alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 28, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19227-19228]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-9690]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice 
of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the 
National Advisory Neurological Disorders and Stroke Council.
    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with 
attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend 
and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or 
other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person 
listed below in advance of the 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 Advisory Neurological Disorders and 
Stroke Council; Training, Career Development, and Special Programs 
Subcommittee.
    Date: May 27, 2009.
    Open: 8 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To discuss the training plan of the institute.
    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Closed: 9:30 p.m. to 10 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Stephen J. Korn, PhD, Training and Special 
Programs Officer, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and 
Stroke, National Institutes of Health, 6001 Executive Blvd., Suite 
2154, MSC 9527, Bethesda, MD 20892-9527, (301) 496-4188.
    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home 
page: www.ninds.nih.gov, where an agenda and

[[Page 19228]]

any additional information for the meeting will be posted when 
available.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, 
Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, 
Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: April 21, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-9690 Filed 4-27-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Exhibit 23 - Consent of Experts


G. BRAD BECKSTEAD
---------------------------
Certified Public Accountant

                                                  330 E. Warm Springs
                                                 Las Vegas, NV  89119
                                                         702.528.1984
                                                  425.928.2877 (efax)


November 7, 2001


To Whom It May Concern:

The firm of G. Brad Beckstead, CPA, consents to the inclusion of my report
of November 7, 2001, on the Financial Statements of Global Boulevard
International, Inc. for the three months ending September 30, 2001, in any
filings which are necessary now or in the near future to be filed with the
US Securities and Exchange Commission.

Signed,

/s/ G. Brad Beckstead
--------------------------
G. Brad Beckstead, CPA



<PAGE>
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
# L_2004361EN.01005401.xml

| 8.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 361/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 361/54

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 821/2004 of 26 April 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 2229/2003 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of silicon originating in Russia

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 127 of 29 April 2004
  )

On page 2, points 8 and 9:

for:

| ‘8. | the name of the company acting as an importer to which the invoice is issued directly by the company; |
| --- | --- |

‘8.

| 9. | the name of the official of the company that has issued the commercial invoice and the following signed declaration:

  “I, the undersigned, certify that the sale for direct export by [company name] to the European Union of the goods covered by this invoice is being made within the scope and under the terms of the Undertaking offered by [company name], and accepted by the European Commission through [Decision ....]. I declare that the information provided in this invoice is complete and correct.” ’ |
| --- | --- |

9.

“I, the undersigned, certify that the sale for direct export by [company name] to the European Union of the goods covered by this invoice is being made within the scope and under the terms of the Undertaking offered by [company name], and accepted by the European Commission through [Decision ....]. I declare that the information provided in this invoice is complete and correct.” ’

read:

| ‘8. | the name of the first independent customer in the Community to which the invoice is issued directly by the sales company; |
| --- | --- |

‘8.

| 9. | the name of the official of the sales company that has issued the commercial invoice and the following signed declaration:

  “I, the undersigned, certify that the sale for direct export to the European Union of the goods covered by this invoice is being made within the scope and under the terms of the Undertaking offered by [company name], and accepted by the European Commission through [Decision ...]. I declare that the information provided in this invoice is complete and correct.” ’ |
| --- | --- |

9.

“I, the undersigned, certify that the sale for direct export to the European Union of the goods covered by this invoice is being made within the scope and under the terms of the Undertaking offered by [company name], and accepted by the European Commission through [Decision ...]. I declare that the information provided in this invoice is complete and correct.” ’

---
Exhibit 21.1

                              NETWORK COMMERCE INC.

