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

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

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

###### National Institutes of Health

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

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

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel; Mechanism for Time-Sensitive Drug Abuse Research (R21 Clinical Trial Optional).                    

*Date:*                         July 25, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 301 North Stonestreet Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Soyoun Cho, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, 301 North Stonestreet Avenue, MSC, 6021, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-9460,                         *Soyoun.cho@nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.277, Drug Abuse Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, Scientist Development Awards, and Research Scientist Awards; 93.278, Drug Abuse National Research Service Awards for Research Training; 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: June 10, 2022.

Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-12950 Filed 6-15-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Herve WILMORE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-8248.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 26, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Anthony WHEELER, Petitioner v. Ron NEAL, Superintendent, Indiana State Prison

No. 19-6817

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 27, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
STEVEN JOHN PORKOLAB,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-5251

_____________________________/

Opinion filed February 9, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Suwannee County.

David W. Fina, Judge.

Steven John Porkolab, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Charles R. McCoy, Senior Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, SWANSON, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
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).

KN/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VARDAN ADAMYAN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 06-75169

Agency No. A075-701-063

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 16, 2010** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Vardan Adamyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions pro se for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,

FILED

FEB 24 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
KN/Research 2 06-75169

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial

evidence factual findings, Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741 (9th Cir. 2007), and

we review de novo constitutional claims, Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1274-

75 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that there were material

inconsistencies and omissions between Adamyan’s testimony and asylum

application regarding when, why, and where the police arrested him. See Li v.

Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004) (“An adverse credibility ruling will be

upheld so long as identified inconsistencies go to the heart of [the] asylum claim.”)

(citation and internal quotation omitted); Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245,

1254 (9th Cir. 2003). In the absence of credible testimony, Adamyan failed to

establish he is eligible for asylum or withholding of removal. See Farah v.

Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Adamyan failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be tortured in

Armenia. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Finally, we deny Adamyan’s due process contention because he failed to

demonstrate prejudice in the IJ’s handling of the hearing. See Ortiz v. INS, 179
KN/Research 3 06-75169

F.3d 1148, 1153, (9th Cir. 1999) (due process challenges require a showing of

prejudice to succeed). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
---

Exhibit: 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Global Wide Publications Ltd., (the "Company")
  on 10QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
  and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, **Robert
  Hoegler**, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
  to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
  Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

| | 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 result of operations
      of the Company.

|Date: May 14, 2004. |                        
|------------------- | -----------------------
|                    |                        
|                    | /s/Robert Hoegler      
|                    | Robert Hoegler         
|                    |                        
|                    | Chief Executive Officer
|                    | (Title)                

---
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1218 

To prohibit the payment of surcharges for commemorative coin programs 

to private organizations or entities, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 15, 2013 

Mr. AMASH (for himself, Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina, Mr. LAMALFA, and 

Mr. MASSIE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To prohibit the payment of surcharges for commemorative 

coin programs to private organizations or entities, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Commemorative Coins 

5 Reform Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON PAYMENT OF SURCHARGES TO 

7 NON-FEDERAL ENTITIES. 

8 Section 5134(f) of title 31, United States Code, is 

9 amended to read as follows: 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1218 IH

1 ‘‘(f) PROHIBITION ON PAYMENT OF SURCHARGES TO

2 ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERN3 MENT.— 

4 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other 

5 provision of law, no surcharges collected with respect 

6 to the sale of any numismatic item may be paid to 

7 any organization outside of the Federal Government, 

8 other than with respect to the costs of producing 

9 and selling such item. 

10 ‘‘(2) PAYMENT OF COSTS.—Surcharges col11 lected in connection with the sale of any numismatic 

12 item shall be used to recover all numismatic oper13 ation and program costs allocable to the program 

14 under which such numismatic item is produced and 

15 sold. 

16 ‘‘(3) EXCESS DEPOSITED INTO TREASURY.— 

17 Amounts of surcharges collected in excess of the 

18 amounts described in paragraph (2) shall be trans19 ferred by the Fund to the general fund of the Treas20 ury for the purpose of deficit reduction.’’. 

21 SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY. 

22 Subsection (f) of section 5134, United States Code, 

23 as amended by this Act, shall apply with respect to any 

24 commemorative coin program established or numismatic 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1218 IH

1 item produced pursuant to an Act enacted on or after the 

2 date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
10f-3 REPORT

SALOMON BROTHERS SMALL CAP GROWTH FUND
April 1, 2000 through June 30, 2000


                    Trade                                   % of
Issuer              Date    Selling Dealer   Amount  Price  Issue(1)

Uticom               4/5/00 Lehman Brothers  $27,300 $13.00 0.11A
US Unwired          5/18/00 DLJ              271,700  11.00 0.31B
Centillium
 Communications     5/23/00 First Boston       5,700  19.00 0.01C
Charles River       6/23/00 DLJ               32,000  16.00 0.04D
Manufacturers Serv. 6/23/00 DLJ               32,000  16.00 0.04E
Capstone Turbine    6/29/00 Goldman Sachs     59,200  16.00 0.10F
Genuity             6/29/00 Morgan Stanley 2,063,600  11.00 0.15G
Mobile Telesystem   6/30/00 Deutsche Banc     32,250  22.00 0.03H
Netease             6/30/00 Merrill Lynch     17,050  16.00 0.06I


(1) Represents purchases by all affiliated funds; may not exceed
25% of the offering.

