alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>           5




<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                    SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                                5,437
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       470,309
<ALLOWANCES>                                         37,000
<INVENTORY>                                       2,113,047
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  2,791,521
<PP&E>                                              270,494
<DEPRECIATION>                                       78,448
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    5,031,843
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             7,896,068
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                       2,237,587
<COMMON>                                              6,912
<OTHER-SE>                                       (5,125,081)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      5,031,843
<SALES>                                           1,296,470
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  1,296,470
<CGS>                                               746,267
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       746,267
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  3,091,121
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  505,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (2,762,357)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (2,762,357)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      197,260
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (2,565,097)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (0.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (0.37)



</TABLE>
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 Nursing Research Special Emphasis Panel; Institutional Training Grants.                    

*Date:*                         September 24, 2021.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute of Nursing Research, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Ming Yan, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Immunology (IMM), DPPS, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4205, Bethesda, MD 20892,                         *yanming@mail.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.361, Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 2, 2021.

Melanie J. Pantoja,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2021-19364 Filed 9-3-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Mercury in Grand Canyon Trou

 Human Consumption/Beneficial Use of Nonnat

 Consistent with Tribal Consultation  MOA with the State Historic Preservation Office 

 States issue fish consumption advisories  No fish consumption advisories have been issu

Grand Canyon 

 Rainbow (RBT) and Brown Trout (BNT) are ge

low in mercury, relative to other fish: 

 EPA: RBT mean Hg = 0.11 ppm, BNT mean Hg = 0. Canned albacore tuna = 0.35 ppm 

(http://www.fda.gov/food/foodborneillnesscontaminals/ucm115644.htm) 

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R 
EPA: RBT mean Hg = 0.11 ppm, BNT mean Hg = 0.16 
Mercury in Grand Canyon Trou

 Studies: 

 Environmental Protection Agency- 2009 

 Colorado River – 17 RBT collected 

 NPS/USGS 2014: 

 2012 – NPS – GRCA collected trout from 

Havasu, Shinumo, Bright Angel Creek (n RBT, 2 BNT) 

 21 National Parks in the Western U.S. 

 NPS/USGS 2015 – Bright Angel Creek 

 16 RBT, 9 BNT 

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R 
Provisional USGS Dat

Creek 

Species 

Year 

Bright Angel Creek Havasu Creek Shinumo 

Brown trout Rainbow trout Brown trout Rainbow trout Brown trout 

20152012 20152012 20152012 20152012 20152012 

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 

Hg ppm 

0.073 0.072 

0.061 

0.074 

0.059 

Mercury Concentration - Grand Canyon tributaries 

EPA Benchmark for Human Fish Consumption 
0.4 

0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 

Rainbow Trout 

Hg ppm 

0.033 

Mercury Concentration - Colorado River in Grand Canyon (E

EPA Benchmark for Human Fish Consumption 

http://www2.epa.gov/fish-tech/fish-tissue-data-collec
Mercury in Grand Canyon Trou

 Summary: 

 Preliminary data indicate relatively low mercury 

from trout in Bright Angel Creek 

 Lower than national average 

 Data shared with Arizona Game and Fish Depa Next Steps: 

 Collect additional BNT and RBT from Colorado 

River/Bright Angel Inflow

E X P E R I E N C E Y O U R
U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

LTEMP Science Plan

Scott VanderKooi

Southwest Biological Science Center

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center
LTEMP Science Plan

 Critical components of the science plan

 Includes monitoring and research of key 

resources

 Adaptive and responsive to science needs and 

learning over 20-year span of LTEMP

 Reconcile science plan with existing 

GCDAMP documents

 GCRMC triennial workplan

 Core monitoring plan
Alternative D: Sediment-Related 

Adjustments to Base Operations

 No fluctuations in Sept, Oct, and Nov after 

HFE sediment trigger reached

 No fluctuation after HFEs in month of HFE

 Proactive spring HFEs prior to equalization 

releases

 Longer duration HFEs – up to 250 hours 
Arrows show 

where scientific 

information 

needed
Alternative D: Aquatic ResourceRelated Adjustments to Operations 

and Non-Flow Actions

 Low summer flows

 Trout control actions

 Trout management flows (TMF)