                  List of Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001

Domestic

         Cortix, Inc., an Arizona corporation

         DomainZero.com, Inc., a Washington corporation

         Epackets.Net, Inc., a Delaware corporation

         Freemerchant.com, Inc., a Delaware corporation

         MobileAccent Inc., a Washington corporation

         Network Commerce eBusiness Services Inc., a Washington corporation

         Ombra Marketing Corp., a Washington corporation

         Speedyclick Corp., a California corporation

         NCI Marketing Inc. (formerly Tersus Marketing Inc.),
           a Washington corporation

         Techwave Acquisition Inc., a Washington corporation

         Techwave Acquisition Two Inc., a Washington corporation

         Ubarter.com, Inc., a Washington corporation

         WebCentric, Inc., a Kansas corporation

         NCI California           I, Inc., a California corporation

         NCI California           II, Inc., a California corporation

         NCI California           III, Inc., a California corporation

Foreign

         Pronet Enterprises Ltd., a British Columbia corporation

         3037952 Nova Scotia Company, a Nova Scotia limited liability company

         b2bNow.ca, Inc., a Canadian federal corporation

         Ubarter.com, Inc., an Ontario corporation

         Barter Business Exchange (Windsor) Inc., an Ontario corporation

         ShopNow Japan, Inc., a Japanese corporation

         3389189 Canada Inc., a British Columbia corporation
**Exhibit
      32.1**




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




I,
      Jacov
      Vaisman, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
      of
      Advanced Medical Institute Inc. for the quarter ended December 31, 2005 fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report
      on
      Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and results of operations of Advanced Medical Institute Inc.




I,
      Dilip
      Shrestha, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
      of Advanced Medical Institute Inc. for the quarter ended December 31, 2005
      fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report
      on
      Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and results of operations of Advanced Medical Institute Inc.




February
      13, 2006





By:
            
            /s/
                Jacov VaismanJacov VaismanChief
              Executive Officer


By:
              
              /s/
                  Dilip ShresthaDilip ShresthaChief
                Financial Officer
# C_2004252EN.01000401.xml

| 12.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3448 — EDP/HIDROELECTRICA DEL CANTABRICO)

(2004/C 252/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 9 September 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/) free of charge. This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/) free of charge. This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form in the ‘CEN’ version of the CELEX database, under document number 32004M3448. CELEX is the computerized documentation system of European Community law. (http://europa.eu.int/celex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form in the ‘CEN’ version of the CELEX database, under document number 32004M3448. CELEX is the computerized documentation system of European Community law. (http://europa.eu.int/celex)

---
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-60764

Summary Calendar

CHUN LIN YANG,

Petitioner

v.

LORETTA LYNCH, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A097 645 703

Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Chinese national Chun Lin Yang petitions for review of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order denying her second motion to reopen, 

asserting a material change in country conditions since her asylum claim was 

originally denied in 2006. We review the BIA’s denial under a highly 

deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 

354, 358 (5th Cir. 2009). 

 

* 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 10, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-60764 Document: 00513303118 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/10/2015
No. 14-60764

2

Yang contends that the BIA violated her due process rights when it failed 

to “give full and fair consideration” to all of her evidence and arguments in 

support of her motion. She faults the BIA for refusing to consider persuasive 

authority from other circuits, and she asserts that the BIA wrongly ignored 

unspecified portions of the 2013 Congressional-Executive Commission on 

China Annual report she submitted. Yang urges that the BIA’s denial of due 

process requires remand without further analysis of the underlying merits of 

her motion.

The BIA denied Yang’s motion to reopen both because it determined that 

she had failed to show materially changed circumstances in China since her 

2006 hearing and because she had failed to make a prima facie showing that 

she would be subjected to torture or persecution if returned to China so as to 

be eligible for relief from removal. As the Government points out, Yang fails 

to brief any argument challenging the BIA’s separate, dispositive conclusion 

that she failed to make a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief from 

removal. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988) (stating that, 

independent of whether a showing of changed circumstances has been made, 

the BIA may deny a motion to reopen if it determines that the applicant “has 

not established a prima facie case for the underlying relief sought.”). Yang has 

thus waived any challenge to that determination. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 

324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003). Consequently, she cannot show that the BIA 

abused its discretion in denying her motion to reopen. See Gomez-Palacios, 

560 F.3d at 358; see also Abudu, 485 U.S. at 104-05.

The petition for review is DENIED. 

