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

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 178 (Friday, September 17, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 51904]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20111]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; Notice of 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Office of AIDS 
Research Advisory Council.
    The meeting will be open to the public via NIH Videocast. The URL 
link to this meeting is https://videocast.nih.gov/watch=42661. 
Individuals who need special assistance or reasonable accommodations 
should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the 
meeting.

    Name of Committee: Office of AIDS Research Advisory Council.
    Date: October 28, 2021.
    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
    Agenda: The fifty-eighth meeting of the Office of AIDS Research 
Advisory Council (OARAC) will include the OAR Director's Report; 
updates from the HIV Clinical Guidelines Working Groups of OARAC; 
updates from NIH HIV-related advisory councils; special invited 
presentations and discussions on interagency collaboration and 
strategic planning; and public comment.
    Place: Office of AIDS Research, National Institutes of Health, 
5601 Fishers Lane, Room 2E61, Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Mary T. Glenshaw, Ph.D., M.P.H., Office of AIDS 
Research, Office of the Director, NIH, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 2E61, 
Rockville, MD 20852, 240-669-2958, [email protected].

    Any interested person may file written comments with the 
committee within 15 days of the meeting by forwarding the statement 
to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should 
include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the 
business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home 
page: www.oar.nih.gov, where an agenda and any additional 
information for the meeting will be posted when available.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.14, 
Intramural Research Training Award; 93.22, Clinical Research Loan 
Repayment Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged Backgrounds; 
93.232, Loan Repayment Program for Research Generally; 93.39, 
Academic Research Enhancement Award; 93.936, NIH Acquired 
Immunodeficiency Syndrome Research Loan Repayment Program; 93.187, 
Undergraduate Scholarship Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged 
Backgrounds, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 13, 2021.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-20111 Filed 9-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM UNIVISION
COMMUNICATION INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS AND BALANCE SHEET AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          12,966
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  126,487
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,079
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               153,991
<PP&E>                                         201,484
<DEPRECIATION>                                  56,988
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 938,329
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          152,891
<BONDS>                                        377,435
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            9,090
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           909
<OTHER-SE>                                     393,739
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   938,329
<SALES>                                        577,053
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               577,053
<CGS>                                          220,918
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  220,918
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   648
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              35,830
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 50,275
<INCOME-TAX>                                    40,348
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,927
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,927
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09
        

</TABLE>
#### James H. FRYE, Claimant-Appellant, v. R. James NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2006-7373.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 28, 2007.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of James H. Frye’s unopposed motion to dismiss his appeal,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted.

(2) All sides shall bear their own costs.
GALISTEO CREEK BELOW GALISTEO DAM, NMLatitude: 35.465Longitude: -106.213Elevation: 5474

GALISTEO CREEK BELOW GALISTEO DAM, NM

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
[872 NE2d 231, 840 NYS2d 545]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alfonso Dukes, Appellant.

Argued March 28, 2007;

decided May 1, 2007

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Mitch Kessler,*Cohoes, for appellant.

*Robert M. Carney, District Attorney,*Schenectady *(Alfred D. Chapleau*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should be reversed and a new trial ordered.

*953We agree with defendant’s contention that County Court improperly dismissed a sworn juror over his objection. Pursuant to CPL 270.35 (1), a court may not dismiss a sworn juror unless it has determined that he or she is “grossly unqualified to serve in the case” — that is, only “ ‘when it becomes obvious that a particular juror possesses a state of mind which would prevent the rendering of an impartial verdict’ ” *(People v Buford,*69 NY2d 290, 298 [1987]). We underscore once again that, in reaching this determination, the trial court, after a probing and tactful inquiry of each allegedly unqualified juror,

> “should carefully consider the juror’s answers and demeanor to ascertain whether her state of mind will affect her deliberations. The trial court’s reasons for its ruling should be placed on the record. In concluding that a juror is grossly unqualified, the court may not speculate as to possible partiality of the juror based on her equivocal responses. Instead, it must be convinced that the juror’s knowledge will prevent her from rendering an impartial verdict” (id. at 299).

Here, County Court failed to abide by this standard. After complainant testified at trial, juror number three informed the court that she and complainant may have worked in the same nursing center and, although she was unsure, she had some recollection that he was fired for an incident involving a gun. She told the court and counsel, however, she was “100 percent sure” she could remain impartial and would not allow this information to influence her decision because she “didn’t know [complainant] very well and [she] wasn’t involved in the incident that happened.” She also stated that she would not mention this to the other jurors.

Despite these assurances, the People sought the juror’s removal. Over defendant’s objection, the court dismissed the juror in favor of an alternate, reasoning that, although she honestly meant that she would be able to remain impartial, at worst “what I’m doing is substituting one qualified juror for another qualified juror.” On this record, the juror’s dismissal was improper, and thus defendant is entitled to a new trial. The court failed to determine that juror number three was grossly unqualified — or indeed, unqualified at all.

*954Defendant’s contention that his conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence is without merit. In light of the relief ordered, we do not reach his remaining contentions.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, etc.
# C_2021006EN.01001001.xml

| 8.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/10

---

Withdrawal of notification of a concentration

(Case M.10083 — China Baowu/Taiyuan Iron & Steel Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 6/08)

On 30 November 2020, the European Commission received notification (1) of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) (‘Merger Regulation’).

On 23 December 2020, the notifying party informed the Commission that it withdrew its notification.

---

(1)  OJ C 424, 8.12.2020, p. 36.

(2)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
EXHIBIT 31.1
 
 CERTIFICATIONS
 I, Leonard Firestone, certify that:
 
 1.

I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Manhattan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Registrant);2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.

The Registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrants internal control over financial reporting; and5.

The Registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the audit committee of the Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 
 
 Date:  August 16, 2004


/s/ Leonard FirestoneLeonard FirestonePresident and Chief Executive Officer
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 18

- 00170

- CV
Jorge Alberto Rodriguez v. Lizzette S. Rodriguez

On Appeal from the 389th District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Cause No. F

- 5500

- 15

- H

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considere d this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant. We further order this decision certified below for o bservance. July 25, 2019
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-15-0000522 30-NOV-2016 09:32 AM
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FRANCISCO J. GONZALEZ, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, Former Maricopa 

County Sheriff; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-16801 

D.C. No. 2:17-cv-04173-ROS-ESW 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 15, 2019**

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. 

Former pretrial detainee Francisco J. Gonzalez appeals pro se from the 

district court’s August 8, 2018 and September 5, 2018 orders denying

reconsideration of the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action 

alleging constitutional violations arising out of his detention. We have jurisdiction 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

OCT 22 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-16801 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 

Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We 

affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Gonzalez’s motions

for reconsideration because Gonzalez failed to establish any basis for such relief. 

See id. at 1262-63 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

59(e) and 60(b)); see also Maxwell v. County of San Diego, 708 F.3d 1075, 1097 

(9th Cir. 2013) (“[T]here is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983.”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
#### AMERICAN GROCERY CO. v. HEVENOR et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, F'rst Department.

June, 1896.)

Action by the American Grocery Company against Roberts A. Ilevenor and others.

No opinion. Motion denied upon payment of $10 costs. See 39 N. Y. Supp. 153.
EXHIBIT
32.1







PERICOM
SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION








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 this quarterly report of Pericom Semiconductor Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 27, 2010 (the
“Report”), I, Alex C. Hui, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63,
Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my
knowledge:


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


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







May
      6, 2010By:
              /s/ Alex
      C. HuiAlex
      C. HuiChief
      Executive OfficerPericom
      Semiconductor Corporation




48
#### Kulwinder KAUR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-77219.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 16, 2007.*

Filed April 20, 2007.

*760Kulwinder Kaur, San Jose, CA, pro se.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District, Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Michael Jack Haney, U.S. Department of Justice c/o Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., Dallas, TX, for Respondent.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Kulwinder Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision that affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *Li v. Ashcroft,*378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility finding because Kaur’s testimony was inconsistent with supporting documentation regarding the injuries she sustained during her May 1996 detention. *See id.*In addition, Kaur showed a general lack of knowledge regarding Sikh political events, such as “Operation Blue Star” and the February 1992 elections. *See Singh v. Ashcroft,*367 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir.2004).

Because Kaur failed to satisfy the lower standard of proof for asylum, it necessarily follows that she failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Kaur’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony that the BIA found not credible. Because she points to no other evidence that the BIA should have considered in making its CAT determination, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief. *See id.*at 1157.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Jerry L. HENRY, Sergeant, U.S. Air Force, Appellant.

No. 30,492.

U. S. Court of Military Appeals.

Aug. 29, 1975.

*Colonel William E. Gordingly*and *Major Bruce R. Houston*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel C. F. Bennett*and *Captain Alvin E. Schlechter*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

The appellant stands convicted by general court-martial before members of assault *156with the intent to commit voluntary manslaughter in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 934.1 We granted review to determine whether the military judge’s instructions to the court on that offense were prejudicially erroneous.

When setting forth the various elements of assault with intent to commit voluntary manslaughter, including the necessity to find that the appellant intended to commit voluntary manslaughter, the military judge defined voluntary manslaughter in a manner which allowed the court to find the appellant guilty if he intended either to kill the victim or to inflict great bodily harm. This instruction was erroneous because only an intent to kill will suffice. *United States*v. *Pitts,*12 U.S.C.M.A. 634, 31 C.M.R. 220 (1962). *See United States*v. *Malone,*4 U.S.C.M.A. 471, 16 C.M.R. 45 (1954).

The decision of the United States Air Force Court of Military Review is reversed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force. A rehearing may be ordered.

1

. The appellant was charged with an assault with the intent to commit murder but was found guilty of only the lesser included offense.
CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO
 THE
        SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 CHIEF
        EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 
 
 I,
        Gary
        Herman, certify that:
 
 In
        connection with the Annual Report of Digital Creative Development Corporation
        (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending June 30, 2007 (the
“Report”), the undersigned officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18
        U.S.C. Section 1340, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
        Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:
 
 (1) The
        Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.
  
 Date:
        October 16, 2007
 /s/
        Gary
        Herman
 
 Gary
        Herman
 President
UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW• Suite 1150 • Washington, DC 20425 www.usccr.gov

September 27, 2023

MEMORANDUM FOR: COMMISSIONERS

STAFF ASSISTANTS

FROM: MAURO MORALES

STAFF DIRECTOR

SUBJECT: 2024 BUSINESS MEETING CALENDAR

Listed below are Commission Business meeting dates for the 2024 calendar year:

Friday, January 19

Friday, February 23

Friday, March 8

Friday, April 19

Friday, May 17

Friday, June 21

Friday, July 19

Friday, August 16

Friday, September 20

Friday, October 18

Friday, November 15

Friday, December 13
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-Q of IDX Systems
Corporation (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, James H. Crook, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
and John A. Kane, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



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



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



|                  |  |                                                                                                   
|----------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 3, 2005 |  | /s/ JAMES H. CROOK, JR.                                                                           
|                  |  | James H. Crook, Jr. Chief Executive
Officer                                                       
|                  | 
|Date: May 3, 2005 |  | /s/ JOHN A. KANE                                                                                  
|                  |  | John A. Kane Sr. Vice President, Finance and
Administration, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer