alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
`[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 14 (Thursday, January 23, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8090-8097]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01630]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Foreign Assets Control


Notice of OFAC Sanctions Action

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets 
Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have 
been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked 
Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more

[[Page 8091]]

applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in 
property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and 
U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions 
with them.

DATES: This action was issued on January 17, 2025. See Supplementary 
Information for relevant dates.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: OFAC: Associate Director for Global 
Targeting, 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance, 
202-622-2490 or https://ofac.treasury.gov/contact-ofac.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Availability

    The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions 
programs are available on OFAC's website: https://ofac.treasury.gov.

Notice of OFAC Action

    On January 17, 2025, OFAC determined that the property and 
interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following 
persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed 
below.
BILLING CODE 4810-AL-P

[[Page 8092]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN23JA25.003


[[Page 8093]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN23JA25.004


[[Page 8094]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN23JA25.005


[[Page 8095]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN23JA25.006


[[Page 8096]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN23JA25.007



[[Page 8097]]


Lisa M. Palluconi,
Acting Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control.
[FR Doc. 2025-01630 Filed 1-22-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-AL-C`
Q-Notes: Development and Use of Analysis Software for Cognitive Interviews to 

Examine Survey Question Comparability

Kristen Miller, Aaron Maitland, Heather Ridolfo, Stephanie Wilson, and Justin Mezetin 

(National Center for Health Statistics, USA) 

Recent work has shown that cognitive interviewing studies can provide essential 

information regarding the comparability of survey questions, specifically, how 

respondents interpret and process questions and whether particular subpopulations or groups may process questions differently from others. To achieve 

this goal, however, studies must be based on empirical evidence and 

systematically analyzed across interviews and sub-populations a process which 

can yield a massive amount of qualitative data across numerous countries and 

in multiple languages. To be sure, one of the biggest challenges for comparative, 

multinational cognitive testing is data management, that is, the organization and 

reduction of cognitive interview data such that it can be analyzed systematically. 

This paper will describe software that was specifically developed by the National 

Center for Health Statistics to analyze cognitive interviews in this capacity. To 

illustrate the software’s use, the paper will draw from NCHS evaluation projects.
Dean ZEHNTER, Appellant, v. DYANKI, INC., f/k/a Morse Zehnter Associates and Morse Zehnter LLC, Appellees.

No. 4D18-450

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 16, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 on Form 10-KSB of OnCure
Technologies Corp. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.


         April 11, 2003

                              /s/ Richard A. Baker
                              --------------------
                              Richard A. Baker
                              Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (333-114517), Form S-3(333-141169), Form S-8 (333-130496) and Form S-8 (333-56360) of Inspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our report dated March 15, 2007 relating to the financial statements, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

 

Raleigh, North Carolina 

March 15, 2007
Case 3:05-cv-00180-B Document 6 Filed 04/13/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 86
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00180-B Document 6 Filed 04/13/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 87
Laquareious Jahmichael GRANDISON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1601

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 16, 2019

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Wetherell, Ray, and Winsor, JJ., concur.
Jerartis D. ICON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-2621

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 20, 2019

Jerartis D. Icon, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, C.J., and LOGUE and SCALES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Jerartis D. Icon appeals the trial court's order summarily denying his motion for additional credit time served, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801. Even if (as Icon asserts) the three-year prison sentence imposed in the instant case was ordered to run concurrently with a prison sentence previously and separately imposed in the circuit court for Palm Beach County,1 this would not entitle him to receive any additional credit for county jail time served in the instant case. Icon was awarded a total of 577 days of jail credit, and has failed to allege or establish an entitlement to any additional jail credit. *See, e.g.*, *Brito v. State*, 194 So.3d 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) ; *James v. State*, 721 So.2d 1265 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) ; *Keene v. State*, 500 So.2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).

Affirmed.

1

The record on appeal, including the judgment, sentence and sentencing guideline scoresheet, fails to reflect that the sentence imposed in the instant case was to run concurrently with any other sentence. Further, Icon failed to provide a transcript of the plea and sentencing hearing in this case.
Daniel X. BRENNAN, Appellant, v. The State of Florida OFFICE OF FINANCIAL REGULATION, Appellee.

No. 3D18-1256

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed April 24, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Two Rivers Water Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John McKowen Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 Dated:  May 10, 2011
By: /s/ John McKowenChief Executive Officer & Chairman of the Board
Case 4:05-cv-00344-A Document 28 Filed 03/16/06 Page 1 of 6 PageID 185
 

 Case 4:05-cv-00344-A Document 28 Filed 03/16/06 Page 2 of 6 PageID 186
 

 Case 4:05-cv-00344-A Document 28 Filed 03/16/06 Page 3 of 6 PageID 187
 

 Case 4:05-cv-00344-A Document 28 Filed 03/16/06 Page 4 of 6 PageID 188
 

 Case 4:05-cv-00344-A Document 28 Filed 03/16/06 Page 5 of 6 PageID 189
 

 Case 4:05-cv-00344-A Document 28 Filed 03/16/06 Page 6 of 6 PageID 190
I 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 81 

To prohibit the imposition of mask mandates on public transportation. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2025 

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona (for himself and Mr. CLYDE) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, 

and Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by 

the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To prohibit the imposition of mask mandates on public 

transportation. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Travel Mask Mandate 

5 Repeal Act of 2025’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN MASK MANDATES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi8 sion of law, no Federal agency shall impose any Federal 

9 requirement related to COVID–19 that an individual wear 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 81 IH

1 a face mask when utilizing any conveyance (as defined in 

2 section 70.1 of title 42, Code of Federal Regulations, or 

3 any successor regulation) or transportation hub. 

4 (b) LIMITATION ON EXISTING ORDERS.—Effective 

5 on the date of enactment of this Act, the order issued on 

6 January 29, 2021, by the Centers for Disease Control and 

7 Prevention under section 361 of the Public Health Service 

8 Act (42 U.S.C. 264) establishing a requirement for per9 sons to wear masks while on conveyances and at transpor10 tation hubs, as well as any other related order, directive, 

11 and emergency amendment of the Transportation Security 

12 Administration (including those described in EA 1546– 

13 21–01A, SD 1542–21–01A, SD 1544–21–02A, SD 1582– 

14 84–21–01A, EA 1546–21–01, SD 1542–21–01, SD 

15 1544–21–02, and SD 1582/84–21–01) shall have no force 

16 or effect. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Mark S. GRUNBERG; Entcom, Inc., and TBLM, Inc., d/b/a The Bottom Line, Appellants, v. John Kenneth ANDERSON, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-2102

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 26, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Case 3:05-cv-00719-M Document 17 Filed 04/10/06 Page 1 of 8 PageID 105
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00719-M Document 17 Filed 04/10/06 Page 2 of 8 PageID 106
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00719-M Document 17 Filed 04/10/06 Page 3 of 8 PageID 107
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00719-M Document 17 Filed 04/10/06 Page 4 of 8 PageID 108
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00719-M Document 17 Filed 04/10/06 Page 5 of 8 PageID 109
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00719-M Document 17 Filed 04/10/06 Page 6 of 8 PageID 110
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00719-M Document 17 Filed 04/10/06 Page 7 of 8 PageID 111
 

 Case 3:05-cv-00719-M Document 17 Filed 04/10/06 Page 8 of 8 PageID 112
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 1997
contained in the Company's annual report on Form 10-KSB for such period and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          24,554
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,007,873
<ALLOWANCES>                                    19,740
<INVENTORY>                                    979,232
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,043
<PP&E>                                       2,300,093
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,964,753
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,939,286
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,536,247
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        67,841
<OTHER-SE>                                   (904,802)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,939,286
<SALES>                                      3,761,185
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,937,562
<CGS>                                        1,900,625
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,900,625
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,494,301
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             208,682
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,687,864)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,687,864)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,687,864)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.55)
        

</TABLE>
EX PARTE Wendy Michelle GILBERT

1160968 (CR-15-0894)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

September 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
David Alan SHUEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-60

