alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Registration Review; Pesticide Dockets Opened for Review and Comment; Correction

EPA issued a notice in the Federal Register of Friday, March 28, 2014 (79 FR 17539) (FRL

‐ 9907

‐ 97),

concerning the opening of registration review dockets for specific chemical cases. The Notice (FR Doc.

2014

‐ 06814) should be corrected as follows:

1. On page 17541, Table

— Registration Review Dockets Opening, under the column heading

Docket ID No., line 16, for Thiabendazole and salts, correct EPA

‐ HQ

‐ OPP

‐ 2013

‐ 0175 to read

EPA

‐ HQ

‐ OPP

‐ 2014

‐ 0175

.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ricardo Jones, Pesticide Re

‐ Evaluation Division (7508P), Office

of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC

20460

‐ 0001; telephone number: (703) 347

‐ 0493; email address: jones.ricardo @epa.gov

.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

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; PAR19-202 High Impact, Interdisciplinary Science in NIDDK Research Areas: Hematology (RC2).                    

*Date:*                         April 5, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         NIDDK, NIH, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Ann A. Jerkins, Ph.D.,  Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 7119, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, 301-594-2242,                         *jerkinsa@niddk.nih.gov.*

(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: March 8, 2022.

Miguelina Perez,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-05284 Filed 3-11-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 31682]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12937]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7897]

Renewal of Cultural Property Advisory Committee Charter

SUMMARY: The Charter of the Department of State's Cultural Property 
Advisory Committee (CPAC) has been renewed for an additional two years.
    The Charter of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee is being 
renewed for a two-year period. The Committee was established by the 
Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act of 1983, 19 U.S.C. 
2601 et seq. It reviews requests from other countries seeking U.S. 
import restrictions on archaeological or ethnological material the 
pillage of which places a country's cultural heritage in jeopardy. The 
Committee makes findings and recommendations to the President's 
designee who, on behalf of the President, determines whether to impose 
the import restrictions. The membership of the Committee consists of 
private sector experts in archaeology, anthropology, or ethnology; 
experts in the international sale of cultural property; and 
representatives of museums and of the general public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cultural Heritage Center, U.S. 
Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 2200 C 
Street NW., Washington, DC 20522. Telephone: (202) 632-6301; Fax: (202) 
632-6300.

