alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 91 (Thursday, May 11, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 25264]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11816]





                Sunshine Act Meetings



Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 91 / Thursday, May 11, 1995 / 
Sunshine Act Meetings
[[Page 25264]]

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Notice of Agency Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the ``Government in the Sunshine 
Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:02 a.m. on 
Tuesday, May 9, 1995, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters 
relating to the Corporation's supervisory activities.
    In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Director 
Eugene A. Ludwig (Comptroller of the Currency), seconded by Vice 
Chairman Andrew C. Hove, Jr., concurred in by Director Jonathan L. 
Fiechter (Acting Director, Office of Thrift Supervision), and Chairman 
Ricki Helfer, that Corporation business required its consideration of 
the matters on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no 
earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest 
did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to 
public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a 
closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), and 
(c)(9)(A)(ii) of the ``Government in the Sunshine Act'' (5 U.S.C. 
552b(c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), and (c)(9)(A)(ii)).
    The meeting was held in the Board Room of the FDIC Building located 
at 550--17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

    Dated: May 7, 1995.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Patti C. Fox,
Acting Deputy Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-11816 Filed 5-9-95; 2:59 pm]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-M
* Pursua nt to 5 T H C IR

. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED

December 16, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-60222 Summary Calendar

LAL RAM MUANA,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA No. A78-318-165)

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

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, AND STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Petitioner Lal Ram Muana, a native and citizen o f Burma,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision

to deny his application for asylum. Muana has waived the denial of

his applications for withholding of remo val and relief under the

Conven tion Against Torture by failing to argue those issues.

Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS , 809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir. 1986).

This court will uphold the BIA’s factual finding that an alien

is not eligible for asylum if the determination is supported by2

substantial evidence. E fe v. Ashcroft

, 293 F.3d 899, 903 (5th Cir.

2002). “The substantial evidence standard requires only that the

Board’s conclusion be based upon the evidence presented and be

substantially reasonable.” Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft , 303 F.3d

341, 350 (5th Cir. 2002) (internal quot ation marks and citations

omitted). As the BIA summarily affirmed without opinion the IJ’s

decision, the IJ’s decision is the final agency determination for

judicial review. S ee Soadjede v. Ashcroft

, 324 F.3d 830, 831-32

(5th Cir. 2003).

Muana has failed to make the requisite showing that he is

unable or unwilling to return to Burma “because of persecution or

a well-founde d fear of persecution on account of race, religion,

nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political

opinion

. . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); s ee also Jukic v. INS

,

40 F.3d 747, 749 (5th Cir. 1994).

Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.
EXHIBIT 32.2





PHARMOS CORPORATION


SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION








In connection with the quarterly report of PHARMOS CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, S. COLIN NEILL, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and





(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.





This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission.





Date: August 4, 2010





By: /s/ S. Colin Neill





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Pharmos Corporation and will be retained by Pharmos Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MICHAEL VOYLES,

Defendant.

PR 21-0001

ORDER

Defendant Michael Voyles, via counsel, has moved to disqualify the Honorable

Ashley Harada from presiding in Cause No. DC 21-0044 in the Thirteenth Judicial District

Court, Yellowstone County, pursuant to § 3-1-805, MCA.

Section 3-1-805, MCA, provides that an affidavit for disqualification for cause must

be filed more than 30 days before the date set for hearing or trial and must be accompanied

by a certificate of counsel of record that the affidavit has been made in good faith. Voyles

has not filed an affidavit nor has his counsel provided a certificate of good faith.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to disqualify District Judge Ashley

Harada from Yellowstone County Cause No. DC 21-0044 is DENIED.

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to the Clerk of the District

Court of Yellowstone County for notification to all counsel of record in Cause No. DC 21-

0044, and to the Honorable Ashley Harada.

DATED this tay of May, 2021.

MAY 2 0 2021

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of Supreme Cour

tat1=` ,f Montana

Chief Justice

05/20/2021

Case Number: PR 21-0001
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

QUINTIN JAMAR MAYWEATHER-BROWN, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

) 

v. ) No. 3:15 CV 15

)

BRAD RODGERS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Quintin Jamar Mayweather-Brown, a pro se prisoner, filed this complaint raising

claims against five defendants related to events which occurred on March 20, 2014, after

he tried to commit suicide. “A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a

pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards

than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)

(quotation marks and citations omitted). Nevertheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,

the court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is

frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 

The claims raised in this complaint arise from the same events as those

Mayweather-Brown presented in his amended complaint on December 18, 2014, in

Mayweather-Brown v. Rodgers, 3:14-CV-1846 (N.D. Ind. filed September 8, 2014). Though

that case names four defendants and this one names five, to the extent that

Mayweather-Brown wanted to add a defendant, he should have filed a second
amended complaint in that case. It is malicious to sue the same four defendants again

for the same events. 

For the foregoing reasons, this case is DISMISSED as malicious pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915A. 

