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 Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; Rare Diseases.                    

*Date:*                         September 14, 2021.                    

*Time:*                         11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Room 1037, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Alumit Ishai, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Grants Management and Scientific Review,  National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Room 1037, Bethesda, MD 20817, 301-827-5819,                         *alumit.ishai@nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.350, B—Cooperative Agreements; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

David W. Freeman,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2021-16866 Filed 8-5-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Clayton Cornelius Reynolds, Appellant

No. 06-23-00024-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 8th District Court of Delta

County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 7883). 

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice 

van Cleef, Chief Justice Stevens and Justice 

Rambin participating. 

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Clayton Cornelius Reynolds, has adequately indicated his 

inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED DECEMBER 28, 2023

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

SCOTT E. STEVENS

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
**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**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Sontra Medical
      Corporation (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Thomas W. Davison, President and 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 to my 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/
                Thomas W. Davison****Thomas
                W. Davison****President
                and Chief Executive Officer****May
                11, 2006**
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                                   CD&L, Inc.
                                80 Wesley Street
                          South Hackensack, N.J. 07606



Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549-0408

April 15, 2002

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Pursuant to Temporary Note 3T to Article 3 of Regulation S-X, CD&L, Inc. (the
"Company") has obtained a letter of representation from Arthur Andersen LLP
("Andersen") with respect to Andersen's audit of the Company's consolidated
financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2001. Andersen's letter
certifies that the audit was subject to their quality control system for the
U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the
engagement was conducted in compliance with professional standards, that there
was appropriate continuity of Andersen personnel working on the audit and
availability of national office consultation. Availability of personnel at
foreign affiliates of Andersen is not relevant to this audit.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Russell J. Reardon
----------------------
Russell J. Reardon
Chief Financial Officer
CD&L, Inc.


                                       6
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 11
                                  BEA SYSTEMS, INC.
                              APRIL 30, 1997 FORM 10-QSB
                          COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                     (in thousands, except for per share amounts)
                                           

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                             Three months ended
                                                                                  April 30,
                                                                              1997         1996
<S>                                                                         <C>          <C>
Net Loss Per Share:

Weighted average common shares outstanding for the period                     20,323        8,289
Common equivalent shares pursuant to Staff Accounting Bulletin
  Nos. 64 and 83                                                                -          19,533 
                                                                            --------     --------
Shares used in historical per share computation                               20,323       27,822
                                                                            ========     ========
Net loss                                                                    $(20,371)    $(67,451)
Cumulative  dividends on Series B redeemable convertible
  preferred stock                                                               (268)        (119)
                                                                            --------     --------
Net loss applicable to common stockholders                                  $(20,639)    $(67,750)
                                                                            ========     ========

Net loss per share                                                          $  (1.02)    $  (2.44)
                                                                            ========     ========

Pro Forma Net Loss Per Share:

Shares used in historical per share computation                               20,323       27,822
Common equivalent shares assuming conversion of preferred stock               29,969       22,200
Common equivalent shares assuming conversion of convertible
  line of credit                                                                 418            -
                                                                            --------     --------
Shares used in per share computation                                          50,710       50,013 
                                                                            ========     ========
Net loss                                                                    $(20,371)    $(67,451)
                                                                            ========     ========
Pro forma net loss per share                                                $  (0.40)    $  (1.35)
                                                                            ========     ========
</TABLE>

                                       16
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Nutrition, Growth and Physiology: Clay Center, NE
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    USMARC Home
                    USMARC Research Units
                        Genetics and Animal Breeding
                                    Meat Safety & Quality
                                    Livestock Bio Systems
                                    Animal Health GenomicsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Clay Center, Nebraska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center Nutrition, Growth and Physiology People & Locations







Chris A Haussler
                        Nutrition, Growth and Physiology

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Lab Technician (Biochemistry)
                        Phone: (402) 762-4196
                        
                        
                        Fax: (402) 762-4209(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
# C_2013156EN.01003901.xml

| 1.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 April 2013 — Aecops v Commission

(Case T-52/11) (1)

1

(ESF - Training operations - Reduction in financial assistance initially granted - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Time-bar - Legal certainty - Rights of the defence - Reasonable period - Duty to state reasons)

2013/C 156/70

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Associação de Empresas de Construção e Obras Públicas e Serviços (Aecops) (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented initially by: J. da Cruz Vilaça and L. Pinto Monteiro and subsequently by: L. Pinto Monteiro, P. Farinha Alves and N. Morais Sarmento, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of the Commission’s decision of 27 October 2010 setting the final amount of the expenditure eligible for assistance from the European Social Fund (ESF), granted to the applicant for training operations by Commission Decision C(89) 570 of 22 March 1989 for the funding of training operations (file 89 0979 P3)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Associação de Empresas de Construção e Obras Públicas e Serviços (Aecops) to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Associação de Empresas de Construção e Obras Públicas e Serviços (Aecops) to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 7.5.2011.

1

---
1The Honorable Donald E. O’Brien, United States District Judge for the

Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-3201

___________

Gary L. Massey, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

United States of America, *

* [UNPUBLISHED] 

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: December 7, 1999 

 Filed: December 23, 1999 

___________

Before McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gary L. Massey appeals the district court’s1 order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion to vacate his drug-conspiracy sentence. In his motion, he asserted ineffective

assistance based on counsel’s failure to investigate his mental competency during the

conspiracy, and counsel’s failure to investigate Massey’s withdrawal from the

conspiracy. We affirm.
-2-

On appeal, Massey argues that his mental condition prevented him from entering

the conspiracy in the first place and that he withdrew before the conspiracy was ever

formed. These arguments are a variation on those he raised below, but giving Massey

the benefit of the doubt, we will assume his appeal arguments were properly preserved.