 Case: 14-60764 Document: 00513303118 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/10/2015
- 1 -

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JOSEPH MCCORMICK,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-18-00073-CR

Appeal from the

143rd District Court

of Reeves County, Texas

(TC# 17-01-08135-CRR)

O R D E R

James D. Lucas is listed as an attorney of record for a party in this appeal. County records 

indicate that James D. Lucas currently serves as an associate judge for the 388th District Court of 

El Paso County. 

The Texas Code of Judicial Conduct restricts an active judge's ability to engage in the 

practice of law. See Tex. Code Jud. Conduct, Canon 4(G), reprinted in Tex. Gov't Code Ann., tit. 

2, subtit. G, app. B (establishing that a judge shall not practice law except as permitted by statute 

or this Code); see also Canon 5(A)(2)(requiring a full-time commissioner, master, magistrate, or 

referee of a district court to comply with all canons including Canon 4(G)); Canon 5(D)(stating 

that a part-time commissioner, master, magistrate, or referree of a district court should not 

practice law "in any court subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the court which he or she serves 

. . . ") 

As of this date, Judge Lucas has not filed a motion to withdraw or substitution in this 

matter. See Tex.R.App.P. 6.5. The Court has attempted to ascertain whether Judge Lucas intends 

to continue his representation of the party in this appeal and, if so, by what authority, but Judge 

Lucas' status as attorney in this matter remains unclear.

Therefore, to expedite a decision and for other good cause, the Court orders James D. 

Lucas to either (1) file a motion to withdraw as counsel or a motion to substitute counsel that 
- 2 -

complies with Tex.R.App.P. 6.5, or, in the alternative, (2) provide this Court with a written 

explanation as to why Lucas may continue to serve as appellate counsel in this case while also 

serving as an associate judge of the 388th District Court. The motion to withdraw or substitute 

must strictly adhere to each requirement of Tex.R.App.P. 6.5 or will not be deemed timely.

Judge Lucas' response to this Order is due no later than 15 days from this date.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of June, 2021.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox and Alley, JJ.
No.
Vancouver Registry

                     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITSH COLUMBIA

         BETWEEN:

                            PRIME PLAY SYSTEMS INC.
                                                                  PLAINTIFFS

         AND:

                                E-VEGAS.COM, INC.
                                                                  DEFENDANT

                               STATEMENT OF CLAIM

     The  Plaintiff  is a  company  incorporated  pursuant  to the  laws  of the
Province of British  Columbia  having an address for delivery c/o 800 - 885 West
Georgia Street, Vancouver, British Columbia.

     2. The  Defendant  is a company  incorporated  pursuant  to the laws of the
State of Nevada and has its  principal  place of  business  and an  address  for
delivery c/o 1128 - 789 West Pender Street, Vancouver, British Columbia.

     3. On January 28, 2000, the Plaintiff,  then known as Dolphin Entertainment
Corp.,  and the  Defendant  entered  into a written  agreement  (the  Agreement)
whereby the Defendant  agreed to deliver the sum of $600,000.00 to the Plaintiff
on January 28, 2000 with those funds to be used by the Plaintiff to complete the
purchase  of all  issued  and  outstanding  shares in the  capital of Prime Play
Systems Inc. (Prime Play).

     4. On or about January 31, 2000,  the Defendant  advised the Plaintiff that
it would not proceed with the Agreement and would not provide the Plaintiff with
the funds to close the Prime Play transaction.

     5. On or about  January 31, 2000,  the Plaintiff  accepted the  Defendant's
repudiation  of the Agreement  and advised the  Defendant of that  acceptance in
writing.

     6. As a direct result of the Defendant's repudiation of the Agreement,  the
Plaintiff has suffered damages and financial losses, including, but limited to:

     (a) $ 10,000.00 paid as an extension fee to Royal Bank Ventures Inc.;

     (b) $12,500.00 in additional legal fees; and

     (c) $54,000.00 in additional  payments  required to complete the Prime Play
closing.

