificate of appealability, we must dismiss the appeal.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 5, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00378

- CV

Sandra Lynn BURGER

, Appellant

v.

Daryl Glenn BURGER

, Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Bandera County, Texas

Trial Court No. CV 15

- 0000124 Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Because appellant filed an affidavit of indigence and a contest was filed, we abated this appeal to the trial court pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1(h)( 4). The trial court has now filed findings of fact and conclusions of law. In its findings, the trial court sustained the

contests filed by the trial court clerk and court reporter. It then denied appellant ’s claim of indigence

. W e REINSTATE this appeal on the docket of this court.

If appellant intends to appeal the trial court’s not indigent finding, we ORDER appellant to provide written notice to this court of such intent on or before August 15, 2016. If appellant fails to timely file any written notic e of her intention to appeal the not indigent finding, then appellant is ORDERED to provide written proof to this court on or before August 25, 2016 that the clerk’s fee for the preparation of the clerk’s record has been paid or arrangements have been

mad e to pay the clerk ’ s fee. Additionally, if appellant fails to timely file any notice of her intention to appeal the not indigent finding, then appellant is ORDERED to provide written proof

to this court on or before August 25, 2016 that the court reporter ’s fee for preparation of the reporter’s record has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the reporter’s fee. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3( b); see also T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c) (allowing dismissal of appeal if appellant fails to comply with an order of this court)._________________________________ K aren Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 5th day of August, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### William F. HOLDNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Katy COBA, Director of the Oregon Department of Agriculture, in her individual and official capacity; Dick Pederson, Director of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, in his individual and his official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-35723

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 2017*

Filed July 6, 2017

William F. Holdner, Pro Se •

Jordan R. Silk, Attorney, Oregon Department of Justice, Salem, OR, 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 ***

William F. Holdner appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from the alleged improper regulation of Holdner’s former cattle ranch. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

In his opening brief, Holdner failed to challenge the district court’s grounds for dismissal of his complaint, and therefore Holdner waived any such challenge. *See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington,*350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening brief.”). We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Holdner’s action but vacate the judgment in part and remand for the district court to dismiss Holdner’s action without prejudice.

The magistrate judge properly denied Holdner’s motion requesting review by a district court judge because the parties consented to a magistrate judge. *See*28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(3) (when parties provide consent to magistrate jurisdiction, aggrieved party may appeal directly to court of appeals).

We reject as without merit Holdner’s contentions that his action qualifies as a *614citizen suit under 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a), and' that the district court erred in denying discovery, the right to introduce additional evidence, and a requested hearing.

Appellees’ motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 11) is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.

***

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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ChiRex Inc.'s third
quarter 1998 Form 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
Form 10-Q
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001005407
<NAME> CHIREX INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           5,172
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,098
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     31,112
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,170
<PP&E>                                         170,369
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,559
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 237,785
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           50,082
<BONDS>                                         78,389
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           118
<OTHER-SE>                                      93,457
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   237,785
<SALES>                                         83,600
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                83,927
<CGS>                                           65,624
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   81,007
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   873
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,883
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,836)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       605
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,231)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,231)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.10)
        

</TABLE>
[ARTICLE] 5
[MULTIPLIER]   1,000

Part II.  Other information,   Item 6a.


                             Arthrocare CORPORATION
                                  EXHIBIT 11.1
                        COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                      (In thousands, except per share data)
                                   (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                        Three Months Ended              Nine Months Ended
                                       ---------------------------    ---------------------------
                                       September 27, September 28,    September 27, September 28,
                                            1997          1996             1997          1996
                                       ------------- -------------    ------------- -------------
<S>                                    <C>           <C>              <C>           <C>
Weighted average common shares
   outstanding for the period                 8,812         8,714            8,801         4,940

Common equivalent shares pursuant to
   Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 83          --            --               --             3,117
                                       ------------- -------------    ------------- -------------
Shares used in per share calculation          8,812         8,714            8,801         8,057
                                       ============= =============    ============= =============

Net loss                                    ($1,900)      ($1,932)         ($6,056)      ($5,410)
                                       ============= =============    ============= =============

Net loss per share                           ($0.22)       ($0.22)          ($0.69)       ($0.67)
                                       ============= =============    ============= =============

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Martin VICTOR, Jr., also known as Steak, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-30096 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

August 7, 2017

Camille Ann Domingue, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Martin Victor, Jr., Pro Se

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Martin Victor, Jr., 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). Victor has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Victor’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous issue for appellate review. 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.