    Dated: April 27, 2012.
Maria P. Kouroupas,
Executive Director, Cultural Property Advisory, Committee Department of 
State.
[FR Doc. 2012-12937 Filed 5-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-11-P
```
#### Raphael RUSSELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SNOHOMISH COUNTY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-35706

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed October 31, 2017

Raphael Russell, Pro Se

Marc Othello Bides, Snohomish County Prosecuting Attorney, Everett, WA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Raphael Russell appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action alleging discrimination under the Fair Housing Act and fraud, We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, We affirm.

In his opening brief, Russell fails to challenge the district court’s order granting summary judgment and therefore he has waived any such challenge. *See Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”); *Greenwood v. FAA,*28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant.,,,”).

We reject as without merit Russell’s contention that he was not properly served with documents because Russell consented to electronic service.

We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. *See United States v. Elias,*921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

Russell’s motion to file a late reply brief (Docket Entry No. 19) is granted. The Clerk shall.file the reply brief at Docket Entry No. 18. All other pending motions *703(Docket Entry Nos. 7, 20, 21, and 24) are denied.

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. Jermaine Antwan BROWN, a/k/a Twain, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6813

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 16, 2017

Decided: November 20, 2017

Jermaine Antwan Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Olivia L. Norman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

*184Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jermaine Antwan Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brown has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
##### 



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 Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
William J. Hemelt, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer
and Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of
operations of the Company. /s/ William J. HemeltWilliam J. HemeltExecutive Vice President, ChiefFinancial Officer, Treasurer & SecretaryDated May 14, 2004
CERTIFICATIONI, Kokmeng Koh, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-Drequired to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K ofPrincipal Life Income Fundings Trust 2006-80 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);  2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;  3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and otherinformation required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by thisreport is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;  4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required inthis report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the ExchangeAct period reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicingagreement(s) in all material respects; and  5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be includedin this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in suchreports 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 thefollowing unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A. and Bankers Trust Company, N.A.Date: March 28, 2007   /s/ Kokmeng Koh     Kokmeng Koh  Second Vice President
| 1.     | Such      Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009,      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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K for      the Year ended December 31, 2009, fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations      of JBI Inc. |

|                      |   |                          |   |
|---------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|--------|
| Date:      March 31, 2010 | By:    | /s/      John Bordynuik       |   |
|                      |   | John      Bordynuik           |   |
|                      |   | President,      CEO, Director |   |
#### Clarence B. JENKINS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA HUMAN AFFAIRS COMMISSION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-2162

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 21, 2017

Decided: November 27, 2017

*249Clarénce B. Jenkins, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Matthews, RICHARDSON PLOWDEN, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Clarence B. Jenkins, Jr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, dismissing Jenkins’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) claims, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, and remanding the remaining claims back to state court. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (2012). Jenkins’ objections were sufficient to preserve appellate review but we nonetheless affirm on the merits. *Jenkins v. S.C. Human Affairs Comm’n,*No. 3:16-cv-03255-TLW, 2017 WL 4012454 (D.S.C. Sept. 12, 2017). We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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.

*AFFIRMED*
**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 Annual Report of GCA II Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) on      Form 10-KSB for the period ending May 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities      and      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael M. Membrado,      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:

|   |                                                                                                       |                                   |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                       | /s/                Michael M. Membrado |
|   | Michael                M. MembradoPrincipal                Financial OfficerAugust                24, 2007 |

----
#### Michael M. KAHR, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Michael E. COLE, Iron Works Construction Company LLC, Defendants-Appellees

2017-1391

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

November 9, 2017

Sherry Dawn Coley, Davis & Kuelthau, SC, Green Bay, WI, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by James Earl Lowe, Jr., Matthew R. McClean, Milwaukee, WI.

Paul J. Robbennolt, Winthrop & Wein-stine, PA, Minneapolis, MN,' argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by BRETT KLEIN.

(Dyk, Sehall, 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.
November 18, 2014 

Kevin Schlemmer 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

US Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave SE 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

SkyWest Airlines' Essential Air Service Termination Notice for Pueblo, CO 

Dear Mr. Schlemmer: 

This letter will serve as Sky West Airlines termination notice for turboprop air service 

between Pueblo, CO (PUB) and Denver, CO (DEN). The last day of service will be on 

January 31,2015. 

SkyWest will transition to an all jet fleet in 2015 and will eliminate the EMB-120 

Brasilia from the SkyWest fleet. This turboprop aircraft is currently used in service from 

Pueblo, CO under the Essential Air Service Program. This fleet change is driven in part 

by the additional challenges associated with the new FAR 117 flight and duty rules 

implemented in January 2014. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

Michael Thompson 

Chief Operating Officer 

SkyWest Airlines
#### Liany ADLIM, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-73878

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017 *

Filed November 21, 2017

Armin Alexander Skalmowski, Law Office of Armin Skalmowski, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner

OIL, Robert Michael Stalzer, Trial Attorney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of. Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

*593Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Liany Adlim, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. *Shrestha v. Holder,*590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies between Adlim’s testimony and documentary evidence as to the incident in February 2008, and as to her father’s birthplace. *See id.*at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). Ad-lim’s explanations for the inconsistencies do not compel a contrary result. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Adlim’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Adlim’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and Adlim does not point to any evidence that compels, the finding it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to' Indonesia. *See id.*at 1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 11

                   AvTel Communications, Inc. and Subsidiaries
                        Computation of Per Share Earnings
                                   (Unaudited)



                                      Three Months             Six Months
                                     Ended June 30,          Ended June 30,
                                 ----------------------  ----------------------
                                    1998        1997        1998        1997
                                 ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------

Net Income (Loss)                (2,112,947)   (198,657) (3,785,437)    173,202
Less preferred dividends             11,816      20,000      23,632      40,000
                                 ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
   Income (Loss) applicable
    to common shareholders       (2,124,763)   (218,657) (3,809,069)    133,202
                                 ==========  ==========  ==========  ==========
Weighted average number of
  common shares                   9,549,958   9,366,447*  9,513,924   9,366,420*
                                 ==========  ==========  ==========  ========== 
Net income (loss) per common
  share - basic and diluted           (0.22)      (0.02)*     (0.40)       0.02*
                                 ==========  ==========  ==========  ========== 




* The 1997 amounts are presented on a pro forma basis.