A - A total of 4,800 shares was purchased by funds in the Salomon
Brothers complex for an aggregate purchase price of $62,400.
B - A total of 25,000 shares was purchased by funds in the Salomon
Brothers complex for an aggregate purchase price of $275,000.
C - A total of 500 shares was purchased by funds in the Salomon
Brothers complex for an aggregate purchase price of $9,500.
D - A total of 4,800 shares was purchased by funds in the Salomon
Brothers complex for an aggregate purchase price of $76,800.
E - A total of 4,700 shares was purchased by funds in the Salomon
Brothers complex for an aggregate purchase price of $75,200.
F - A total of 9,200 shares was purchased by funds in the Salomon
Brothers complex for an aggregate purchase price of $147,200.
G - A total of 260,600 shares was purchased by funds in the Salomon
Brothers complex for an aggregate purchase price of $2,866,600.
H - A total of 3,700 shares was purchased by funds in the Salomon
Brothers complex for an aggregate purchase price of $79,550.
I - A total of 2,700 shares was purchased by funds in the Salomon
Brothers complex for an aggregate purchase price of $41,850.
Jeryme MORGAN, Petitioner v. Minh SCHOTT, et al.

No. 19-47

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32.2

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 of Alesco Financial Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John J. Longino, Chief Financial 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:

(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.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ John L. Longino    
|John L. Longino        
|Chief Financial Officer

November 3, 2006
# C_2018398EN.01000101.xml

| 5.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8957 — Silver Lake/ZPG)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 398/01)

On 29 June 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). 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/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8957. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8957. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
Word Mark                  BANK EYES ONLY
Owner Name                (Registrant) Hughes, Thomas S.
Owner Address              31310 Eagle Haven Cir. Ste. 100
                           Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275;
                           individual; United States

Attorney of Record         Lee W. Tower

Serial Number              76-000166

Registration Number

Filing Date                03/15/2000

Registration Date

Section 1(B) indicator     Section 1(b)

Mark Drawing Code         (1) Typed Drawing

Register

Published for Opposition

Type of Mark               Trademark

International Class        36

Goods and Services         Computer software and services for electronic
                           purchases by consumers; computer software for
                           electronic payment by consumers.
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2018425EN.01002001.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 26.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 425/20 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9123 — ADM/Neovia)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 425/11)

1.

On 16 November 2018, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2018425EN.01002001-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Archer Daniels Midland group (‘ADM’, USA), via its wholly-owned subsidiary ADM France, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Neovia (France). |

ADM acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Neovia.

The concentration is accomplished by way of a purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—   for ADM: processing of oilseeds, corn, sugar, wheat and other agricultural commodities and in the manufacture of vegetable oils and fats, vegetable protein, meal, corn, sweeteners, flour, biodiesel, ethanol, and other value added food and feed ingredients and additives,

—   for Neovia: production and marketing of a wide range of animal nutrition products for the feed industry, operating in business lines including premix and value-added services, pet food, additives and supplements, aquaculture and complete feed.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2018425EN.01002001-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.9123 — ADM/Neovia

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

| |
| --- |
| Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu |
| Fax +32 22964301 |
| Postal address: |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2018425EN.01002001-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2018425EN.01002001-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
Thomas S. BELL, Petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA.

No. 19-622

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 21, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District denied.
Exhibit 32.1

WRITTEN STATEMENT

OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

The undersigned hereby certify that the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 filed by TNS, Inc. with the Securities and
Exchange Commission fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer.

|Dated: August 10, 2004                                                               |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 
|/s/JOHN J. MCDONNELL, JR.John J. McDonnell, Jr.
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |  | 
|Dated: August 10, 2004                                                               |  | 
|/s/HENRY H. GRAHAM, JR.Henry H. Graham, Jr.
Chief Financial Officer                  |  | 

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 26, 2019

s1118

Order 

Clerk

November 26, 2019

158824

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 158824

COA: 337999

Jackson CC: 15-000816-FC

TROY DESEAN JOHNSON,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

By order of April 2, 2019, the application for leave to appeal the October 16, 2018 

judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decisions in People v 

Beck (Docket No. 152934) and People v Dixon-Bey (Docket No. 156746). On order of 

the Court, Beck having been decided on July 29, 2019, 504 Mich ___ (2019), and leave to 

appeal having been denied in Dixon-Bey on July 29, 2019, 504 Mich ___ (2019), the 

application is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the 

question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Joshua Neil HARRELL, Petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 18-9142.

Supreme Court of the United States.

Oct. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6923

In Re: HARVEY P. SHORT,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(CA-00-612-3-MU-2, CA-01-184-3-MU-2)

Submitted: September 18, 2001 Decided: October 23, 2001

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harvey P. Short, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Harvey P. Short filed this mandamus petition challenging the

district court’s denial of relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West

Supp. 2001) complaint. Where there is another available remedy,

mandamus relief is not available. In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826

(4th Cir. 1987). Mandamus relief is not a substitute for appeal.

In re United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979).

Short could have challenged the denial of relief on his § 1983

action by filing an appeal. Accordingly, we deny his petition for

mandamus. 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.

PETITION DENIED