 Mechanical removal from the LCR reach

 Weekend low flows – “bug flows”

 Non-flow vegetation restoration 
Arrows show 

where scientific 

information 

needed
Alternative D: Other Resources

 Vegetation

 nonnative plant removal

 revegetation with native species

 mitigation at specific and appropriate cultural sites

 Cultural Resources

 Preservation of historic properties through a 

program of research, monitoring, and mitigation

 archeological and ethnographic sites

 National Register historic properties
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NORITA HILWANI,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-73410

Agency No. A096-345-837

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 10, 2013** 

Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

Norita Hilwani, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen

removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

FILED

JUN 13 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-73410

abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder,

597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Hilwani’s motion to reopen

as untimely because the motion was filed over three years after the BIA’s final

decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Hilwani failed to establish materially

changed circumstances in Indonesia to qualify for the regulatory exception to the

time limitations for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi,

597 F.3d at 988-89 (evidence of changed circumstances must be qualitatively

different from what could have been presented at prior hearing).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Exhibit 10.6


SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT


 


 


		TO:	The Directors of Frontier Investment Corp (the “Company”).



 


The undersigned hereby subscribes for 7,187,500
Class B ordinary shares (the “Shares”) of the Company. In consideration for the issue of the Shares, the undersigned hereby
agrees and undertakes to pay $25,000 to the Company.


 


The undersigned agrees to take the Shares subject
to the Memorandum and Articles of Association, as may be amended and restated from time to time, of the Company and authorizes you to
enter the following name and address in the shareholder ledger of the Company:


 


	Name:	Frontier Disruption Capital
	Address:	PO Box 309, Ugland House, 
	 	Grand Cayman, KY1-1104, 
	 	Cayman Islands



 


 


 


The undersigned acknowledges and agrees that up to 937,500 of the Shares
are subject to forfeiture by you if the underwriters of the initial public offering of units of the Company do not fully exercise their
over-allotment option.


 


Frontier Disruption Capital


 


	 	      /s/ Arif Mansuri	 
	Signed:	 	 
	Name:	Arif Mansuri	 
	Title:	Director	 
	 	 	 
	Dated:	24 March, 2021	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	Accepted:	 	 
	 	 	 
	Frontier Investment Corp	 
	 	 	 
	 	      /s/ Arif Mansuri	 
	Signed:	 	 
	Name:	Arif Mansuri	 
	Title:	Director	 
	 	 	 
	Dated:	24 March, 2021
#### Preston D. HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lossie Howard HOPKINS, Operating as the Executrix of a Will Under the Laws of Texas; Sharion Fisher, Attorney operating as an Official of the Court who drafted and probated the applications in their capacity of fraud upon the Court, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-41503

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 3, 2007.

Preston D. Howard, pro se.

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Preston Howard, pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his claims relating to the probate of a will for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm. Howard’s original complaint, filed against Lossie Edward Hopkins, the executrix of the will, and against Sharion Fisher, an attorney involved in the probate of that will, asserted various general allegations that Hopkins and Fisher “conspired and confederated together and fraudulently collected certain monies” from the estate. Howard’s amended complaint, submitted in response to a court order seeking clarification of Howard’s claims, alleged that Hopkins and Fisher “acted under color of law and used the state laws to violate the plaintiffs constitutional rights.” The magistrate judge to whom the case was assigned recommended that Howard’s claim be dismissed, and the district court agreed.

