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 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; PAR19-319: NIDDK Central Repositories Non-renewable Sample Access (X01).                    

*Date:*                         May 6, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Democracy II, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Najma S. Begum, Ph.D. Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health Room, 7349, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 594-8894,                         *begumn@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 11, 2022.

Miguelina Perez,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-05562 Filed 3-15-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
III

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 69

Condemning terrorist attacks in Israel.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 24 (legislative day, JANUARY 10), 1995

Mr. DOLE (for himself, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. HELMS, Mr. PELL, Mr. D’AMATO,

Mr. PACKWOOD, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. ROBB, Mr. FORD, Mrs. FEINSTEIN,

Mr. WELLSTONE, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr.

COHEN, Mr. BROWN, and Mr. MCCONNELL) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Condemning terrorist attacks in Israel.

Whereas on January 22, 1995, a brutal and cowardly terrorist attack near Netanya, Israel killed 19 Israelis and

wounded dozens more;

Whereas the terrorist group ‘‘Islamic Jihad’’ claimed credit

for the January 22, 1995, attack in a statement issued

in Damascus, Syria;

Whereas on December 25, 1994, a ‘‘Hamas’’ terrorist attack

in Jerusalem wounded 13 civilians, including 1 American

citizen;

Whereas on October 19, 1994, a Hamas terrorist attack in

Tel Aviv killed 22 Israelis and wounded 48 more;
2

SRES 69 ATS

Whereas 110 Israeli citizens have been killed and hundreds

more have been wounded in terrorist attacks since the

Declaration of Principles was signed on September 13,

1993;

Whereas the Declaration of Principles obligates the Palestinian Authority to publicly condemn terrorist attacks, and

to bring to justice perpetrators of such acts in territories

under their control;

Whereas no perpetrators of these terrorist attacks have been

brought to justice for their acts of violence by the Palestinian Authority;

Whereas the governments of Syria and Iran continue to provide safe haven and support for terrorist groups, including Islamic Jihad and Hamas, among others; and

Whereas continued acts of terrorism threaten the peace process in the Middle East: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, by the Senate, That—

2 (1) the terrorist attacks in Israel are con3 demned in the strongest possible terms;

4 (2) condolences are extended to the families of

5 all those killed, and hopes are expressed for the

6 rapid and complete recovery of all wounded in the

7 January 22, 1995, attack;

8 (3) Chairman Arafat should, consistent with the

9 obligations of the Declaration of Principles, publicly

10 and forcefully condemn acts of terror against Israe11 lis, take immediate steps to bring to justice those re12 sponsible for such acts, and implement steps to pre-
3

SRES 69 ATS

1 vent future acts of terrorism in all territory under

2 his control;

3 (4) President Assad should immediately end all

4 support for terrorist groups, including safe haven,

5 material and financial support, in all territory under

6 his control; and

7 (5) the administration should undertake strong

8 efforts to end the safe haven, training, and financial

9 and other support granted terrorists by Iran, Syria

10 and other states.

Æ
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
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of
operation of the Company.
 HOMELAND SECURITY CAPITAL CORPORATIONMay 17, 2010
    By:
    /s/ Michael T. BriganteName:
    Michael T. BriganteTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 12, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51189

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BEVERLY JOHNSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:93-CR-134-ALL

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

Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Counsel appointed to represent Beverly Johnson in his appeal

from the order revoking Johnson’s supervised release has filed

a motion and a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Johnson has not filed a response to his

counsel’s motion.

This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its

own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th

Cir. 1987). Article III, § 2, of the Constitution limits federal

court jurisdiction to actual cases and controversies. See
No. 05-51189

-2-

Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). The case-or-controversy

requirement demands that “some concrete and continuing injury

other than the now-ended incarceration or parole -- some

‘collateral consequence’ of the conviction -- must exist if the

suit is to be maintained.” Id.

Johnson has served the sentence that was imposed upon the

revocation of his supervised release. The order revoking

Johnson’s supervised release imposed no further term of

supervised release. Accordingly, there is no case or controversy

for this court to address, and the appeal is dismissed as moot. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied as unnecessary. 

MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
EXHIBIT 31



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED



I, Joseph R. Rozelle, certify that:



1.   I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Compass Acquisition Corporation;



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;



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 report;



4.   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



(a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls 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)  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



(c)  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(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses 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.





Date:  February 15, 2010



/s/    Joseph R. Rozelle

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

Joseph R. Rozelle

Principal Executive Officer

and Principal Financial Officer
**CMF** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 1 9 - 0518 STATE OF MONTANA,

P la intiff and Appellee , v. MATTHEW GLEN HOTCHKISS ,

Defendant and Appellant .

**GRANT OF EXTENSION** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including June 26, 2020 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief .

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court May 28 2020

05/28/2020
# C_2014462EN.01001103.xml

| 22.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 462/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/11

---

Appeal brought on 7 April 2014 by Big Line Sas di Graziani Lorenzo against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 13 February 2014 in Case T-380/12, Demon International v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, Big Line Sas di Graziani Lorenzo

(Case C-170/14 P)

(2014/C 462/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Big Line Sas di Graziani Lorenzo (represented by: B. Osti, avvocato)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Demon International, LC, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other parties to the proceedings:

By order of 6 November 2014, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being in part manifestly unfounded and in part manifestly inadmissible.

---
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**496 CA 12-00933** 
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

JAMES S. DAVIS, ROBERT C. BOSSERT, JR., CHARLES D. BEAVER, DAVID A. RODKEY, ALBERT E. WEISSER AND JOHN W. HUPP, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

THOMAS T. WISKUP, SR., THOMAS T. WISKUP, JR., LAURA STANISZEWSKI, ROBERT C. WISKUP AND POTTER LUMBER COMPANY, INC., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. (APPEAL NO. 2.)

MACDONALD, ILLIG, JONES & BRITTON LLP, ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA (GREGORY P. ZIMMERMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS.

BACKHAUS & SIMON, P.C., OLEAN (ROBERT J. SIMON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT POTTER LUMBER COMPANY, INC.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County (Gerald J. Whalen, J.), entered April 24, 2012. The judgment dismissed the complaint and adjudged that defendant Potter Lumber Company, Inc. is entitled to a prescriptive easement over a certain portion of Bushey Road, Hinsdale.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously vacated on the law without costs and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: In this action pursuant to RPAPL article 15, plaintiffs appeal from a judgment that denied their motion for summary judgment seeking a determination that a certain roadway in the Town of Hinsdale (Town) has been abandoned as a public road and granted the cross motion of defendant Potter Lumber Company, Inc. (Potter Lumber) for summary judgment seeking a determination that it has a prescriptive easement over the roadway. Although the pleadings sharply place in issue the question whether the subject roadway has been abandoned as a town highway, the Town has not been made a party to this action. We therefore vacate the judgment and remit the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings with the directive that the Town be joined as a defendant “in order to accord complete relief between the parties” ( DeMato v Mallin , 68 AD3d 711, 712).

We note in any event that the court erred in determining that Potter Lumber had acquired a prescriptive easement over a portion of the road that the court determined was a “prescriptive highway.” A**-2- 496 CA 12-00933** 

highway by prescription is a public road ( see Highway Law § 189; see also People v County of Westchester , 282 NY 224, 228; De Haan v Broad Hollow Estates , 3 AD2d 848, 848), and a public highway created by prescription is not subject to adverse possession ( see Burbank v Fay
, 65 NY 57, 69; Litwin v Town of Huntington , 208 AD2d 905, 906, lv dismissed 86 NY2d 777).

Entered: May 3, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### Ricky Ronnell EWING, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Druetta TAYLOR, Case Manager; Unknown Miller, Officer; Unknown Walker, Officer, Defendants-Appellees

No. 17-60400

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed December 7, 2017

Ricky Ronnell Ewing, Pro Se

Tommy Darrell Goodwin, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Mississippi, Jackson, MS, for Defendants-Appellees

Before DENNIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Ricky Ronnell Ewing, Mississippi prisoner # 34353, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The district court denied Ewing leave to proceed IFP on appeal, certifying that the appeal was not taken in good faith because Ewing had not sought review of any issue that was arguable on its merits.

