alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel; NINDS-HEAL K24 Review Panel.                    

*Date:*                         July 26, 2021.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         DeAnna Lynn Adkins, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, NSC Building Rockville, MD 20852, 301-496-9223,                         *deanna.adkins@nih.gov*.                    

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(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: July 8, 2021. 

Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2021-14930 Filed 7-13-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael P., Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Mazur, J.), rendered on March 11, 1983, unanimously affirmed. The case is remitted to the Supreme Court, Bronx County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5). No opinion. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Asch, Bloom and Fein, JJ.
EXHIBIT 99.2

Certification pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, James V. Agnello, the Chief Financial Officer of WorldGate Communications, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that the Form 10-Q of WorldGate Communications, Inc. for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 (the "June 30, 2002 Form 10-Q"), which this certification accompanies, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and information contained in the June 30, 2002 Form 10-Q fairly represents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of WorldGate Communications, Inc.

|Dated: 8/13/02 |  |  |  | /s/JAMES V. AGNELLOJames V. Agnello
|-------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00394-CR

David Cepeda JONES,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From County Court at Law No. 7, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 923841

Honorable Monica Guerrero, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 30, 2010

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

On April 21, 2010, appellant filed a notice of appeal in which he states “no final conviction”

[has] been imposed.” It appears from a review of the clerk’s record that appellant wants the trial

court to expunge from his records his 2005 arrest for criminal trespass because those charges never

resulted in a final conviction. No final judgment or appealable order signed by the trial court is

contained in the clerk’s record. Therefore, we ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal
04-10-00394-CR

-2-

should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. On June 16, 2010, appellant filed a response that

does not provide a basis upon which this court may exercise jurisdiction over his appeal. We

therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Derrick R. YOUNG, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-3942.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued Oct. 17, 2011.

Decided Nov. 15, 2011.

Richard N. Cox, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Urbana, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Matthew D. Tanner, Attorney, Tanner & Lehman LLC, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge, RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge and DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

The defendant-appellant, Derrick Young, pleaded guilty to possession of her*722oin with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). He now challenges the district court’s earlier denial of a motion to suppress the heroin that a police officer found during a search of his person.

A guilty plea generally operates as a waiver of all non-jurisdictional issues on appeal. *United States v. Rogers,*387 F.3d 925, 932 (7th Cir.2004). There is a narrow exception under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(a)(2) that allows a defendant, with the consent of the court and the government, to explicitly condition his guilty plea on the right to appeal adverse judgments on pre-trial motions. Here, Young argues that he made such a conditional plea by expressing his intention to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress at his sentencing hearing. The government stood by silently during sentencing while the judge mistakenly informed Young that he could appeal that decision.

Although Rule 11(a)(2) requires conditional plea agreements to be in writing, Young argues that under *United States v. Elizalde-Adame,*the writing requirement should be excused. *See Elizalde-Adame,*262 F.3d 637 (7th Cir.2001). We made clear in *Elizalde-Adame*that in order to excuse the writing requirement of conditional plea agreements, “something in the record ... [must] plainly show[ ] that the government had agreed to a conditional plea and that the district court had accepted it.” *Id.*at 639.

There is no evidence that when Young pleaded guilty he had reached any conditional agreement, written or otherwise, with the government. The record indicates that his guilty plea was made freely and in consultation with his attorney. At no point during the plea hearing does the record suggest that Young or his attorney intended to reserve the right to challenge the ruling on the motion to suppress. We will not negate the intentions of the parties at the time of this plea based on an unimportant misstatement made later at Young’s sentencing hearing. Accordingly, we find that he has waived any right to appellate review of the issue.

Since there are no other issues before us, the ruling of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### Charles E. Hubbell, as Receiver, etc., Respondent, *v.*The Syracuse Iron Works et al., Appellants, et al., Respondents.

(Argued June 17, 1890;

decided June 24, 1890.)

Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Oourt in the fourth judicial department, made April 29,1890, requiring the appellants to perfect their appeal to said General Term from a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court at Special Term, or upon their failure to do so, dismissing said appeal.

*M. M. Waters*for appellants.

*Henry A. Mayncvrd, William G. Tracy*and *E. Notting-Tiam*for respondents.

Agree to affirm on opinion below.

All concur.

Order affirmed.
**Slip Op. 08-126**

**UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE**

TRUSTEES IN BANKRUPTCY OF NORTH AMERICAN RUBBER THREAD CO., INC., FILMAX SDN. BHD., HEVEAFIL USA, INC., AND HEVEAFIL SDN. BHD., Before: Richard W. Goldberg, Plaintiffs, Senior Judge

v. Consol. Court No. 05-00539

UNITED STATES,

Defendant.

