alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 98 (Monday, May 22, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27115]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12402]



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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Ad Hoc Review Committee for the Recombinant DNA Advisory 
Committee; Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Ad Hoc Review Committee 
for the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee on June 19, 1995, at the 
National Institutes of Health, Building 31C, 6th Floor, Conference Room 
8, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, starting at 
approximately 9 a.m. to adjournment at approximately 5 p.m. The meeting 
will be open to the public to discuss three major topics for review: 
(1) Domain and mandate of the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee; (2) 
composition of the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee; and (3) 
Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee's review of human gene transfer 
protocols. Attendance by the public will be limited to space available. 
Members of the public wishing to speak at this meeting may be given 
such opportunity at the discretion of the Chair.
    Dr. Nelson A. Wivel, Director, Office of Recombinant DNA 
Activities, Suite 323, National Institutes of Health, 6006 Executive 
Boulevard, MSC 7052, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-7052, Phone (301) 496-
9838, FAX (301) 496-9839, will provide materials to be discussed at 
this meetings, roster of committee members and substantive program 
information. Individuals who plan to attend and need special 
assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable 
accommodations, should contact Dr. Wivel in advance of the meeting. A 
summary of the meeting will be available at a later date.
    OMB's ``Mandatory Information Requirements for Federal Assistance 
Program Announcements'' (45 FR 39592, June 11, 1980) requires a 
statement concerning the official government programs contained in the 
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. Normally NIH lists in its 
announcements the number of title of affected individual programs for 
the guidance of the public. Because the guidance in this notice covers 
not only virtually every NIH program but also essentially every Federal 
research program in which DNA recombinant molecule techniques could be 
used, it has been determined not to be cost effective or in the public 
interest to attempt to list these programs. Such a list would likely 
require several additional pages. In addition, NIH could not be certain 
that every Federal program would be included as many Federal agencies, 
as well as private organizations, both national and international, have 
elected to follow the NIH Guidelines. In lieu of the individual program 
listing, NIH invites readers to direct questions to the information 
address above about whether individual programs listed in the Catalog 
of Federal Domestic Assistance are affected.

    Dated: May 15, 1995.
Susan K. Feldman,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 95-12402 Filed 5-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
David Wayne POYDRAS, petitioner, v. LOUISIANA.

No. 12-5377.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Louisiana denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>     DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>          MAR-31-1998

<CASH>                       12,153,051 
<SECURITIES>                    249,985 
<RECEIVABLES>                 1,600,241 
<ALLOWANCES>                       0    
<INVENTORY>                        0    
<CURRENT-ASSETS>             14,003,277 
<PP&E>                        9,277,123 
<DEPRECIATION>                     0    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               23,448,102 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>        54,612,559 
<BONDS>                       1,524,515 
<COMMON>                           0    
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0    
<PREFERRED>                        0    
<OTHER-SE>                  (36,970,039)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 23,448,102 
<SALES>                       1,484,332 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              1,831,344 
<CGS>                              0    
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 1,451,776 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                296,483 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0    
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            1,312,178 
<INCOME-PRETAX>              (1,229,093)
<INCOME-TAX>                       0    
<INCOME-CONTINUING>          (1,195,931)
<DISCONTINUED>                5,324,444 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0    
<CHANGES>                          0    
<NET-INCOME>                  4,128,513 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                     11.26 
<EPS-DILUTED>                     11.26 

        


</TABLE>
Domingo URIBE, Jr., Warden, petitioner, v. Kennard Gerald JOHNSON.

No. 12-968.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 12, 2013.

Motion of respondent for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Clifford Anthony JACKSON, petitioner, v. Dayena CORCORAN, Warden, et al.

No. 13-6160.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 12, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
[EMC Logo]**ITEM 1123 ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION The undersigned officers of EMC Mortgage Corporation ("EMC") as servicer pursuant to the Prime Mortgage Trust 2007-3 (the "Agreement") hereby certify that: 1.  A review of EMC's activities during the period from and including January 1, 2007 through and including December 31, 2007 (the "Reporting Period") and EMC's performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision. 2.  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, EMC has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 12th day of March 2008. ******By:  /s/ David B. Little  /s/ William Glasgow Jr. ******David B. Little  William Glasgow Jr. Executive Vice President Executive Vice President Default Administration Enterprise Operations Services****/ s /   J e n n a   K e m p  J e n n a   K e m p  Executive Vice President Investor Administration**
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1460 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1460

