alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 16, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14898-14899]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05559]


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

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; Characterization of 
Islet-derived Extracellular Vesicles for Improved Detection, 
Monitoring, Classification, and Treatment of Type 1 Diabetes Special 
Emphasis Panel.
    Date: April 6, 2022.
    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

[[Page 14899]]

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Peter J. Kozel, Ph.D., Chief, Training and 
Mentored Research Section, Scientific Review Branch, Division of 
Extramural Activities, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Room 7009, Bethesda, MD 
20892, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7c17130619100c3c111d151052121514521b130a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="503b3f2a353c20103d31393c7e3e39387e373f26">[email protected]</span></a>, 301-594-4721.

(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 11, 2022.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-05559 Filed 3-15-22; 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>
Exhibit 32.1








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Amendment No. 3 to the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”) by China Growth Corporation (the “Company”), I, Mingzhuo Tan, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my 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 Company.








China Growth CorporationDate: August 17, 2011
By:
/s/ Mingzhuo TanMingzhuo TanPresident and Chief Executive Officer





This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed original of this written statement required by §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.1





Certification Pursuant to


Exchange Act Rule 15d-14(b) and


18 U.S.C. Section 1350





In connection with the Annual Report of Shopoff Properties Trust, Inc. (the ”Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William A. Shopoff, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that:





i.
The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act 1934; and




ii.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Shopoff Properties Trust, Inc. and will be retained by Shopoff Properties Trust, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





Dated: April 14, 2011
/s/ William A. ShopoffName: William A. Shopoff

Title: Chief Executive Officer
#### Edwin MARRERO, Appellant v. State of ILLINOIS, et al., Appellees

No. 17-5081

September Term, 2017

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed On: February 5, 2018

Edwin Marrero, Pro Se

Warden (Greenville FCI), Federal Correctional Institution, Greenville FCI, Greenville, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant

R. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney’s Office, (USA) Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee

BEFORE: Srinivasan, Pillard, and Wilkins, Circuit Judges

*12JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief and appendix filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed January 11, 2017, and April 14, 2017, be affirmed. Seeking relief under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, appellant’s complaint asserts that the individuals who investigated and prosecuted him fabricated evidence. Because success in this “damages action would implicitly question the validity of conviction or duration of sentence,” Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 751, 124 S.Ct. 1303, 158 L.Ed.2d 32 (2004), the district court properly dismissed these claims pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486, n.6, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994); see also Skinner v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 584 F.3d 1093, 1099 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Additionally, appellant has not shown that he must be permitted an opportunity to amend his complaint before the district court dismisses it with prejudice for failure to state a claim, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (providing that the “court shall review, before docketing, if feasible ... a complaint” and “dismiss the complaint ... if the complaint ... fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted”), or that amendment of his complaint would not have been futile, cf. Moore v. Agency for Int’l Dev., 994 F.2d 874, 877-78 (D.C. Cir. 1993).

Finally, appellant has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). See Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
#### James Raymond ACRES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BLUE LAKE RANCHERIA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-15502

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 2017 *

Filed June 30, 2017

James Raymond Acres, Pro Se

Megan Yarnall, Janssen Malloy LLP, Eureka, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Blue Lake Ranchería

Lester John Marston, Rapport and Mar-ston, Ukiah, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Tribal Court

Lester John Marston, Pro Se

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 **

James Raymond Acres appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action for failure to exhaust tribal court remedies. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Slep-Tone Entm’t Corp. v. Wired for Sound Karaoke & DJ Servs., LLC,*845 F.3d 1246, 1248 (9th Cir. 2017) (motion to dismiss); *Boozer v. Wilder,*381 F.3d 931, 934 (9th Cir. 2004) (exhaustion of tribal court remedies). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Acres’s action because Acres did not exhaust tribal court remedies and failed to demonstrate that exhaustion was excused. *See Grand Canyon Skywalk Dev., LLC v. ‘Sa’ Nyu Wa Inc.,*715 F.3d 1196, 1200-01 (9th Cir. 2013) (a federal court may not make a ruling on tribal court jurisdiction until tribal court remedies are exhausted and “a tribal court ... must have acted in bad faith for exhaustion to be excused”).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal or in the reply brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Acres’s motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 21) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 37

