alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on January 17, 2022, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Advanced Fluids for Electrified Vehicles (“AFEV”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc., Detroit, MI; The Shephard Chemical Co., Norwood, OH; and Tianjin SwARC Automotive Research Laboratory Co., Ltd., Tianjin, CHINA, have been added as parties to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and AFEV intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On June 16, 2021, AFEV filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on August 16, 2021 (86 FR 45751).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on December 02, 2021. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on January 13, 2022 (87 FR 2183).                

Suzanne Morris,

Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2022-05105 Filed 3-9-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
#### Diem T. NGUYEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-56774

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*895Submitted June 26, 2017 *

Filed June 30, 2017

Diem T. Nguyen, Pro Se

James M. Hester, Esquire, Melissa Robbins Coutts, Esquire, Attorney, McCarthy & Holthus LLP, San Diego, CA, Jessica L. Yared, Esquire, Attorney, Houser & Allison, APC, Carlsbad, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Nationstar Mortgage, LLC

Jan T. Chilton, Attorney, Elizabeth Holt Andrews, Esquire, Jon D. Ives, Esquire, Attorney, Severson *&*Werson APC, San Francisco, CA, Kerry W. Franich, Sever-son & Werson, Irvine, CA, for Defendants-Appellees GMAC Mortgage Corp, GMAC Mortgage Corporation

Jessica L. Yared, Esquire, Attorney, Houser & Allison, APC, Carlsbad, CA, Melissa Robbins Coutts, Esquire, Attorney, McCarthy & Holthus LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Fannie Mae

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 **

Diem T. Nguyen appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment in her action alleging federal and state law violations relating to her mortgage loan. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, *Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,*6 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Nguyen’s Rule 60(b) motion filed on September 14, 2011 because Nguyen failed to demonstrate any grounds for relief. *See id.*at 1263 (grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Nguyen’s contentions regarding the dismissal of her underlying claims, the denial of leave to amend, and the denial of her first motion for reconsideration because the operative notice of appeal was timely only as to the denial of her second motion for reconsideration. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of judgment or order appealed from).

We reject as without merit Nguyen’s contention that the district court was required to hold a hearing before deciding her motion for reconsideration. *See*Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b) (“By rule or order, the court may provide for submitting and determining motions on briefs, without oral hearings.”).

Appellee’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 12) is granted.

Nguyen’s motion for appointment of pro bono counsel (Docket Entry No. 69) is denied.

Nguyen’s motion for an extension of time to file a response to the court’s order to show cause (Docket Entry No. 70) is denied as unnecessary. Nguyen’s response was filed upon receipt at Docket Entry No. 73.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edik ASADORIAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-11874 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(May 26, 2017)

Linda Julin McNamara, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, Mac D. Heavener, III, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Jacksonville, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Maurice C. Grant, II, Jeffrey Alan Ged-baw, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Rosemary Cakmis, Meghan Ann Collins, Donna Lee Elm, Federal Public Defender’s Office, for Defendant-Appellant

Before TJOFLAT, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Godfrey, appointed counsel for Edik Asadorian in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Asadorian’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.
Faulk, Scott (OST) 

From: nlarson@mosquitonet.com : ;;i UPnRAl!Oi^S 

Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 9:06 PM 

To: Faulk, Scott (OST) ]]\l I'M 2 ^ A 'Q: ! 8 

Subject: Chisana Essential Air Contract 

Re: Chisana (CZN) Essential Air Service, 40 Mile Air - contractor 

Essential Air Service is so very important to us as seniors on a fixed income. 

Having no road access we depend upon Essential Air Service for mail and supplies^ but most of all for travel to medical 

attention. Our little community is experiencing a new growth spurt. Essential Air Service will play an important role in 

our new comers' plans. We urge you to keep the status quo. 

Ethan and Audrey Jones 

PO Box CZN 

CZN Airport 

Tok, AK 99780 

907-734-2337
#### Pawlish, Appellant, *v.*Pawlish.

Argued March 27, 1953.

Before Stern, C. J., Stearne, Jones, Chidsey, Musmanno and Arnold, JJ.

*William W. Matson,*for appellant.

*Francis Taptich,*with him *R. J. Lucksha,*for appellee.

May 25, 1953:

Opinion by

Me. Justice Chidsey,

The plaintiff in this case filed a bill in equity averring that he and the defendant had engaged in a building enterprise under an oral agreement of partnership, and praying for an accounting by the defendant. The defendant filed an answer denying the existence of any partnership and alleging that the plaintiff had no interest whatsoever in the enterprise. After *632hearing, the chancellor adjudicated the controversy in favor of the defendant and entered a decree nisi dismissing the bill. Exceptions thereto were dismissed by the court en banc, and this appeal followed.