Howard’s complaint was properly dismissed. Hopkins and Fisher are private citizens, not government employees. Although private persons willfully participating with the state act under color of state law, the complaint does not contain facts showing that either Hopkins or Fisher did so. *Sarmiento, D.V.M. v. Tex. Bd. of Vet*
      *413
      *erinary Med. Exam’rs,*939 F.2d 1242, 1245-46, 1248 (5th Cir.1991).

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.




 

# Fourth Court of Appeals

NOTIFICATION OF LATE RECORD

Court of Appeals No., if known: 04

- 15

- 00005

- CV

Trial Court Style: Estate of Jack H. Ikenaga , Sr., Deceased

Trial Court No.: 2011

- PC

- 4330

I am the official responsible for preparing the clerk’s record /reporter’s record [circle one] in the above

referenced appeal. The approximate date of trial was: 19 hearings from April 2014 through January 2015

The record was originally due: March 6, 2015

I anticipate the length of the record to be: 1000+ pages

I am unable to file the record by the date such record is due because [check one]:

the appellant is not entitled to appeal without paying the fee, and the appellant has failed to pay the

fee or make arrangements to pay the fee for preparing such record.

my other duties or activities preclude working on the record and include the following [attach

additional pages if needed]:

** Other

. Explain [attach additional pages if needed]: I did not receive a response to an email sent to

the attorney at the beginning of this week requesting payment in full. I did not know if the record was still

needed. This afternoon the appellant delivered payment. I need to finish proofreading and correcting

the last volumes and also scan the exhibits.

I anticipate the record will be completed by: March 13, 2015

I, as the undersigned court official, certify that a copy of this Notification of Late Record has been served by first class

mail of fax to the parties to the judgment or order being appealed.

Date: March 6, 2015 Signature: /s/ Cheryl D. Hester

Printed

Name: Cheryl D. Hester

Title: Official Court Reporter, Probate Court No. 1

Rev. 1.8.14
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


The Board of Directors
  LCC International, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-17803) on Form S-8 of LCC International, Inc. of our report dated February
9, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of LCC International, Inc.
and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and 1997, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, shareholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1997, and related
schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 1997, annual report on Form
10-K of LCC International, Inc.

                                                   KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Washington, DC
March 27, 1998
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 40522 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JULIO CESAR ARMENDARIZ

- VASQUEZ , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:11

- CR

- 845

- 1

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Julio Cesar Armendariz

- Vasquez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Armendariz

- Vasquez h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal

* Pursuant to 5 TH 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 February 2 1 , 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-40522 Document: 00512539981 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/21/2014No. 13

- 40522
presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. According ly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 13-40522 Document: 00512539981 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/21/2014
# C_2009295EN.01000601.xml

| 4.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5624 — Nokia/SAP/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 295/05

On 26 November 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5624. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5624. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
#### Incorporated Village of Valley Stream, Respondent, v Anthony Leto, Appellant.

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 in which the petitioner sought to confirm an arbitrator’s award and the appellant sought to vacate the award, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.), entered December 20, 1985, which confirmed the award.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant filed a grievance under his collective bargaining agreement when his position as parking field supervisor for the Incorporated Village of Valley Stream was abolished. At an arbitration hearing, the appellant claimed that his seniority rights under the contract and his rights as a veteran under the Civil Service Law had been violated. The arbitrator determinated that the appellant did not have seniority over other employees in the same department and that his position had been abolished in good faith for economic reasons. Since the arbitration award was neither irrational nor violative of any public policy, the decision to confirm the award was proper *(see, Matter of Diaz v Pilgrim State Psychiatric Center, 62*NY2d 693). The appellant failed to present any ground under CPLR 7511 to vacate the award. Niehoff, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>


                                                                    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 Annual Report of Intelligroup, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the annual period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Nagarjun Valluripalli, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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



DATE: March 30, 2004                 By: /s/ Nagarjun Valluripalli
                                         ----------------------------------
                                     Nagarjun Valluripalli
                                     Chairman of the Board, President
                                     and Chief Executive Officer