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That the Clerk of the House of Representa3 tives, in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 2539) entitled

4 ‘‘An Act to abolish the Interstate Commerce Commission,

5 to amend subtitle IV of title 49, United States Code, to

6 reform economic regulation of transportation, and for

7 other purposes’’ shall make the following corrections:

8 (1) In section 11326(b) proposed to be inserted

9 in title 49, United States Code, by section 102,

10 strike ‘‘unless the applicant elects to provide the al11 ternative arrangement specified in this subsection.

12 Such alternative’’ and insert ‘‘except that such’’.

13 (2) In section 13902(b)(5) proposed to be in14 serted in title 49, United States Code, by section
2

SCON 37 ES

1 103, strike ‘‘Any’’ and insert ‘‘Subject to section

2 14501(a), any’’.

Passed the Senate December 21, 1995.

Attest:

Secretary.
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 37

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives

for other purposes’’.form economic regulation of transportation, andsubtitle IV of title 49, United States Code, to rethe Interstate Commerce Commission, to amendthe bill (H.R. 2539) entitled ‘‘An Act to abolishto make technical changes in the enrollment of
<PAGE>


                                   Exhibit 4.2

First Amendment to Amended and Restated Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated
as of October 1, 2001 (incorporated herein by reference to Registration
Statement No. 333-75716 filed on December 21, 2001).
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joseph RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11715 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed November 3, 2017

Leigha Amy Simonton, James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Erin Elizabeth Hendricks, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and DENNIS and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Joseph Ramirez appeals his 180-month, within-guidelines sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, alleging that the district court erred by applying a two-level enhancement based on his possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking offense. *See*U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). Ramirez contends that the statement of Cedric Peoples, who told police that he had “in the past” observed a firearm in the converted garage in which Ramirez stored narcotics for sale, was insufficient to support the enhancement. This is so, he asserts, because Peoples is not reliable and, further, because Peoples did not specify that he had observed the firearm in Ramirez’s garage during the period of the charged conspiracy. *See*§ 2D1.1(b)(1).

The district court’s determination that the § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement applies is a factual finding that this court reviews for clear error. *United States v. Romans,*823 F.3d 299, 317 (5th Cir. 2016). “A factual finding is not clearly erroneous if it is plausible, considering the record as a whole.” *Id.*(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Ramirez fails to show that the district court clearly erred in relying on Peoples’s statement in the presentence report (PSR). *See id.*Peoples’s assertion was corroborated by the police search of Ramirez’s garage, which uncovered a large quantity of packaged narcotics in close proximity to a loaded pistol magazine. *Cf. United States v. Gaytan,*74 F.3d 545, 558 (5th Cir. 1996). Ramirez’s bare contention that Peoples is not reliable does not demonstrate that the information in the PSR is “materially untrue, inaccurate or unreliable.” *United States v. Harris,*702 F.3d 226, 230 (5th Cir. 2012).

Further, the discovery of the loaded magazine and the packaged narcotics in Ramirez’s garage, coupled with Peoples’s statement and other evidence of Ramirez’s drug activity, suffices to show a temporal and spatial relationship between Ramirez, the drug trafficking activity, and the firearm. *See United States v. Zapata-Lara,*615 F.3d 388, 390 (5th Cir. 2010); *United States v. Marquez,*685 F.3d 501, 505, 507-08 (5th Cir. 2012). Finally, Ramirez does not argue that it is clearly improbable that the loaded magazine found in his garage *360was connected to the offense. *See Zapata-Lara,*615 F.3d at 391 n.5; *United States v. Charles,*469 F.3d 402, 408 (5th Cir. 2006).

AFFIRMED.

*

 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 31.01

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Peter E. Kalan, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this amended report on Form 10-Q/A of CSG Systems International, Inc.; and
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this 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 report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|                      |  | 
|Date: August 29,
2012 |  |  |  | /s/  Peter E. Kalan                  
|                      |  |  |  | Peter E. Kalan                       
|                      |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer and President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET OF AVTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND THE RELATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE THREE MONTHS THEN ENDED AN IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          748651
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                846009
<PP&E>                                          395310
<DEPRECIATION>                                   14547
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1577405
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           631434
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    1000000
<COMMON>                                          7091
<OTHER-SE>                                      187823
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1577405
<SALES>                                         254355
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                254355
<CGS>                                            86484
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    86484
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                413097
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 945
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (229579)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (229716)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                   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 Quarterly Report of FFD Financial Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Trent B. Troyer, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/Trent B. Troyer
-------------------------------------
Trent B. Troyer
President and Chief Executive Officer
November 14, 2007
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### June 16, 2016 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT
RUDOLPH GERMAN SERRANO, Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. OFFICER G.A. BUHL; OFFICER B. MCKINNEY, Defendants - Appellees, and GOVERNOR SUSANA MARTINEZ; MAYOR GREGORY HULL; CHIEF MICHAEL GEIER, Defendants. No. 16-2076 (D.C. No. 1:15-CV-01063-KG-KK) (D.N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY , HOLMES , and MORITZ , Circuit Judges. ** Plaintiff-Appellant Rudolph German Serrano appeals from the dismissal

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. SeeFed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.without prejudice of his civil rights complaint, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Mr. Serrano sought damages against several defendants, alleging that he was unlawfully arrested and the police report on his arrest contained misrepresentations. See Serrano v. Martinez , No. 15-cv-1063-KG-KK (D.N.M. Dec. 3, 2015). The district court dismissed his claims against all but a single defendant for failure to state a claim and ordered Mr. Serrano to show cause by April 13, 2016, why the remaining defendant should not be dismissed for improper service of process. The court received Mr. Serrano’s response on April 14, 2016, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with Rule 4(m) and the district court’s orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), 4. Mr.Serrano appeals, arguing his health prevented him from meeting the courtimposed deadline and rehashing the merits of his claim. Rule 4 requires a plaintiff to effect timely service on a defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The court reminded Mr. Serrano twice about the need to serve the defendant or provide an address so the court could order service itself. Not only did Mr. Serrano fail to provide an address but he failed to acknowledge or explain this deficiency. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint. SeeCosby v. Meadors , 351 F.3d 1324, 1326 (10th Cir. 2003) (standard of review); see also Bowens v. Sterling Corr. Facility , 533 F. App’x 863 (10th Cir. 2013) (dismissing § 1983 suit for failure to comply with court order).
- 2 -AFFIRMED. We DENY Mr. Serrano’s motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of costs or fees. Entered for the Court Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge

- 3 -
Exhibit 10.10


Consent of Independent Public Accountants

We hereby consent to the use in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Companhia
Vale do Rio Doce of our report dated January 25, 2002, relating to the
Financial Statements of Docepar S.A. for the years ended December 31, 2001 and
2000, which is included in such Annual Report.


/s/ Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, June 27, 2002
Exhibit 8.1
 1
    
    MPEL Holdings Limited,
incorporated in the Cayman Islands2
    
    MPEL International Limited,
incorporated in the Cayman Islands3
    
    MPEL Nominee One Limited,
incorporated in the Cayman Islands4
    
    MPEL Investments Limited,
incorporated in the Cayman Islands5
    
    Melco Crown Gaming (Macau)
Limited, incorporated in the Macau Special Administrative
Region of the Peoples Republic of China6
    
    Melco Crown
(COD) Hotels Limited, incorporated in the Macau Special Administrative
Region of the Peoples Republic of China7
    
    Melco Crown
(COD) Developments Limited, incorporated in the Macau Special Administrative
Region of the Peoples Republic of China8
    
    Altira Hotel Limited,
incorporated in the Macau Special Administrative Region of the Peoples
Republic of China