*

 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.
General Term—Fifth Department.

Filed June 2, 1891.

#### The People, Resp’ts, *v.*Emily E. Hawes, App’lt.

Judgment and conviction affirmed, and the case remitted to the court of sessions of Niagara county to proceed therein.
#### Robert Blume, an Infant, by William F. Blume, His Guardian ad Litem, Appellant, *v.*City of Newburgh, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

Submitted October 4, 1943;

decided October 14, 1943.

*Hiram B. Odell, Jr., Corporation Counsel,*for motion to dismiss appeal and in opposition to appellant’s motion to prosecute appeal as a poor person.

*Henry Hunter*for motion by appellant to prosecute appeal as a poor person and in opposition to motion to dismiss appeal.

Motion by respondent to dismiss appeal denied, without costs.

• Motion by appellant for leave to prosecute appeal as a poor person granted.
# SPAR Group, Inc.

EXHIBIT 32.1

# Certification of Chief
Executive Officer Pursuant to 
Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the quarterly
report on Form 10-Q for the six month period ended June 30, 2007 (this
report), of SPAR Group, Inc. (the registrant), the undersigned
hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

1.                 The
report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

2.                 The
information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material           respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.

| |                                      
| | -------------------------------------
| | /s/ Gary S. Raymond                  
| | Gary S. Raymond                      
| | President and Chief Executive Officer
|
| | August 20, 2007                      

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to SPAR Group, Inc. and will be
retained by SPAR Group, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.

Ex-3
ARB Transient 55mph Cruise 65mph Cruise

'Brk energy Class 2b-5' '[kWh]' 0.97 0.00 0.00

'Brk energy Class 6-7' '[kWh]' 1.61 0.00 0.00

'Brk energy Class 7' '[kWh]' 3.35 0.00 0.00

'Brk energy Class 8' '[kWh]' 4.55 0.00 0.00

Trk energy Class 2b-5 at wheel' '[kWh]' 2.47 5.56 8.76

Trk energy Class 6-7 at wheel' '[kWh]' 3.49 6.06 9.35

Trk energy Class 7 at wheel' '[kWh]' 6.33 7.83 11.64

Trk energy Class 8 at wheel' '[kWh]' 8.24 8.76 12.74

'Brk/Traction Energy Class 2b-5' [] 39% 0 0

'Brk/Traction Energy Class 6-7' [] 46% 0 0

'Brk/Traction Energy Class 7' [] 53% 0 0

'Brk/Traction Energy Class 8' [] 55% 0 0
Weighted (at wheel) Weighted (Pre-Trans)

0.255

0.424

0.884

1.203

1.021

1.317 Transient

2.170 Proposed Weighting 75%

2.726 Miles 2.84

25% 23%

32% 30%

41% 39%

44% 42%
55 mph 65 mph

9% 16%

4.58 5.41
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6442 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6442

 To direct the Secretary of the Interior to ensure full pool levels of 
 Flathead Lake in Montana in accordance with certain requirements, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 15, 2023

  Mr. Zinke introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Secretary of the Interior to ensure full pool levels of 
 Flathead Lake in Montana in accordance with certain requirements, 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 ``Fill the Lake Act''.

SEC. 2. REGULATION OF POOL LEVEL OF FLATHEAD LAKE.

    From June 15 through September 15 of each calendar year, the 
Secretary of the Interior shall ensure--
            (1) a minimum lake level in Flathead Lake of 2892' MSL by 
        providing the water from Hungry Horse Reservoir; and
            (2) a maximum lake level in Flathead Lake of 2893' MSL by 
        releasing excess water downstream.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Capital Corp of the West(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Thomas T. Hawker, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)  The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|                            | /s/ Thomas T. Hawker                  |   |
|---------------------------------|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Date:  August 9, 2004 | Thomas T. Hawker                      |
|                            | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### Wm. M. Sayre, Jr., Resp’t, *v.*Nathan Hutkopf, App’lt.

Appeal from first district court.

Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, costs to appellant to abide the event.
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 Qingdao Footwear, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Tao
Wang, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 results of operations of the Company.





Date:
November 4, 2010





/s/
      Tao WangTao
      Wang, Principal Executive Officer