Ewing pleads his indigency but does not challenge any legal aspect of the district court’s disposition of his § 1983 complaint or the certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. Accordingly, he has abandoned the critical issues of his appeal. *See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Thus, the appeal lacks arguable merit and is therefore frivolous. *See Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Ewing’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). *See*§ 1915(g); *Coleman v. Tollefson, -*U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1759, 1763-64, 191 L.Ed.2d 803 (2015). Ewing has at least two other strikes. *Ewing v. Richie, et al.,*701 Fed.Appx. 397 (5th Cir. 2017); *Ewing v. Jone, et al.,*No. 1:15-CV-254 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 1, 2016). As Ewing has accumulated at least three strikes under § 1915(g), he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed in a court of the United States while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. *See*§ 1915(g). Ewing is further warned that any future frivolous or repetitive filings in this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction will subject him to additional sanctions.

MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; § 1915(g) BAR IMPOSED.

*

 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.
III

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 127

To express the sense of the Senate on border crossing fees.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 25 (legislative day, MAY 15), 1995

Ms. SNOWE submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

To express the sense of the Senate on border crossing fees.

Whereas in the budget of the United States for fiscal year

1996 that was submitted to Congress, the President proposed to impose and collect a border crossing fee for individuals and vehicles entering the United States;

Whereas both the Canadian and Mexican governments have

expressed opposition to the imposition and collection of

such a fee and have raised the possibility of imposing retaliatory border crossing fees of their own;

Whereas the imposition and collection of such a fee would

have adverse affects on tourism and commerce that depend on travel across the borders of the United States;

Whereas the imposition and collection of such a fee would

have such effects without addressing illegal immigration

in a meaningful way;
2

•SRES 127 IS

Whereas on February 22, 1995, the President modified his

proposal making the imposition of the new fees voluntary

on United States border States (but tied the availability

of Federal funds to improve border crossing infrastructure on their willingness to impose such fees); and

Whereas on May 4, 1995, the President further modified the

border crossing fee proposal in immigration control legislation he submitted to Congress setting a $1.50 per car

and $.75 per pedestrian fee structure: Now, therefore, be

it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the

2 United States Government should not impose or collect a

3 border crossing fee along its borders with Canada and

4 Mexico.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 92 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 92

         A resolution amending rule XXV of the Standing Rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               March 24 (legislative day, March 23), 1995

 Mr. Dole submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
         A resolution amending rule XXV of the Standing Rules.

    Resolved, That rule XXV, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate is amended as follows:
            Strike the figure after ``Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
        Forestry'' and insert in lieu thereof ``18''.
            Strike the figure after ``Energy and Natural Resources'' 
        and insert in lieu thereof ``20''.
    Sec. 2. That rule XXV, paragraph 3(c) of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate is amended as follows:
            Strike the figure after ``Indian Affairs'' and insert in 
        lieu thereof ``16''.
                                 <all>
```
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6135 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 30, 2016 

Received 

AN ACT 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 719 Church Street in Nashville, Tennessee, as the ‘‘Fred D. Thompson Federal Building 

and United States Courthouse’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 6135 RDS

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The Federal building and United States courthouse 

3 located at 719 Church Street in Nashville, Tennessee, 

4 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Fred D. Thompson 

5 Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 

9 building and United States courthouse referred to in sec10 tion 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Fred D. 

11 Thompson Federal Building and United States Court12 house’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 29, 

2016. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kenneth RICHARDSON, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-10195 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed December 20, 2017

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

Kenneth Richardson, Pro Se

Before JONES, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Kenneth Richardson 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). Richardson has not filed a response. Although Richardson remains subject to a term of supervised release, he has completed the term of imprisonment. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant 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 in part as frivolous, *see*5th Cir. R. 42.2, and in part as moot, *see United States v. Heredia-Holguin,*823 F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc).

*

 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.