alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 7, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 50139]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19354]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and 
Human Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    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 Child Health and Human 
Development Initial Review Group; Function, Integration, and 
Rehabilitation Sciences Study Section.
    Date: October 22, 2021.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health 
and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, 6710B 
Rockledge Drive, Room 2137D, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Video-Assisted 
Meeting).
    Contact Person: Helen Huang, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Branch, Eunice Kennedy Shriver Institute of Child 
Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, 6710B 
Rockledge Drive, Room 2137D, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-8207, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#325a575e575c1c5a47535c55725c5b5a1c555d44"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="87efe2ebe2e9a9eff2e6e9e0c7e9eeefa9e0e8f1">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 2, 2021.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-19354 Filed 9-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT                  As adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 of Integrated BioPharma, Inc. (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Dina L. Masi, the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Integrated BioPharma, Inc. (the "Company"), certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley        Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to her knowledge:         

|  | (1)      | the Report 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 |
|--|-----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 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 Section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.                 A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.         

Dated:      October 14, 2008

                                                                                        By: /s/ Dina        L. Masi                                                                                        Dina L. Masi

                                                                                        Senior Vice        President and Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeffrey De Palo, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Martin, J.), rendered January 18, 1985, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and grand larceny in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The evidence against the defendant included proof that he had made a complete, uncoerced and voluntary confession of his participation in the crimes charged. In addition to this full confession, the defendant was also shown to have made several spontaneous inculpatory statements to the police before *327his arrest. The defendant’s guilt was further established by the testimony of the two police witnesses who fortuitously overheard the defendant discussing the crime with a codefendant while they were in police custody. We therefore see no merit to the defendant’s claim that guilt was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Harold, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lombardo, J.), rendered November 26, 1984, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court allowed certain hearsay statements into evidence, "apparently as admissions by silence, because the defendant was present when the statements were made” *(People v Rhodes,*96 AD2d 565, 566). However, "[d]eclarations or statements made in the presence of a party * * * are only competent [evidence] when the person affected hears and fully comprehends the effect of the words spoken and when he is at full liberty to make answer thereto, and then only under such circumstances as would justify the inference of assent or acquiescence as to the truth of the statement by his remaining silent” *(People v Kennedy,*164 NY 449, 457; *see, People v Allen,*300 NY 222, 225). The record does not support a finding that the challenged hearsay statements fall within this rule in that the statements were either made while the defendant was in police custody *(see, People v Rutigliano,*261 NY 103, 107), or they were of such a nature that there would be no reason for the defendant to necessarily reply to the statements. We note that contrary to the People’s contentions on appeal, the prosecutor did not seek to have any of the statements admitted as excited utterances nor were they introduced solely because they were made and not for the truth of the matter within the statements. Thus, the trial court erred in admitting the hearsay statements in question.

However, we find that the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, including the testimony of two eyewitnesses who identified the defendant as the person who stabbed the first victim and two other eyewitnesses who identified the defendant as the person who stabbed the second victim, all of whom either knew or had previously seen the *492defendant in the community *(see, People v Almestica,*42 NY2d 222; *People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230; *People v Rhodes, supra).*

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Chavez, Appellant.

[945 NYS2d 571]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Weber, J.), rendered February 14, 2011, convicting him of robbery in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

*776Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by the defendant’s assigned counsel pursuant to *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), and, upon an independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is, therefore, granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.],*89 AD3d 252 [2011]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Belen and Austin, JJ., concur.
Case 6:16-cr-00129-MC Document 19 Filed 10/10/16 Page 1 of 9
Case 6:16-cr-00129-MC Document 19 Filed 10/10/16 Page 2 of 9
Case 6:16-cr-00129-MC Document 19 Filed 10/10/16 Page 3 of 9
Case 6:16-cr-00129-MC Document 19 Filed 10/10/16 Page 4 of 9
Case 6:16-cr-00129-MC Document 19 Filed 10/10/16 Page 5 of 9
Case 6:16-cr-00129-MC Document 19 Filed 10/10/16 Page 6 of 9
Case 6:16-cr-00129-MC Document 19 Filed 10/10/16 Page 7 of 9
Case 6:16-cr-00129-MC Document 19 Filed 10/10/16 Page 8 of 9
Case 6:16-cr-00129-MC Document 19 Filed 10/10/16 Page 9 of 9
1 Note: District Court order of dismissal not available electronically.* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,

and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfav ors the citation of orders and judgments; neverthel ess, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condition s of the court's General Order filed November 29, 1 993. 10th Cir. 36.3.
2 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 3/25/96 TENTH CIRCUIT JASON AARON SIMMONS, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) v. ) No. 95-1440 ) (D.C. No. 95-S-1818) PHILIP BEINVENU, STAN KIMBLE, ) (D. Colorado) CLEVELAND HOLMES, LEROY L. YOWELL, ) JUDGE ARREN, JUDGE NIESCHBURG, ) JUDGE STEWART, MICHAEL GUVARA, ) WILLIAM SYLVESTER, DENNIS HOUNON, ) IVAN DEW, ) ) Defendants-Appellees. )
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY, EBEL and HENRY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of t his appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Mr. Simmons, a state inmate and a pro se litigator, commence d this action against three state3