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 7, 2019 Rehearing Denied June 4, 2019

David Shuey, Century, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carmen F. Corrente, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, LAMBERT and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CIK>   0001007588
<NAME>  DECISIONONE HOLDINGS CORP.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           6,415
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  136,654
<ALLOWANCES>                                    22,572
<INVENTORY>                                     23,097
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               171,700
<PP&E>                                          68,924
<DEPRECIATION>                                  39,829
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 541,987
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          166,845
<BONDS>                                        731,012
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           126
<OTHER-SE>                                   (361,732)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   541,987
<SALES>                                        805,717
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               805,717
<CGS>                                          613,806
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  613,806
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               183,673
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                15,515
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              64,683
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (198,907)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (15,777)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (183,130)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (183,130)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (9.91)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (9.91)
        

</TABLE>
#### Rodney C. DOMAN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Thomas MCBRIDE, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 03-7062.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 8, 2004.

Decided: April 27, 2004.

Rodney C. Doman, Appellant pro se.

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Rodney C. Doman seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition for failure to exhaust his state court remedies. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2254 petition solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’ ” *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.2001) (quoting *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Doman has not made the requisite showing. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny Doman’s motion for 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
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



I, Menderes Akdag, and I, Bruce S. Rosenbloom, each certify to the best of our knowledge, based upon a review of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2009 (the Report) of the Registrant, that:



(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 Registrant.





Date: June 1, 2009



By:/s/  Menderes Akdag

Menderes Akdag

Chief Executive Officer and President



By:/s/  Bruce S. Rosenbloom

Bruce S. Rosenbloom

Chief Financial Officer
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and coll ateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JUN 26 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. RONALD L. GORE, aka Raheem Muhammad, Defendant-Appellant. No. 96-3106 (District of Kansas) (D.C. No. 95-CV-3290)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

BeforeSEYMOUR , PORFILIO, and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.1 Because Gore filed his notice of appeal on March 14 , 1996, approximately

five weeks before the effective date of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. no. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (Apr. 24, 1996), he need not obtain a certificate of appealability in order to perfect this appeal. United States v. Lopez , 100 F.3d 113, 116-17 (10th Cir. 1996). -2- Petitioner Ronald L. Gore (a/k/a Raheem Muhammad) appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion wi thout an evidentiary hearing. As the sole ground for his § 2255 motion, Gore asse rts that his guilty plea was not knowing or voluntary because his attorney misled Go re about the consequences of his guilty plea. The district court denied Gore’s § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing on the following grounds: (1) G ore had litigated the voluntariness of his guilty plea on direct appeal and was not entitled to relitigate the issue in a collateral proceeding; and (2) the r ecord of Gore’s plea colloquy demonstrated that Gore voluntarily undertook and fu lly understood the consequences of his guilty plea. This court exerci ses jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 2253 and affirms

. 1 This court has considered Gore’s briefs and content ions and the entire record on appeal. Having conducted a de novo review of whether Gore entered a knowing and voluntary guilty plea, Marshall v. Lonberger , 459 U.S. 422, 431 (1983), this court affirms the district court’s den ial of Gore’s § 2255 motion, as did the district court in its Order dated February 20, 1996, for substantially those reasons set out in the government’s brief before th e district court.-3-

The judgment of the United States District Court fo r the District of Kansas is hereby AFFIRMED

. ENTERED FOR THE COURT,

Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge
Akeem Ryan BOWEN, DOC #T55681, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-721

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 10, 2019

Akeem Ryan Bowen, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Helene S. Parnes, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

VILLANTI, SALARIO, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 19, 2009 

Order 

 

May 19, 2009 

132876(40) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 SC: 132876 

v COA: 264052 

Saginaw CC: 03-022840-FH 

MATTHEW LLOYD MCGRAW, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

______________________________________ 

 On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by plaintiff-appellee for extension 

of the time for filing their brief on appeal is considered and, it appearing the brief was 

filed April 22, 2009,the time for filing is extended to that date.