We are unable to pass upon the merits of the appeal because of the failure of the chancellor to make findings of fact. The only findings made are conclusions that there was no evidence justifying the existence of a partnership or the directing of an accounting. The record discloses material conflict in the testimony adduced by the respective parties and required specific findings with respect thereto for proper review of the chancellor’s conclusions, both by the court en banc and this Court. Since the record must be returned for further findings, it is suggested that in aid of the chancellor the parties file requests for specific findings pertinent to their respective contentions.

The record is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
#### Brandon ROBERTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sgt. Julie M. THRASHER; Co. II M. Davies; Lt. S. McKenzie; Capt. R. M. Friend; Hearing Officer Peter Juknelis; Former Lt. Damon Thomas; Lt. Thomas Sires; Former Warden Bobby P. Shearin, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-7580

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 16, 2017

Decided: May 30, 2017

Brandon Roberts, Appellant Pro Se.

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*839PER CURIAM:

Brandon Roberts appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Roberts v. Thrasher,*No. 1:15-cv-01906-ELH, 2015 WL 4485477 (D. Md. July 20, 2015; Oct. 4, 2016). We grant Roberts’ motion to amend his informal brief, and deny his motions for leave to file a record appendix and to supplement the record as moot. Wé 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.

*AFFIRMED*
Exhibit 31

          CERTIFICATION TO BE PROVIDED BY THE DEPOSITOR WITH FORM 10-K

      Re:   First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2006-FF16
            Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2006-FF16

      I, Robert McGinnis, certify that:

      l. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 10-D
required to be filed in respect of the period included in the year covered by
this report in Form 10-K of First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-FF16 (the
"Exchange Act periodic reports");

      2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect
to the period covered by this report;

      3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by
this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

      4. Based on my knowledge and upon the annual compliance statement required
in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the
Exchange Act periodic reports, the Servicer has fulfilled each of its
obligations under the pooling and servicing agreement; and

      5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment
of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be
included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and
Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of
noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on
Form 10-K.

      In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: National City
Home Loan Services, Inc. and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company.

                                        FINANCIAL ASSET SECURITIES CORP.

                                        By: /s/ Robert McGinnis
                                            ------------------------------------
                                        Name: Robert McGinnis
                                        Title: President
                                        Date: March 30, 2007
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Miguel PRADO-TRUJILLO, also known as Luis Rivera-Gomez, also known as Miguel Saucedo-Rivera, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41604 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 18, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Miguel Prado-Trujillo, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Miguel Prado-Trujillo 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). Prado-Trujillo has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the rele*836vant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 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.
# CERTIFICATE OF AIRCREW 

# QUALIFICATI~ TYPE AFM 60- 1 MAJOR COMMAND OTHER (Speci-fy)



# ~ DATE COMPLETED



### .. 

### OF Qg PROFICIENCY 

## STAN/EVAL c:J TACTICAL MISSION CHECK 

## c:J INSTRUMENT 

### ASSIGNfvW.I\i'T' 

## 12 Oct 

# 66 I. 

## AIRCREW IDENTIFlCATI ON NAME OF EXAM! NEE (Last, First., Middle Initial) GRADE AFSN DATE OF BIRTH 

## PONTI , ROBERT 

## J. lst 

# Lt Yv3l09349 

# 23 AUF!. ORGANIZATION BASE 

## 509 AREFS 9 

## 509 Bomb 

# Wg (SAC)

" TYPE AIRCRAFT (Model/Series) 