court judges, the district attorney, a sheriff in his capacity as a witness, his two court-appointed attorneys, his court-appointed investigator, a department of correct ions investigator, again in his capacity as a witness, and two probation officers. The distr ict court, in a thorough thirteen-page “Order of Dismissal,” dismissed the complaint for a variety of reasons including the fact the civil rights claims asserted were frivolous and the claims const rued as habeas corpus claims were unexhausted.

Mr. Simmons appeals the Order of Dismissal, pro se, asserting , inter alia, claims of double jeopardy and malicious prosecution. Mr. Simmons does not tell us why the actions of the district court were legally or factually incorrect; rather he asser ts the Bill of Rights is not frivolous and argues the district court did not actually apply any law. He c harges the district court “totally ignored the constitution” and “totally ignored each and every fact.” He asks this court “to order Default Judgement against the Plaintiffs and order them to pay me the mone y that I'm due.” He concludes by informing us “I am pro se and mentally disabled and have been since 1991.”

We have reviewed the record on appeal and carefully considered M r. Simmons’ brief and arguments. He has failed to convince us the district court erred in dismissing his com plaint.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED for substantially the same reasons set forth in the Order of Dismissal entered by the district court, a copy thereof being attac hed. Entered for the Court: WADE BRORBY4 United States Circuit Judge
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7027
FRANKLIN DELYNN MEADERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RANDALL LEE; J. BOYD BENNETT; THEODIS BECK; JANE DOE; MR. WHITE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-880-5-CT-H) Submitted: October 14, 2004 Decided: October 21, 2004 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Franklin Delynn Meaders, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Franklin Delynn Meaders appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Meaders v. Lee , No. CA-03-880-5-CT-H (E.D.N.C. May 3, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
LONE PINE CANAL BELOW GREAT CUT DIKE NEAR DOLORESLatitude: 37.512Longitude: -108.59Elevation: None

LONE PINE CANAL BELOW GREAT CUT DIKE NEAR DOLORES
Exhibit 32.1 Certification by the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  In connection with the Annual Report of Entheos Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on the Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Harmel S. Rayat, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (i) the Report filed by the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii) The information contained in that Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company on the dates and for the periods presented therein.  ENTHEOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.Date:  March 30, 2007By:/s/ Harmel S. RayatHarmel S. Rayat
President and Chief Executive Officer  This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           3,873
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,114
<ALLOWANCES>                                       516
<INVENTORY>                                     21,857
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,848
<PP&E>                                          32,348
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,879
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  64,661
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,372
<BONDS>                                          4,069
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            55
<OTHER-SE>                                      52,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    64,661
<SALES>                                         27,758
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,758
<CGS>                                           18,988
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,696
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    78
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 154
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,156
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (328)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                828
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       828
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15


</TABLE>
PECOS RIVER BELOW DARK CANYON AT CARLSBAD, NMLatitude: 32.409Longitude: -104.215Elevation: 3080

PECOS RIVER BELOW DARK CANYON AT CARLSBAD, NM

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Sierra Blanca Site Page...



Sierra Blanca

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Adams Ranch #1 Site Page...



Adams Ranch #1

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Wesner Springs Site Page...



Wesner Springs

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Elk Cabin Site Page...



Elk Cabin

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Santa Fe Site Page...



Santa Fe
ROCK CREEK ABOVE SOUTH FORK NEAR HANNA, UTAHLatitude: 40.557Longitude: -110.698Elevation: 7979

ROCK CREEK ABOVE SOUTH FORK NEAR HANNA, UTAH

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Brown Duck Site Page...



Brown Duck

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Lakefork Basin Site Page...



Lakefork Basin

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Rock Creek Site Page...



Rock Creek
#### John Prozeralik, Respondent, v Capital Cities Communications, Inc., Appellant.

*1034To insure the orderly progress of the deposition, it should be supervised in accordance with CPLR 3104 (a). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Gossel, J. — discovery.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Green, Pine, Balio and Lawton, J.
YAMPA RIVER AT DEERLODGE PARK, COLORADOLatitude: 40.452Longitude: -108.524Elevation: 5597

YAMPA RIVER AT DEERLODGE PARK, COLORADO

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Sage Creek Basin Site Page...



Sage Creek Basin

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Zirkel Site Page...



Zirkel

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Little Snake River Site Page...



Little Snake River

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Bear River Site Page...



Bear River

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Elkhead Divide Site Page...



Elkhead Divide

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Battle Mountain Site Page...