We conclude, however, after carefully reviewing the record, that Massey’s

arguments fail. First, he has not shown that, but for his counsel’s error in failing to

investigate a mental incompetency defense, he would not have pleaded guilty and

would have insisted on going to trial with such a defense. See Matthews v. United

States, 114 F.3d 112, 113-14 (8th Cir. 1997) (test for challenges to guilty pleas based

on ineffective assistance of counsel), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 730 (1998). Specifically,

Massey has made no showing that obtaining the medical records--which he faults

counsel for not obtaining--would have yielded grounds for a defense that he was unable

to form the criminal intent necessary to enter the conspiracy. 

As to Massey’s argument that counsel failed to investigate a conspiracywithdrawal defense, the record does not support that he withdrew before the conspiracy

was formed, or for that matter, that he ever actually withdrew by clearly communicating

to his co-conspirators an intent to withdraw or by reporting the conspiracy to police.

See United States v. Askew, 958 F.2d 806, 812-13 (8th Cir. 1992) (defendant must

demonstrate he made clean breast to police or communicated withdrawal in manner

reasonably calculated to reach co-conspirators); United States v. Francis, 916 F.2d 464,

466 (8th Cir. 1990) (gist of offense of drug conspiracy is unlawful agreement; once

agreement is made conspiracy is complete), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 926 (1991). Thus,

Massey can show neither deficient performance, nor resulting actual prejudice, arising

out of counsel’s failure to investigate and raise this defense.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**EXHIBIT
        32.1**
 
 **STATEMENT
        OF**
 **CHIEF
        EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
 **PURSUANT
        TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 
 I,
        Kanwar
        J.S. Chadha, Ph,. D., certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
        pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that the Annual
        Report
        on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2004 of Entrada Networks,
        Inc. 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 Annual
        Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2005 of Entrada
        Networks, Inc fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
        and results of operations of Entrada Networks, Inc.
 
 
 
 /s/
                  Kanwar ChadhaName:Kanwar
                  J.S. Chadha, Ph. D.President
                & CEODate:June
                  14, 2005
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Williams, Appellant.

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Mallon, J.), rendered April 27, 1983, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

The defendant’s claim that his arrest and the search of the automobile in which he was a passenger were violative of his constitutional protections against unlawful searches and seizures is without merit.

In addition to the defendant’s failure to establish at the hearing the requisite standing to challenge the search complained of *(see, People v Cofresi,*60 NY2d 728, 730), we find that the actions of the arresting officer were justified by well-settled principles of decisional law. Radio transmissions alerted the arresting officer that two black males were seen *831exiting a suspicious-looking vehicle in the immediate vicinity of a residence at which a burglary was reported to be in progress. When the defendant was spotted hiding behind a bush in the yard of the specified residence, and then observed running to a nearby vehicle after peering out to see if the coast was clear, the officer had probable cause to arrest him *(see, People v De Bour,*40 NY2d 210, 223). Furthermore, the defendant’s present contention that probable cause was not demonstrated because the People failed to establish the reliability of the information transmitted by the sender is also without merit. Because the defendant never specifically challenged the reliability of the transmission at Criminal Term, the People were under no obligation to produce the "sending” officer at the hearing *(see, People v Dodt,*61 NY2d 408, 416; *People v Jenkins,*47 NY2d 722; *People v Makedon,*108 AD2d 826).

Under these facts, after the arresting officer noticed the defendant quickly conceal an object under the front passenger seat, he was justified in reaching under the front seat to search for what was placed there *(see, People v Pitt,*110 AD2d 723, 724, *cert denied*— US —, 106 S Ct 254), and the evidence subsequently taken from the defendant’s person and the interior of the car was validly seized as incident to an arrest based on probable cause *(see, People v Belton,*55 NY2d 49, 54-55; *People v Arminio,*104 AD2d 995).

The prosecutorial misconduct complained of does not warrant reversal of the conviction *(see, People v Bailey,*58 NY2d 272; *People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved or without merit. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.
#### ADAMS et al., Respondents, v. ELWOOD et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 23, 1907.)

Action by Mary Ann Adams and another, as executors, etc., of Walter Adams, deceased, against George A. Elwood and another.

No opinion. Motion for stay granted, with costs.
#### In the Matter of Wayne Miller, Petitioner, v New York City Transit Authority, Respondent.

—Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent, dated March 30, 1984, which, after a hearing, *808found the petitioner guilty of "Misconduct and or Incompetence” and dismissed him from his position as a bus operator.

Petition granted to the extent that the determination is modified, on the law, by adding thereto a provision that the petitioner is entitled to back pay for the period beginning 30 days after his suspension to the date of his dismissal (excluding any delay attributable to him) and excluding any sums he may have earned from other employment during that period, or from unemployment compensation *(see, Matter of Johnson v Board of Trustees,*61 NY2d 1014; *Matter of O’Garro v Simpson,*100 AD2d 907). As so modified, determination confirmed and proceeding otherwise dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements, and matter remitted to the respondent to determine the amount of back pay due to the petitioner, if any.

A review of the record demonstrates that substantial evidence supports the charges against the petitioner. Therefore, we must confirm the determination *(see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176; *Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222). In light of the petitioner’s extensive history of prior disciplinary warnings, it cannot be said that the penalty imposed is so disproportionate to the offense as to shock one’s sense of fairness *(see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., supra).*As the petitioner may be entitled to back pay pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75 (3) *(see, Matter of Johnson v Board of Trustees, supra; Matter of Sinicropi v Bennett,*60 NY2d 918), the matter is remitted to the respondent to determine the amount that is owed to him, if any. Mangano, J. P., Niehoff, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.