alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 20 (Tuesday, February 1, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5190-5191]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-1843]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting of the National Advisory Council on Minority Health and Health 
Disparities.
    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with 
accordance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend 
and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or 
other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person 
listed below in advance of the 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 Advisory Council on Minority Health 
and Health Disparities.
    Date: February 23, 2005.
    Open: 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: The Agenda will include Opening Remarks, Administrative 
Matters, Director's Report, NCMHD, Advisory Council Subcommittee 
Reports, NIH IC Health Disparities Update, Program Highlights: 
Select NCMHD Grantees, and other business of the Council.
    Place: Double Tree Rockville, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 
20852.
    Closed: 4 p.m to 6 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

[[Page 5191]]

    Place: Double Tree Rockville, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 
20852.
    Contact Person: Lisa Evans, JD, Senior Advisor for Policy, 
National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities, 6707 
Democracy Blvd., Suite 800, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-1366, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#593c2f38372a3519373a34313d77373031773e362f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2b4e5d4a4558476b454846434f05454243054c445d">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Any interested person may file written comments with the 
committee 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.

    Dated: January 26, 2005.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-1843 Filed 1-31-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2198

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

James E. Caldwell, also known as “P”, *

also known as Pencil, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 14, 2008

Filed: August 27, 2008

___________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

James Caldwell pleaded guilty to four counts of distributing “crack” cocaine,

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B), and was sentenced to 100 months

in prison, which was the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range. On appeal we

affirmed, rejecting Caldwell’s argument that the sentence was unreasonable because

the district court erroneously concluded that it lacked discretion to vary below the

advisory Guidelines range based on the sentencing differential between crack and

powder cocaine offenses. The United States Supreme Court vacated our judgment and

remanded for further consideration in light of Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct.

558 (2007).
-2-

We review the sentence for reasonableness, first ensuring that the district court

did not commit a significant procedural error. See United States v. Kowal, 527 F.3d

741, 747 (8th Cir. 2008). Kimbrough instructs that a district court may consider the

crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity in determining whether a withinGuidelines sentence is appropriate. See 128 S. Ct. at 564, 575. Consequently, it was

a significant procedural error for the district court to conclude it lacked such

discretion. See United States v. Tabor, 531 F.3d 688, 692 (8th Cir. 2008) (significant

procedural error occurs if district court fails to understand scope of its authority and

discretion at sentencing). This error was not harmless because it is not clear from the

sentencing record whether the court would have varied downward based on the

crack/powder cocaine disparity if it had known it could do so. See id. (error is

harmless only if appeals court is convinced that error did not affect district court’s

sentencing conclusion); see also United States v. Thomas, 524 F.3d 855, 860 (8th Cir.

2008) (remanding for resentencing because it was unclear from sentencing record

whether district court would have granted defendant’s request for downward variance

based on crack/powder cocaine disparity if it had known it could so).

Accordingly, we vacate Caldwell’s sentence and remand for resentencing in

accordance with this opinion.

______________________________
II 

Calendar No. 556 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 550 

[Report No. 110–256] 

To preserve existing judgeships on the Superior Court of the District of 

Columbia. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2007 

Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. VOINOVICH, and Mr. LIEBERMAN) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

JANUARY 8, 2008 

Reported under authority of the order of the Senate of December 19, 2007, 

by Mr. LIEBERMAN, without amendment 

A BILL 

To preserve existing judgeships on the Superior Court of 

the District of Columbia. 

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


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•S 550 RS

1 SECTION 1. COMPOSITION OF SUPERIOR COURT. 

2 Section 903 of title 11 of the District of Columbia 

3 Code is amended by striking ‘‘fifty-eight’’ and inserting 

4 ‘‘61’’. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS

hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
Calendar No. 556 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 550 

[Report No. 110

–256] 

A BILL 

To preserve existing judgeships on the Superior 

Court of the District of Columbia. 

JANUARY 8, 2008 

Reported without amendment 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
**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 on Form 10-Q of LIN Television Corporation for the three months ended June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Vincent L. Sadusky, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Richard J. Schmaeling, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, 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.

 

 
| Dated:   August 1, 2012 | /s/   Vincent L. Sadusky                            |
|------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                         | Vincent   L. Sadusky                                |
|                         | President   and Chief Executive Officer             |
|                         |                                                |
|                         |                                                |
| Dated:   August 1, 2012 | /s/   Richard J. Schmaeling                         |
|                         | Richard   J. Schmaeling                             |
|                         | Senior   Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
In the Matter of BLACKMON, Claim for Compensation Under the North Carolina Eugenics Asexualization and Sterilization Compensation Program, Claimant-Appellant.

No. COA15-920.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed in part; Dismissed in part.
# STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURTOFAPPEAL,FIR~TCIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS DESHON M. CARMOUCHE In Re: BEFORE: Deshon M. Carmouche, applying

19th Judicial District Court, Rouge, No. 03-08-0286. THERIOT, CHUTZ, AND HESTER, JJ. I I NO. 2022 KW 1388 

### MARCH 13, 2023 for supervisory Parish of East writs, Baton

WRIT DENIED. This application appe~rs to be filed in this I court in the first instance. Relator sljlould first seek relief in the district court. 1 MRT WRC Hester, J., concurs and would deny the writ application on the showing made.