Battle Mountain

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Columbine Site Page...



Columbine

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Crosho Site Page...



Crosho

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Divide Peak Site Page...



Divide Peak

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Dry Lake Site Page...



Dry Lake

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Elk River Site Page...



Elk River

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Lynx Pass Site Page...



Lynx Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Old Battle Site Page...



Old Battle

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Rabbit Ears Site Page...



Rabbit Ears

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Ripple Creek Site Page...



Ripple Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Sandstone RS Site Page...



Sandstone RS

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Tower Site Page...



Tower

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Webber Springs Site Page...



Webber Springs

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Whiskey Park Site Page...



Whiskey Park

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Buffalo Park Site Page...



Buffalo Park

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Lost Dog Site Page...



Lost Dog
. .. ' 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

DA YID ERIC ROACH, Civil No. 3:15-CV-02434-MC 

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER FOR REMAND 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

Based on the stipulation of the parties it is hereby ORDERED that the above- captioned 

case be reversed and remanded, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further 

administrative proceedings, including the following actions: 

• The ALJ will conduct a new hearing, further develop the record as needed, and issue a new 

decision; 

• The ALJ will reevaluate the medical evidence or record; 

• The ALJ will reevaluate Plaintiff's credibility pursuant to SSR 16-3p; 

• The ALJ will reevaluate Plaintiff's RFC and; 

• The ALJ will reevaluate steps four and five of the sequential evaluation process with the 

assistance of a vocational expert, as necessary. 

Upon proper presentation, this Court will consider Plaintiff's application for costs and 

attorney's fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). 

IT IS SO ORDERED this J.fh day of __ O_c...._,_~ ____ , 2016. 

\.__ __ l 

UNITED STA TES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Page 1 ORDER - [3: l 5-CV-02434-MC] 

Case 3:15-cv-02434-MC Document 25 Filed 12/09/16 Page 1 of 1
# L_2012342DE.01004801.xml

| 14.12.2012 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 342/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2012

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 342/48

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1122/2009 der Kommission vom 30. November 2009 mit Durchführungsbestimmungen zur Verordnung (EG) Nr. 73/2009 des Rates hinsichtlich der Einhaltung anderweitiger Verpflichtungen, der Modulation und des integrierten Verwaltungs- und Kontrollsystems im Rahmen der Stützungsregelungen für Inhaber landwirtschaftlicher Betriebe gemäß der genannten Verordnung und mit Durchführungsbestimmungen zur Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1234/2007 hinsichtlich der Einhaltung anderweitiger Verpflichtungen im Rahmen der Stützungsregelung für den Weinsektor

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 316 vom 2. Dezember 2009
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 316 vom 2. Dezember 2009

Auf Seite 68, Erwägungsgrund 44 zweiter Satz:

anstatt:

„In dem Bemühen um Vereinfachung sollte jedoch zugelassen werden, dass die tatsächliche Parzellenbesichtigung auf eine Stichprobe von 50 % der Parzellen begrenzt ist.“

muss es heißen:

„In dem Bemühen um Vereinfachung sollte jedoch zugelassen werden, dass die tatsächliche Bestimmung der Parzellengröße auf eine Stichprobe von 50 % der Parzellen begrenzt ist.“

Auf Seite 87, Artikel 33 Absatz 1 zweiter und dritter Satz:

anstatt:

„Die tatsächliche Feldbesichtigung im Rahmen einer Vor-Ort-Kontrolle kann jedoch auf eine Stichprobe von mindestens 50 % der landwirtschaftlichen Parzellen begrenzt werden, für die Anträge im Rahmen der Beihilferegelungen gemäß den Titeln III, IV und V der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 73/2009 gestellt wurden, sofern die Stichprobe ein verlässliches und repräsentatives Kontrollniveau sowohl in Bezug auf die kontrollierte Fläche als auch in Bezug auf die beantragte Beihilfe gewährleistet. Ergibt die Stichprobenkontrolle Anomalien, so wird die Stichprobe der tatsächlich besichtigten landwirtschaftlichen Parzellen ausgeweitet.“

muss es heißen:

„Die tatsächliche Bestimmung der Flächengröße im Rahmen einer Vor-Ort-Kontrolle kann jedoch auf eine Stichprobe von mindestens 50 % der landwirtschaftlichen Parzellen begrenzt werden, für die Anträge im Rahmen der Beihilferegelungen gemäß den Titeln III, IV und V der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 73/2009 gestellt wurden, sofern die Stichprobe ein verlässliches und repräsentatives Kontrollniveau sowohl in Bezug auf die kontrollierte Fläche als auch in Bezug auf die beantragte Beihilfe gewährleistet. Ergibt die Stichprobenkontrolle Anomalien, so wird die Stichprobe der tatsächlich größenkontrollierten landwirtschaftlichen Parzellen ausgeweitet.“

---