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 6200 Rolling Road in Springfield, Virginia, as the ``Captain Mark 
                  Stubenhofer Post Office Building''.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1460

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 6200 Rolling Road in Springfield, Virginia, as the ``Captain Mark 
                  Stubenhofer Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 6200 
Rolling Road in Springfield, Virginia, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Captain Mark Stubenhofer Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Captain Mark Stubenhofer 
Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 6, 2005.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,281
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,303
<ALLOWANCES>                                       443
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,429
<PP&E>                                           7,336
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,179
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  21,970
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,572
<BONDS>                                            800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        242
<COMMON>                                        42,573
<OTHER-SE>                                    (32,217)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    21,970
<SALES>                                         12,462
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,462
<CGS>                                            9,957
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,957
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   145
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  95
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    168
<INCOME-TAX>                                        64
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                104
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       104
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.004
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.004
        

</TABLE>
Roy Don ROBERTSON, petitioner, v. Cammron WILLIAMS, et al.

No. 12-8991.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Nicholas M. RAGOSTA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6633.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 4, 2013.

*542Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
#### Kirpal SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-71301, INS [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 14, 2004.*

Decided May 11, 2004.

Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Esq., Burlingame, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, San Francisco, CA, Terri J. Scadron, Esq., Margot L. Nadel, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before WALLACE, KOZINSKI and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

The IJ did not err in rejecting petitioner’s application for asylum and withholding of removal because substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that petitioner was not credible. Petitioner’s testimony and documentary evidence contained numerous inconsistencies going to the heart of his asylum claim, and he was unable to *533adequately explain the discrepancies. *Pal v. INS,*204 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir.2000).

Petitioner’s due process argument fails because he has not shown he was prejudiced. *Ramirez-Alejandre v. Ashcroft,*320 F.3d 858, 875 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc).

PETITION DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Phillip FLOYD; Elizabeth Floyd, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ESSEX INSURANCE CO.; Marshland Enterprises LLC, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 03-30704.

Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 5, 2004.

Louis John St. Martin, Stephen J. Johnson, St Martin, Mahoney & Associates, Houma, LA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Robert Collin Evans, Evans & Company, New Orleans, LA, for Defendants-Appellants.

Before REAVLEY, JONES and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

*239PER CURIAM.*

The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the following reasons:

1. The court applied the correct standard of reasonable care for the shipowner. It was not a failure to warn of an open and obvious danger. Nor was it for product liability. Nor was it some different standard applied by state law peculiar to slip and fall cases.

2. The court found that Floyd failed to exercise reasonable care in fishing while standing near an open hole. The court found the shipowner failed to exercise reasonable care in allowing Floyd to fish near the open hole under all the circumstances, including prior experience when other fishermen had stepped into it. The evidence supported the court’s finding.

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.
Charles CARNEGLIA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-5394.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
VOTER VERIFIED, INC., petitioner, v. PREMIER ELECTION SOLUTIONS, INC., et al.

No. 12-1227.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 12, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
##### 



Exhibit 32 Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003 In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2004 (the Report) of Kiewit Royalty Trust (the Trust), as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Ted L. Hall,
the trust officer of U.S. Bank National Association, the trustee of the Trust,
certify, to the best of my knowledge, 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
Trust. /s/ Ted L. Hall

Ted L. HallTrust OfficerU.S. Bank National AssociationTrustee
 Date: May 14, 2004
## NUMBER 13
- 11
- 00 333
- CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ IN THE INTEREST OF T. C., H. C., K. P. AND C. P., CHILDREN

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez , Vela , and Perkes Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Appellant, K.P

. 1 , perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the County
Court at Law No. 5 of Nueces County, Texas, in cause number 09

- 61405

- 5 . Appellant
has filed a n unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds that the parties have

1 In appeals from cases involving the termination of parental rights, the rules of appellate procedure require the use of an alias to refer to a minor, and if necessary to protect the minor ’ s identity, to the minor ’ s parent or other family member.” Tex. R. App. P. 9.8.2

entered into a mediation agreement, post

- final order. Appellant requests that this Court dismiss the appeal. The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant ’ s unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(a). Appellant ’ s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Costs will be taxed against appellant. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant."). Having dismissed the appeal at appellant ’ s request, no motion for rehearing will be
entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the 2 9 th day of September , 2 0 11

.
Albert G. HILL, III, petitioner, v. William SCHILLING, et al.