SO ORDERED.

Date: June 1, 2015

 s/ James T. Moody 

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
ERIC LYONS

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 5578

_______________ _________/

Opinion filed February 2, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Jan Shackelford , Judge

.

Michael R. Rollo of Michael R. Rollo, P.A., Pensacola , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Matthew Pavese, Assistant Attorney General,

Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., WOLF and THOMAS

, J J

. , CONCUR.
**Exhibit 13.1**

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer and ActingChief Financial Officer Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

The undersigned, theChief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer of ChinaEduCorporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies that, pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to her knowledge on the date hereof:

 

(a)                                  the Form 20-F of the Company for theyear ended December 31, 2007 filed on the date hereof with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(b)                                 the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
|   |   /s/ Julia Huang              |
|--------|-------------------------------------|
|   | Julia  Huang                        |
|   | Chairman,  Chief Executive Officer  |
|   | and  Acting Chief Financial Officer |
|   | June 27,  2008                 |

 

----
Charles L. RYAN, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al., petitioners, v. Gina Gail CELAYA.

No. 12-1003.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 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.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                        Certification of CFO Pursuant to
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             As Adopted Pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10Q of Information Resources,
Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Andrew
G. Balbirer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

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

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



/s/ Andrew G. Balbirer
-----------------------------
Andrew G. Balbirer
Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2002


This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### JENDRASZEK, Respondent, v. INTERNATIONAL BY. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 27, 1912.)

Action by Adam Jendraszek, as administrator, etc., against the International Railway Company.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

FOOTE, J., dissents.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1573 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide that the increase of 

$250 per month in the rate of monthly dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) payable to a surviving spouse of a member of the 

Armed Forces who dies on active duty or as a result of a serviceconnected disability shall be paid for so long as there are minor children, 

rather than only for two years. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 12, 2005 

Mr. MICHAUD (for himself, Mr. EVANS, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. RYAN of Ohio, Mr. 

STRICKLAND, and Mr. UDALL of New Mexico) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide that 

the increase of $250 per month in the rate of monthly 

dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) payable 

to a surviving spouse of a member of the Armed Forces 

who dies on active duty or as a result of a serviceconnected disability shall be paid for so long as there 

are minor children, rather than only for two years. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 1573 IH 

1 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN MONTHLY DEPENDENCY AND IN2 DEMNITY COMPENSATION PAYABLE TO A 

3 SURVIVING SPOUSE FOR SO LONG AS THERE 

4 ARE MINOR CHILDREN. 

5 (a) INCREASE IN DIC.—Subsection (b) of section 

6 1311 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by in7 serting ‘‘$250, plus’’ after ‘‘shall be increased by’’. 

8 (b) CONFORMING REPEAL OF TWO-YEAR LIMITA9 TION.—Subsection (e) of such section is repealed. 

10 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

11 subsection (a) shall take effect with respect to payments 

12 of dependency and indemnity compensation under section 

13 1311 of title 38, United States Code, for the first month 

14 beginning on or after the date of the enactment of this 

15 Act. 

16 SEC. 2. COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT FOR RATE OF IN17 CREASED AMOUNT OF DEPENDENCY AND IN18 DEMNITY COMPENSATION FOR MINOR CHIL19 DREN. 

20 (a) RATE ADJUSTMENT.—The Secretary of Veterans 

21 Affairs shall, effective on December 1, 2005, increase the 

22 dollar amount for the payment of additional dependency 

23 and indemnity compensation for surviving spouses with 

24 minor children that is added by the amendment made by 

25 section 1(a). 

26 (b) DETERMINATION OF INCREASE.— 
3 

•HR 1573 IH 

1 (1) PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE.—Except as 

2 provided in paragraph (2), the amount specified in 

3 subsection (a) shall be increased by the same per4 centage as the percentage by which benefit amounts 

5 payable under title II of the Social Security Act (42 

6 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) are increased effective December 

7 1, 2005, as a result of a determination under section 

8 215(i) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 415(i)). 

9 (2) ROUNDING.—Each dollar amount increased 

10 pursuant to paragraph (1) shall, if not a whole dol11 lar amount, be rounded down to the next lower 

12 whole dollar amount. 

Æ
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Pharmos Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended  March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Haim Aviv, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes –Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 
|   | 1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 
|   | 2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

                                                                  Exhibit 27
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           8,300
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  618,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (60,300)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,903,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      1,757,100
<COMMON>                                         5,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     50,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     258,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,903,700
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               193,900
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  115,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,500
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,500
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              95,700
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 78,200
<INCOME-TAX>                                    29,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             48,400
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    48,400
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0




</TABLE>
Shadrach WINSTEAD, petitioner, v. Curtis JACKSON, et al.