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
# C_2008064EN.01000701.xml

| 8.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 January 2008 — Herta Adam v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-211/06 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Officials - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Condition provided for by the second indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Definition of ‘work done for another State’)

(2008/C 64/08)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Herta Adam (represented by: S. Orlandi and J.-N. Louis, avocats)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 22 February 2006 in Case T-342/04 Herta Adam v Commission dismissing an action seeking the annulment of the Commission decision of 22 September 2003 refusing the applicant the benefit of the expatriation allowance provided for by Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities

Herta Adam

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Ms Adam to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Adam to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,677
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,755
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     24,986
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                48,453
<PP&E>                                          10,936
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (5,115)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  54,384
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,581
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,551
<OTHER-SE>                                         897
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    54,384
<SALES>                                         54,823
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                55,979
<CGS>                                           33,783
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   34,745
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   311
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 472
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,649)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,698
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,049
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .76
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .72
        

</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Applix, Inc. (the
Company) for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2002, and as amended on
March 31, 2003, April 4, 2003 and on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned,
Walt Hilger, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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.

|                    |  |                                    
|------------------- |  | -----------------------------------
|                    |  | /s/ Walt Hilger                    
|                    |  |                                    
|Dated: May 19, 2003 |  | Walt Hilger
Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Applix, Inc. and will be retained by Applix, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# CE2004078EN.01077901.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/779 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/779

---

(2004/C 78 E/0828)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3098/03

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject:   Margot Wallström and the EMU campaign

Subject:

Margot Wallström was heavily involved during the last weeks of the recently concluded EMU campaign in Sweden.

Was the Commissioner on leave of absence from her normal duties at the Commission during this period?

---
Exhibit 23.1

                          Independent Auditors' Consent
                          -----------------------------


The Board of Directors
Electric Lightwave, Inc.



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statement (No.
333-56243) on Form S-8 and in the Registration Statement (No. 333-61009) on Form
S-8 of Electric Lightwave,  Inc. of our report dated March 6, 2002, with respect
to the balance  sheets of Electric  Lightwave,  Inc. as of December 31, 2001 and
2000,   and  the  related   statements  of  operations,   shareholders'   equity
(deficiency) and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 2001, and the related financial  statement  schedule,  which report
appears  in the  December  31,  2001  annual  report  on Form  10-K of  Electric
Lightwave, Inc.



                                                        KPMG LLP


New York, New York
March 6, 2002
In the Matter of: Z.A.A.

No. COA15-712.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Jan. 19, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 31.01**
**Quintiles Transnational Corp. andSubsidiaries****Certification Pursuant To****Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002**
I, Dennis B. Gillings, Ph.D., certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this annual report onForm 10-K of Quintiles Transnational Corp.:
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
     (a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;
     (b) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SECRelease Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986.]
     (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
     (d) Disclosed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
     5. The registrant’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):
     (a) All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrols over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and
     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
Date: March 1, 2004
 /s/ DENNIS B. GILLINGS, PH.D.      Dennis B. Gillings, Ph.D.     Executive Chairman and     Chief Executive Officer
In the Matter of the FORECLOSURE OF the DEEDS OF TRUST EXECUTED BY Grover C. BROWN and wife, Margaret C. Brown, dated April 1, 1980, Recorded in Book 949 at Page 109, and Book 949 at Page 111 of the Buncombe County Registry.

No. 224PA15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 18, 2016.

Bull and Reinhardt, PLLC, Asheville, by Adam W. Bull, for petitioner-appellee, Executor of the Estate of Merton L. Brown.

Wilder Wadford, Weaverville and Christopher Musial for respondent-appellants.

John R. Dillard, for First Choice Title, LLC, d/b/a First Choice Title Company of North Carolina, amicus curiae.

PER CURIAM.

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.
----

(2004/C 70 E/192)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2978/03

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 October 2003)

Subject:   Structural Funds in Brittany

Following the French Government's recent budgetary decisions, Brittany will be hard hit by the withdrawal of government funding, which is jeopardising the payment of EU appropriations. It would appear that part of the Structural Funds allocated to Brittany for the period 2000-2006 will be blocked owing to the fact that the French Government is no longer willing to disburse the amounts it had previously undertaken to pay under the State-Region planning contract. This situation is giving particular cause for concern in the Lorient area, which is already facing a serious economic crisis as a result of the Navy's withdrawal and the conversion of the arsenal, and in the Brest, Trégor and west central Brittany areas.

Given that the Commission has always taken pains to ensure strict observance of the additionality principle, would it not agree that the decision to withdraw funding half-way through the period is in breach of this principle, and that the government's attitude is placing a region which is in need of strong support from Europe in a position of extreme economic and financial uncertainty?

Does the Commission intend to ask the French Government for an explanation? If it has already done so, what form did this action take?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(3 November 2003)

The financing plan in the single programming document for structural assistance in the Brittany region for the period 2000-2006 provides for a contribution (national, regional or local) from the Member State of EUR 583 902 092 towards the total eligible cost of EUR 1 400 926 184 (including private funding). On 1 September 2003 the level of programming was 65 % of the total amount of the national public matching funds laid down in the SPD.

The Commission has no information on any withdrawal of funding by France entailing a reduction in the national public matching funding for the 2000-2006 SPD in Brittany.

A mid-term check of the Objective 2 programmes for compliance with the principle of additionality will be carried out, covering all the French Objective 2 programmes together but not each individual programme. The French authorities must provide the Commission with the relevant information by 31 December 2003. Independently of these checks, France must inform the Commission in the course of the programming period of any threat to its ability to maintain the level of expenditure laid down.

----