No. 12-1258.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 2396** 

BANORO GARRETT; CURTEL GARRETT , Plaintiffs

- Appellants ,
v. SORENTO BURNS; ASHTON H. PULLY, JR.; GREAGORY W. KLEIN , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Raymond A. Jackson , District Judge. ( 2:09

- cv - 00558

- RAJ

- FBS )

Submitted : April 22, 2010 Decided: April 26, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Banoro Garrett, Curtel Garrett, Appellants Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal the district court ’ s order dismissing their civi l action for lack of jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Garrett v.
Burns , No. 2:09

- cv - 00558

- RAJ

- FBS (E.D. Va. Dec. 16, 2009) . 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 3.1




ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF


PURAMED BIOSCIENCE, INC




For the purpose of forming a corporation under Chapter 302A of Minnesota Statutes, the following articles of incorporation are hereby adopted:




ARTICLE I




The name of this corporation is PuraMed Bioscience, Inc.




ARTICLE II




The registered office of this corporation in the State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin, is 9372 Creekwood Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55347.




ARTICLE III




This corporation shall have the authority to issue up to an aggregate total of forty five million (45,000,000) shares of capital stock, $.001 par value, and five million (5,000,000) shares of undesignated stock.




ARTICLE IV




The name and address of the incorporator of this corporation is Robert O. Knutson, 9372 Creekwood Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55347.




ARTICLE V




There shall be no cumulative voting by the holders of common stock for the election of directors or any other matter.




ARTICLE VI




The holders of capital stock of this corporation shall have no preemptive rights to subscribe for or otherwise acquire any new or additional shares of stock of this corporation of any class whether now authorized or authorized hereafter, or any options or warrants or other derivative rights to purchase or otherwise acquire any new or additional shares of any class of capital stock.




ARTICLE VII




This corporation shall indemnify all of its officers and directors against any liability asserted against them and incurred in any capacity related to their status or position as a director or officer to the fullest extent permissible under the provisions of the Minnesota Business Corporation Act, as now enacted or hereafter amended.




In WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned incorporator has executed these Articles of Incorporation on the 9th day of May, 2006.




/s/ Robert O. Knutson





(SEAL)  Mary Kiffmeyer


Minnesota Secretary of State Business Services


Retirement Systems of Minnesota Building


60 Empire Drive Ste 100


St. Paul, MN 55103




On May 9, 2006, before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared Robert O. Knutson, to me known to be the person named as Incorporator, and who executed the foregoing document and acknowledged he executed the same as his free act and deed.




/s/ Rachel E. JuliusRachel E. JuliusNotary Public
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-23-00018-CV

Shakeel Mustafa, Appellant

v.

Pakiza Asim, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 

NO. 11-0061-FC1, THE HONORABLE THOMAS O. STANSBURY, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R A N D M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

PER CURIAM

Appellant Shakeel Mustafa challenges the trial court’s order on a motion to modify 

in the underlying SAPCR. Mustafa filed a motion to abate this appeal for the entry of findings of 

fact and conclusions of law that were not issued by the trial court after he timely requested them and 

gave notice to the court that they were past due. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 296; id. R. 297. Appellee

Pakiza Asim filed a response stating that she agrees that the appeal should be abated and the case 

remanded to the trial court for the issuance of findings of fact and conclusions of law.

We grant Mustafa’s motion, abate this appeal, and remand this cause to the trial 

court for the entry of the necessary findings of fact and conclusions of law. See Billisits v. Billisits, 

No. 03-21-00358-CV, 2022 WL 120484, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 12, 2022, no pet.) (per 

curiam). We instruct the trial-court clerk to prepare a supplemental record containing the findings 

of fact and conclusions of law. We further instruct Mustafa to file a motion to reinstate the appeal, 

a motion to extend the abatement, or a report advising us of the status of the case no later than 

May 25, 2023.
2

It is ordered on April 27, 2023.

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Theofanis

Abated and Remanded

Filed: April 27, 2023
Schedule



 EXHIBIT 10m2 
  
 Schedule identifying substantially identical agreements, among Fortune Brands, Inc. (“Fortune”) and each of the following persons, to the Agreement constituting
Exhibit 10m1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Fortune for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003. 
  
 Name 
  
 Mark Hausberg       
 Craig P. Omtvedt    
 Mark A. Roche       
 Norman H. Wesley
Lorenzo Prado NAVARETTE and Jose Prado Navarette, petitioners, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 12-9490.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Motion of petitioners for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioners allowed until June 3, 2013, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.