No. 13-6786.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION AT LAFAYETTE

DUSTIN PIERPONT, )

)

Petitioner, )

) CAUSE NO. 4:15-CV-035 JM 

v. )

)

SUPERINTENDENT, )

)

Respondent. )

OPINION and ORDER

Dustin Pierpont, a pro se prisoner, is challenging the prison disciplinary hearing

that was held at the Miami Correctional Facility on December 12, 2014, under case

number MCF 14-12-116 where the Disciplinary Hearing Body (DHB) found him guilty

of Possession or Use of a Controlled Substance in violation of B-202 and sanctioned him

with the loss of 90 days earned credit time. Pierpont argues that despite having pleaded

guilty, the finding of guilt should be overturned because of two violations of the

Offender Urinalysis Program Manual of Policies and Procedures.

However, the court “need look no further than one key piece of evidence: [his]

confession.” Scruggs v. Jordan, 485 F.3d 934, 940 (7th Cir. 2007). Pierpont confessed

when he pleaded guilty. In so doing, he waived any due process claims he might have

otherwise had. Nevertheless, even if he had not done so, the violation of a prison rule is

not a basis for habeas corpus relief. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68 (1991) (“In

conducting habeas review, a federal court is limited to deciding whether a conviction

violated the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”). Therefore, even if he
had not pleaded guilty and even if the policies in the manual were not followed, this

court could not grant him habeas corpus relief. 

For the foregoing reasons, the habeas corpus petition is DENIED pursuant to

HABEAS CORPUS RULE 4. 

SO ORDERED.

Date: May 1, 2015

 s/ James T. Moody 

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

2
John FERGUSON, petitioner, v. Michael D. CREWS, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

No. 13-5507, 13A116.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 05, 2013.

Application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice THOMAS and by him referred to the Court denied. Motion of American Bar Association for leave to file a brief as *amicus curiae* granted. Motion of National Alliance on Mental Illness, et al. for leave to file a brief as *amici curiae* granted. Petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the consideration or decision of these motions, this application, and this petition.
**FDIC Organization Chart/Officials**As of December 31, 2008

Board of Directors:

- Sheila C. Bair
- Martin J. Gruenberg
- Thomas J. Curry
- John C. Dugan
- John M. Reich

Office of the Chairman, Sheila C. Bair, *Chairman*Vice Chairman, Martin Cruenberg

- Office of Inspector General, Jon T. Rymer, *Inspector General*
- Chief Information Officer and Chief Privacy Officer, Michael E. Bartell
- Chief of Staff, Jesse O. Villarreal, Jr.
- Office of Public Affairs, Andrew Gray, *Director*
- Deputy to the Chairman and Chief Financial Officer, Steven O. App
    **Division of Finance**, Bret D. Edwards, *Director*
      **Office of Enterprise Risk Management**, James H. Angel, Jr., *Director*
- **Division of Finance**, Bret D. Edwards, *Director*
- **Office of Enterprise Risk Management**, James H. Angel, Jr., *Director*
- Deputy to the Chairman and Chief Operating Officer, John F. Bovenzi
    **Division of Supervision and Consumer Protection**, Sandra L. Thompson, *Director*
      **Division of Insurance and Research**, Arthur J. Murton, *Director*
      **Division of Information Technology**, Michael E. Bartell, *Director*
      **Division of Resolutions and Receiverships**, Mitchell L. Glassman, *Director*
      **Office of Diversity and Economic Opportunity**, D. Michael Collins, *Director*
      **Division of Administration**, Arleas Upton Kea, *Director*
      **Office of the Ombudsman**, Cottrell L. Webster,*Ombudsman*
      **Corporate University**, Thom H. Terwilliger,*Chief Learning Officer*
      **Office of International Affairs**, Fred S. Carns,Director
- **Division of Supervision and Consumer Protection**, Sandra L. Thompson, *Director*
- **Division of Insurance and Research**, Arthur J. Murton, *Director*
- **Division of Information Technology**, Michael E. Bartell, *Director*
- **Division of Resolutions and Receiverships**, Mitchell L. Glassman, *Director*
- **Office of Diversity and Economic Opportunity**, D. Michael Collins, *Director*
- **Division of Administration**, Arleas Upton Kea, *Director*
- **Office of the Ombudsman**, Cottrell L. Webster,*Ombudsman*
- **Corporate University**, Thom H. Terwilliger,*Chief Learning Officer*
- **Office of International Affairs**, Fred S. Carns,Director
- Deputy to the Chairman, Jason C. Cave
    **Office of Legislative Affairs**, Eric J. Spitler, *Director*
- **Office of Legislative Affairs**, Eric J. Spitler, *Director*
- General Counsel, John V. Thomas, *Acting General Counsel*
    **Legal Division**, John V. Thomas, *Acting General Counsel*
- **Legal Division**, John V. Thomas, *Acting General Counsel*

> back
#### VAN GORDEN, Appellant, v. MOORE. Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

January 17, 1899.)

Action by William H. Van Gorden against John Moore.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur, except HERRICK, J., dissenting.