**JUDGMENT**

Upon consideration of defendant’s motion for entry of final judgment, and all other pertinent papers, it is hereby

**ORDERED** that the defendant’s motion is granted; and it is further

**ORDERED** that this Court’s order of June 10th, 2008 is vacated to the extent that it remands this action to the Department of Commerce for further proceedings; and it is further

**ORDERED** that the Department of Commerce shall initiate a changed circumstances review pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1675(b); and it is further

**ORDERED** that all further claims are dismissed as unripe.

Dated: November 21, 2008 /s/ Richard W. Goldberg New York, New York Richard W. Goldberg Senior Judge
#### VMVS Associates, Respondent, v Consolidated Equities, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce McM. Wright, J.), entered July 1, 1985, which granted plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction against the removal by defendant Consolidated Equities, Inc., of certain funds held in escrow, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff’s motion denied.

Plaintiff VMVS Associates is one of several limited partners in 40 West 45th Street Associates, a limited partnership, which owned a building located at that address. Plaintiff brought an action seeking money damages, rescission of its subscription agreement, and an accounting from the general partner, defendant Consolidated Equities, Inc. and its principals, alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, waste and of the property.

In April 1985, plaintiff’s former counsel consented to a sale of the 40 West 45th Street building on condition that $256,000 of the proceeds would be placed in escrow pending the outcome of the litigation, and he further agreed that plaintiff would look solely to the escrowed funds, Consolidated and its principals to recover its damages in the pending action. The building was thereafter sold and a portion of the proceeds was *492placed in escrow. The exact amount now remaining in escrow is not specified in the record, but Consolidated claims in its brief, without contradiction from plaintiff, that the amount exceeds by approximately $300,000 the $256,000 being held on behalf of plaintiff.

On May 13, 1985 plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction against the defendant’s removing any of the funds realized from the sale of the building, which were being held in escrow. Defendant Consolidated appealed from Special Term’s order granting the preliminary injunction.

CPLR 6301 permits the issuance of a preliminary injunction "where it appears that the defendant threatens or is about to do * * * an act in violation of the plaintiff’s rights respecting the subject of the action, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual”. Plaintiff’s action is essentially one for money damages, and *money*damages may not be considered the " 'subject’ of the action” under this statute. *(Antorino v Birk,*59 AD2d 931; *City of New York v Tirone,*72 Misc 2d 831; *7A*Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac 6301.10.)

The motion for a preliminary injunction must be denied upon the alternative ground that plaintiff failed to demonstrate in its moving papers, by competent evidence, the likelihood of its ultimate success on the merits, irreparable injury absent the granting of the preliminary injunction, and a balancing of the equities in favor of plaintiff’s position. *(Chrysler Realty Corp. v Urban Investing Corp.,*100 AD2d 921.) In vacating the order granting the preliminary injunction we of course do not intend to suggest that defendant is released from whatever contractual obligation it might have undertaken to maintain $256,000 in escrow pending the outcome of the litigation. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sandler, Asch and Ellerin, JJ. [116 AD2d 465.]
Exhibit 3.8

ROSS MILLER
Secretary of State                                        Document Number
254 Norht Carson Street, Ste 1                            20100275251-75
Carson City, Nevada 89701-4299                            Filing Date and Time
(776) 684 5708                                            04/26/2010 3:40 PM
Website: www.nvsos.gov                                    Entity#
                                                          C19948-2002

                                                          Filed in the office of
                                                          /s/ Ross Miller
     Certificate of Amendment                             Ross Miller
(Pursuant to NRS 78.380 and 78.390)                       Secretary of State
                                                          State of Nevada

                                              ABOVE SPACE IS FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

              Certificate of Amendment to Articles of Incorporation
                         For Nevada Profit Corporations
          (Pursuant to NRS 78.385 and 78.390 - After Issuance of Stock)

1. Name of Corporation:

KLIP America, Inc.

2. The articles have been amended as follows (provide article numbers, if
available):

Article 1. Name of Corporation is hereby amended and changed to "Epic Sports
International, Inc."



3. The vote by which the stockholders holding shares in the corporation
entitling them to exercise at least a majority of the voting power, or such
greater proportion of the voting power as may be required in the case of a vote
by classes or series, or as may be required by the provisions of the articles of
incorporation have voted in favor of the amendment is: 100%

4. Effective date of filing (optional): 5/17/07 (must be no later than 90 days
after the certificate is filed)


5. Officer Signature (Required)  /s/
                                ------------------------------
* If any proposed amendment would alter or change any preferences or any
relative or other right given to any class or series of outstanding shares, then
the amendment must be approved by the vote. In addition to the affirmative vote
otherwise required of the holders of shares representing a majority of the
voting power of each class or series affected by the amendment regardless of
limitations or restrictions on the voting power thereof.

IMPORTANT: Failure to include any of the above information and submit the proper
fees may cause this filing to be rejected.