     7. In addition,  the Plaintiff has suffered further losses and damages, the
particulars of which will be provided at the trial of this matter.

     8. Despite demand, the Defendant has refused or neglected to pay any of the
amount owing to the Plaintiff, either in whole or in part.

     WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff claims against the Defendant as follows:

     (a) damages for breach of the Agreement in the amount of $76,500.00;

     (b) general damages;

     (c) interest pursuant to the Court Order Interest Act;

     (d) costs of this action; and

     (e) such further and other relief as to this Honourable Court seems just.



          PLACE OF TRIAL: Vancouver, British Columbia

          Dated: July 4, 2000
                                                   Solicitor for the Plantiff

     This STATEMENT OF CLAIM is prepared by JOHN C FICDICK of the firm of CLARK,
Wilson,  Barzisters  and  Solicitors,  whose place of  business  and address for
delivery is 800 -885 West Georgia Street,  Vancouver,  British Columbia, V6C 3HI
(Telephone: (604) 687-5700, Direct Line: (604) 643-3159).
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION**


**OF**


**CHIEF
      EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**AND**


**CHIEF
      FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




I,
      Jacov
      Vaisman, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
      of
      Advanced Medical Institute Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report
      on
      Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and results of operations of Advanced Medical Institute Inc.




I,
      Dilip
      Shrestha, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
      of Advanced Medical Institute Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report
      on
      Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and results of operations of Advanced Medical Institute Inc.




May
      14,
      2007




By:/s/
                Jacov VaismanJacov
                VaismanChief
                Executive Officer


By:/s/
                  Dilip ShresthaDilip
                    ShresthaChief
                    Financial Officer
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

IN RE:

Case Number: 19-18996-AJC

MARIA M VALLEJO

Debtor

____________________________/

 RESPONSE TO EMERGENCY MOTION TO REINSTATE

Nancy K Neidich, Standing Chapter 13 Trustee ("Trustee") files this Response to the

Emergency Motion to Reinstate and states as follows: 

1) The motion states that the debtor is current with her payments.

2) The Debtor would need to pay $32,769.87 to be current under the proposed Third

Amended Plan.

3) There are unresolved issues that the Debtor attorney has failed to address including: 

a) The Third Amended Plan still does not fund properly, the plan should have the

Debtor pay $5,648.87 for months 1 - 4, $8,758.88 for months 5 - 12 and , $8,666.28 for

month 13 - 60.

b) The Third Amended Plan still has the incorrect creditor address for SPS (POC

#3) in Section III.A#4 &

c) The Third Amended Plan still has the incorrect creditor address for US Bank

(POC #5.1 in Section III.A#5) 

d) The Third Amended Plan contains typographical errors including the failure to

disclose if real property is principal residence or other on Section III.A. 1, Section III.A.

2, Section III.A. 3, and Section III.A. 6

e) The Third Amended Plan contains typographical errors include the failure to

Case 19-18996-AJC Doc 78 Filed 04/15/20 Page 1 of 2
disclose if the regular payment includes escrow in Section III.A.1, Section III.A. 2, 

Section III.A. 3, and Section III.A. 6

WHEREFORE, the Trustee requests that Debtor's counsel file a Fourth Amended Plan

and provide the Trustee with evidence that the Debtor is current with her payments at least 2

business days prior to the reinstatement hearing. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

NANCY K. NEIDICH, ESQUIRE

STANDING CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE

P.O. BOX 279806

MIRAMAR, FL 33027-9806

By: /s/___________________

Amy E. Carrington, Esq.

Senior Staff Attorney

 FLORIDA BAR NO: 101877

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this and the Notice of Hearing was served

through NEF on debtor's attorney and by US First Class Mail to the following on 

___________________________:

/s/ 

Amy E Carrington, Esq

Case 19-18996-AJC Doc 78 Filed 04/15/20 Page 2 of 2