# I CREW POSITION 

# I CREW NUMBER (If applicable) 

## KC-135A 

## CP S-152 II. 

## PREREQUISITES AERONAUTICAL RAT! NG 

# I FLYING STATUS CODE 

# I ELI Gl BLE FOR CHECK AS OF DATE ORGANIZATION 

## c:J YES 

## D NO DATE TYPED NAME AND GRADE OF CERTIFYING OFFICIAL SIGNATURE



### , I I I. 

## QUALIFICATION GROUND PHASE 

### FLIGHT PHASE

**EXAMINATION/C~ECK** 

### DATE GRADE MISSION/GHECK J;>/ITE TIME 

### '

## Em er g Procd Exam 11 Oct 

# 66 96.7/H Crew/Tnst· .R 

# 12 Oct 

# 66 

# 6:30 Proficiency Exercise 11 Oct 

## 66 

# 06 '7/T-I / o I

**~** 

### ! t STATUS/GRADE (IAW Command directives) RESTRICTION (As applicable) EXP I RAT! ON DATE 

## Q

**~1** 

### Or>t. f..7 INSTRUMENT RATING (Pilot only) UPGRADE (Include date) EXPIRATION DATE DATE CRITIQUE 

## D NO. I 

## D NO. 

## z 

## c:J NO, 1 

# l?t'vj_~ TYPED NAME AND GRADE OF EXAMINEE



### SIGNAT~v .. .

# 0 . Robert 

## J. Ponti, lst Lt 

# ?t/-~r/-:rn 

# cz: IV. 

## CERTI FlCATION The above aircrew member has demonstrated Qg satisfactory 

## 0 unsatisfactory performance and knowledge of procedures, techniques, equipment, and directives which 

# GB would 

## CJ would 

### not assure the 

### safe and suecessiul accomplishment 

### of his assigned flying duties. for remarks) ORGANIZATION DATE !CHECK

**~S** APPLICABLE (Use reverse side 1 

## D REMARKS 

## 509 A REFS 

# / 70 

# t::-/. b-6 TYPED NAME AND GRADE OF FLIGHT EXAMINER



# ;1~~k( SIGNATURE



# :0 **().~**uJ.JLf



# -~/ Sam uel

**Vo** 

## Tyson, 

# Lt Col 2 

# I CHECK APPLICABLE
**BOX(S~se** reverse for remarks) ORGANIZATION DATE /[? _ . · ' 

### CJ REMARKS V CONCUR 

### CJ DO NOT CONCUR 

## 509 AP.EFS 

# · N .

# v , **~Jr&(.,** ;jf

**y<~** v TYPED NAME AND GRADE OF REVI·EWING OFFICER 

# " ;>:''""

**/:~~I** 

# . j ·• ' I ' • "

**.,./ ,**  c

**~** 

## B

ernard 

# R. Sim on , 

# Lt Col 

# i1;J.fLtyv/L.d( 

## { k-1\ . )\ . A/PPt..<f·•·V .,

_ I_ CHECK APPLICABLE BOX(S) (Use reverse for remarks) ORGANIZATION DATE 3 

## c:J REMARKS 

## D CONCUR 

## D DO NOT CONCUR TYPED NAME AND GRADt OF FINAL APPROVlNG OFFICER SIGNATURE 

# AF FORM MAY 64 

# 8 REPLACES AF FORM ab 1 MAR 63 AND AF FORM 8C 1 OCT 62, WHICH ARE OBSOLETE. 

# ~ 

# i '

i

# 1 

# !l I H



## ~



## ~ I

# ' l !
l 

# ! 

# I u 

# I

**~** I 

# I I "
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Brian Roberts, the Chief Executive Officer of Ruby Creek Resources Inc. (the "Company"), and Ian Foreman, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company, for the year ended August 31, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: November 23, 2007.

"Brian Roberts"

Brian Roberts
Chief Executive Officer

"Ian Foreman"

Ian Foreman 
Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version 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.

__________
#### RADWARE, LTD., Radware, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. F5 NETWORKS, INC., Defendant-Cross-Appellant

2017-1212, 2017-1248

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

September 18, 2017

Fabio E. Marino, McDermott, Will *&*Emery LLP, Menlo Park, CA, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by Nitin Gambhir; Joshua David Rogaczewski, Washington, DC.

*701Ramsey M. Al-Salam, Perkins Coie, LLP, Seattle, WA, .argued for defendant-cross-appellant. Also represented by Christina Jordan McCullough, Stevan R. Stark, Jr.

(Newman, Dyk, and Taranto, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM

This .Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
### To THe- Cntjjcr&F' daxmx^L f}f/>mLs (j^SSf-^/ryfi of 72^/ts 

### /?£ I Ozsposrixo/o
oto iTtese (J&tTqF/Hrtb&Qs Corpuse<$ RECEIVED IM_

(*)£-&% 858 ~ Ito APR OA ZQ15 £J£- 6?/ S "5 $ ~/ 7 Ab@lAG©§ta,Gie?k 

### _X7S hetfO m?&£- thati 3oc^ys* orJTTfs CJ*s7~of1/?yfl/0cl4/»u$
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.5

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1

                                       TO

                       INVERNESS MEDICAL INNOVATIONS, INC.

                      2001 STOCK OPTION AND INCENTIVE PLAN

         The Inverness Medical Innovations, Inc. 2001 Stock Option and Incentive
Plan (the "Plan") is hereby amended by deleting the first sentence of Section
3(a) of the Plan and replacing it with the following:

         "The maximum number of shares of Stock reserved and available for
         issuance under the Plan shall be 4,824,081 shares, subject to
         adjustment as provided in Section 3(b)."

         Except as herein amended, the provisions of the Plan shall remain in
full force and effect.

AS APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS:  APRIL 1, 2002

AS APPROVED BY THE STOCKHOLDERS:  JUNE 5, 2002
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of HFF, Inc.;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this annual report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this annual report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15e
and 15d-15e) for the registrant and have:
 (a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such internal
control and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    [reserved](c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
registrants Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 (a)
    
    all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control
over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and(b)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
 Dated:
March 15, 2007
    
    By:
    
    /s/ John H. Pelusi, Jr.John H. Pelusi, Jr.Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)