This form must be accompanied by appropriate fees.
|  |   |        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMBoard of Directors and StockholdersDesert Hawk Gold Corp.Spokane, WAWe hereby consent to the inclusion in the Form S-8 Registration Statement dated February 10, 2010 of our Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm incorporated by reference dated April 7, 2011 on our audit of the consolidated financial statements of Desert Hawk Gold Corp. (the "Company") as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and for the period of May 1, 2009 (entry into Exploration Stage) through December 31, 2010, as included in the Company's Form 10-K/A-1 Annual Report filed with the SEC on August 9, 2011.  Sincerely,/s/ Child, Van Wagoner & Bradshaw, PLLCChild, Van Wagoner & Bradshaw, PLLCSalt Lake City, UTAugust 9, 2011 |
|--|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2283 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2283

 To provide for the extension of the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail 
              into the Township of Woodbridge, New Jersey.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 11, 2005

 Mr. Ferguson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for the extension of the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail 
              into the Township of Woodbridge, New Jersey.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF NEW JERSEY COASTAL HERITAGE TRAIL.

    The second sentence of section 2 of Public Law 100-515 (102 Stat. 
2563; 16 U.S.C. 1244 note) is amended by inserting ``including sites in 
the Township of Woodbridge, New Jersey,'' after the words ``cultural 
sites''.
                                 <all>
```
The Honorable R. Leon Jordan, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern *

District of Tennessee, sitting by designation.

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 07a0812n.06

Filed: November 21, 2007

No. 06-1560

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

ANTHONY WEST, )

 )

Petitioner-Appellant, )

 )

v. )

 )

KURT JONES, )

 )

Respondent-Appellee. )

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Before: BOGGS and KENNEDY, Circuit Judges; JORDAN, District Judge.*

LEON JORDAN, District Judge. Petitioner Anthony West appeals the district

court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. West and his codefendant, Herman Coleman, were tried in Wayne County, Michigan without a jury on

charges of arson of a dwelling house and first degree felony murder. Neither West nor

Coleman testified at trial; however, the prosecution read into the record two statements

Coleman had made to the police, which tended to place responsibility for the crime on West

and minimize Coleman’s culpability. On August 11, 1999, the trial court acquitted West and

Coleman of arson but found both guilty of second-degree murder. 
2

On December 7, 2001, the state court of appeals on direct appeal affirmed

West’s conviction, and West made application to the Michigan Supreme Court. In lieu of

granting the application, the Michigan Supreme Court on September 10, 2003, vacated the

judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case for consideration of whether the trial

court’s apparent reliance on Coleman’s statements was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

On remand, the court of appeals again affirmed West’s conviction, but one judge dissented.

The Michigan Supreme Court denied West’s application for leave to appeal, concluding that

any error by the trial court in considering the out-of-court statement of one defendant in

determining the guilt of the other was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. West filed his

petition for habeas corpus relief on July 19, 2004. 

We have undertaken a de novo review of the record, the applicable law, and

the parties’ briefs. We concur with the district court’s conclusion that the state court’s

determination of harmless error did not result in a decision that was contrary to or an

unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The issuance

of a full written opinion by this court would therefore serve no useful purpose. We note that

the standard employed by the district court, the “substantial and injurious effect” standard

set forth in Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637, 113 S. Ct. 1710, 123 L. Ed. 2d. 353

(1993), was recently affirmed by the Supreme Court in Fry v. Pliler, ---- U.S. ----, 127 S.

Ct. 2321, 2328, 168 L. Ed. 2d 16 (2007). Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district
3

court’s opinion, we AFFIRM the denial of West’s habeas corpus petition.
#### Lidia ARAICA-GRANADOS, a.k.a. Josefa Miriam Araica-Granados, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-73227.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2011.*

Filed June 8, 2011.

Enrique Ramirez, Law Office of Enrique Ramirez, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Daniel I. Smulow, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Lidia Araica-Granados, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to reopen and to reconsider. We dismiss the petition for review.

Araica-Granados contends that she is prima facie eligible for a waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i) because her removal would cause extreme hardship to her United States citizen spouse. We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of discretionary relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i). *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); *Nath v. Gonzales,*467 F.3d 1185, 1188 (9th Cir.2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of --

Suffolk Construction Company, Inc. 

Under Contract No. N40085-l l-C-723 l 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 59451 

Kevin P. Polansky, Esq. 

Thomas H. Hayman, Esq. 

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP 

Boston, MA 

Ronald J. Borra, Esq. 

Navy Chief Trial Attorney 

Stephen L. Bacon, Esq. 

Trial Attorney 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Pursuant to the parties' joint request dated 22 September 2014, the above-referenced 

appeal is hereby dismissed without prejudice. Pursuant to Board Rule l 8(b ), unless either 

party or the Board acts within one year from the date of this Order to reinstate this appeal, 

the dismissal shall be deemed with prejudice. 

Dated: 29 September 2014 

Adminis rative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59451, Appeal of Suffolk Construction 

Company, Inc .. rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals