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 (5 U.S.C. appendix 2), 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 General Medical Sciences Emphasis Panel, Postbacculaureate Research Education Program.                    

*Date:*                         February 18, 2005.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Holiday Inn Select Bethesda, 8120 Wisconsin Ave, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Richard I. Martinez, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, Room 3AN-12B, 45 Center Drive MSC 6200, Bethesda, MD 20892-6200, 301-594-2849,                         *rm63f@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 25, 2005.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 05-1835  Filed 1-31-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                           2,152
<SECURITIES>                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                   30,804
<ALLOWANCES>                         0
<INVENTORY>                     19,900
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                59,013
<PP&E>                          24,239
<DEPRECIATION>                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 343,861
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           36,556
<BONDS>                        101,463
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                0
<PREFERRED>                          0
<COMMON>                             8
<OTHER-SE>                      91,385
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   343,861
<SALES>                         96,778
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                96,778
<CGS>                           56,532
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   71,947
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              13,381
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  8,084
<INCOME-TAX>                     4,479
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              3,605
<DISCONTINUED>                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      0
<CHANGES>                            0
<NET-INCOME>                     3,605
<EPS-BASIC>                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                        0


</TABLE>
**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 Applix, Inc. (the “Company”) for theperiod ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, David C. Mahoney, President and Chief Executive Officer ofthe 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 theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and     (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                         /s/ David C. Mahoney  Date: November 14, 2006 David C. Mahoney   President and Chief Executive Officer
STATE of North Carolina v. Andrea Stefany ENDARA.

No. COA15-864.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 3, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
Gilbert BREEDLOVE and Thomas Holland v. Marion R. WARREN, in his official capacity as Director of the N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts, and the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts.

No. 7P16.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Elliot M. Engstrom, for Breedlove, Gilbert, et al.

W. Ellis Boyle, for Breedlove, Gilbert, et al.

Grady L. Balentine, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, for Warren, Marion R., et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiffs on the 6th of January 2016 in this matter for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 prior to a determination by the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.38

                       Amendment to the Dime Bancorp, Inc.
                 1997 Stock Incentive Plan for Outside Directors

                           Effective December 12, 2000


         The Dime Bancorp, Inc. 1997 Stock Incentive Plan for Outside Directors
(the "Plan") is hereby amended in the following particulars:

         1. The language of Section 13(a) of the Plan preceding the colon is
amended in its entirety to read as follows:

         "(a) Unless otherwise determined by the Board at the time of grant or
         by amendment (with the holder's consent) of such grant, in the event of
         the earlier of (i) the occurrence of a Terminating Event, (as defined
         in Section 13(b)), or (ii) the occurrence of a Change in Control (as
         defined in Section 13(c)), and solely with respect to awards held by an
         Outside Director in service as an Outside Director at the time of any
         such event described in clause (i) or (ii) above (or then held by a
         permissible transferee of such Outside Director pursuant to Section
         10)"
#### In the Matter of Joseph Gravagna et al., Appellants, v Board of Elections of the City of New York, Respondent, and Tony Avella, Respondent.

[799 NYS2d 830]

In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, inter alia, to invalidate a petition designating Tony Avella as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 13, 2005, for the nomination of the Working Families Party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the New York City Council, 19th Council District, the petitioners appeal from a final order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Strauss, J.), dated August 5, 2005, which, after a hearing, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the final order is reversed, on the law, without *505costs or disbursements, the petition is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a determination of the petition on the merits.

The Supreme Court erred in determining that circumstances preventing immediate filing were not present. That issue was determined upon the signing of the order to show cause on July 27, 2005, and the Supreme Court did not have authority to review the determination of a justice of coordinate jurisdiction. Prudenti, P.J., Adams, Luciano, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-10494 

Conference Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GUSTAVO GALINDO RAMIREZ,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:91-CR-33-01

- - - - - - - - - -

(October 18, 1995)

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gustavo Galindo Ramirez filed a Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 motion

seeking credit for time served while he was detained by state

officials prior to the imposition of his federal sentence.

A motion seeking credit for time served by the mover prior

to the date of the imposition of his federal sentence is not

cognizable under Rule 35. United States v. Garcia-Gutierrez, 835

F.2d 585, 586 (5th Cir. 1988). Because Ramirez's motion is
No. 95-10494

-2-

challenging the manner in which his sentence is being executed

rather than the validity of the sentence imposed, it should be

construed as an action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. United States v.

Tubwell, 37 F.3d 175, 177 (5th Cir. 1994); see United States v.

Weathersby, 958 F.2d 65, 66 (5th Cir. 1992).

Section 2241 petitions must be filed in the district where

the petitioner is incarcerated. United States v. Gabor, 905 F.2d

76, 78 (5th Cir. 1990). Ramirez was incarcerated in the Western

District of Texas at the time that he filed the motion to reduce

his sentence and he remains incarcerated at that same location. 

Therefore, the district court in the Northern District of Texas

did not have jurisdiction to review his § 2241 petition.

Further, Ramirez was required to exhaust his administrative

remedies prior to filing his federal habeas petition. See United

States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 335-36 (1992); United States v.

Dowling, 962 F.2d 390, 393 (5th Cir. 1992). Ramirez has not

alleged that he has exhausted his administrative remedies and

there is no evidence in the record indicating that he has availed

himself of such remedies. The district court's denial of

Ramirez's motion is AFFIRMED based on that court's lack of

jurisdiction over the § 2241 petition.

AFFIRMED.
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

(Second Chamber)

1 March 2007

Case F-30/05

**Asa Sundholm**

**v**

**Commission of the European Communities**

(Officials – Appraisal – Career development report – 2003 appraisal – Obligation to state the reasons on which the report is based – Rights of the defence)

**Application:**brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Ms Sundholm seeks annulment of her career development report for the period
from 1 January to 31 December 2003.

**Held:**The application is dismissed. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.

**Summary**

1.      *Officials – Reports procedure – Less favourable report influencing scope of obligation to state reasons*

*(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)*

2.      *Officials – Reports procedure – Observance of the rights of the defence*

*(Staff Regulations, Arts 26, first and second paras, and 43)*

3.      *Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report*

*(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)*

1.      The report to be used as a reference for determining whether the report for a particular year is less favourable than previous
reports, requiring particular attention to be paid to the statement of reasons, is the periodic report for the previous year,
whether or not it has subsequently been annulled.

(see para. 44)

2.      Neither the fundamental principle of observance of the rights of the defence nor the first and second paragraphs of Article
26 of the Staff Regulations which give concrete expression to that principle make the fact that a matter may be held against
an official in his appraisal report subject to the drawing-up, prior to the procedure leading to the adoption of that report,
of a written warning and the communication of that warning to the individual concerned.

That individual is also not justified in claiming that his rights of defence have been infringed because of the failure to
comply with internal directives of his institution concerning the obligation on hierarchical superiors to provide regular
feedback on officials’ performance during the reference period itself. The requirement to observe the right to a fair hearing,
that is to say, to offer an official to whom a decision adversely affecting him is addressed the opportunity to express his
views adequately, applies only once the procedure liable to culminate in such a decision has been initiated. Thus, as regards
the appraisal of officials, observance of that principle may be enforced only during the appraisal procedure, which necessarily
commences after the end of the reference period.

(see paras 74, 76-78)

See:

T-157/04 *De Bry* v *Commission* [2005] ECR-SC I-A-199 and II‐901, paras 41, 42 and 45

3.      An official cannot reasonably plead, in support of an action directed against a career development report, that unauthorised
third parties have had access to that report. Such a fact, even if established, would have no effect on the legality of that
document.

(see para. 85)
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 17, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 135367(30) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 135367 

 COA: 279041 

Wayne CC: 85-005287-01

RONALD MARK DRAUGHN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s April 28, 

2008 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.

 KELLY, J., would grant reconsideration and, on reconsideration, would reverse the 

August 1, 2007 decision of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the trial court 

for resentencing. 

d0910 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

September 17, 2008 

 Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 174 (Friday, September 9, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 53674]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17935]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    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.
    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 Cancer Institute Initial Review 
Group, Subcommittee A--Cancer Centers.
    Date: December 2, 2005.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 1 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Marriott Bethesda North Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 
Marinelli Road, North Bethesda, MD 20852.
    Contact Person: David E. Maslow, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Resources and Training Review Branch, Division of 
Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, 6116 Executive 
Blvd., Room 8117, Bethesda, MD 20892-7405, (301) 496-2330, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0d69603b38744d636465236a627b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="35515803004c755b5c5d1b525a43">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398; Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 31, 2005.
Anthony M. Coelho, Jr.,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-17935 Filed 9-8-05; 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>
Kemp et al. v. Nash

S16A1287

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Decided: October 3, 2016

Stephen Michael Scriber, The Law Office of Stephen M. Scriber, LLC, 707 Whitlock Avenue SW, Suite D32, Marietta, Georgia 30064, for Appellant.

Bedelia C. Hargrove, Hargrove Law Firm, 1100 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 200, Atlanta, Georgia 30309, Amil Cabral Johnson, RS Johnson Legal, P.O. Box 91544, East Point, Georgia 30364, Teri Danielle Fields, Obiorah Fields, LLC, 157 S. McDonough Street, Jonesboro, Georgia 30236, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed without opinion pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 59.

Affirmed without opinion.

All the Justices concur.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Donald R. Kiepert, Jr., certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, asamended, of Point Therapeutics, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on myknowledge, 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 respectto the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on myknowledge, 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 periodspresented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officers 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, orcaused 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 endof 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 fiscalquarter 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; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol 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 overfinancial 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 significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date:April 29, 2004
**Exhibit 99.23****CONSENT OF M. BELANGER**     Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F and the documents incorporated byreference therein (the “40-F”) of Goldcorp Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December31, 2009, and any amendments thereto, to be filed with the United States Securities and ExchangeCommission pursuant to the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and theAnnual Information Form (the “AIF”) and Management’s Discussion and Analysis (“MD&A”) of theCompany for the year then ended, which are filed as exhibits to and incorporated by reference inthe 40-F.     I hereby consent to the references, as applicable, to my name in connection with (including,as an expert) the following report(s) and documents: 1. The technical report dated March 16, 2010, entitled “El MorroCopper-Gold Project, Atacama Region, Chile 43-101 TechnicalReport” (the “El Morro Report”); and  2. The 40-F, the MD&A and the AIF, which include references in connectionwith information relating to the El Morro Report and the El MorroProject, and the properties described therein.Date:March 19, 2010              /s/ Maryse Belanger    Name:  Maryse Belanger     GoldcorpInc.
Marcus Timmons, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

August 3, 2016

ORDER

Petitioner filed a motion on July 25, 2016 for resentencing pursuant to Aiken v. Byars, 410 S.C. 534, 765 S.E.2d 572 (S.C. 2014). Now, therefore, pursuant to SC CONST. Art. V, § 4,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Honorable Eugene C. Griffith, Jr. be vested with exclusive jurisdiction over the Petitioner's Motion for Resentencing in the above-captioned matter.

Judge Griffith shall at all times be vested with concurrent jurisdiction in all circuits of the state to dispose of matters relating to this case, and shall decide all matters pertaining to the Petitioner's Motion, and shall retain jurisdiction over this matter regardless of where he may be assigned to hold court, and may schedule such hearings as may be necessary at any time without regard as to whether there is a term of court scheduled.

If necessary, to resolve issues related to the appointment of counsel, a hearing shall be conducted within thirty (30) days of this order.

Within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, Judge Griffith shall issue a scheduling order setting forth the schedule that shall be followed in this matter, including the date of the hearing on the merits. The scheduling order may be amended as necessary.

s/Costa M. Pleicones

Costa M. Pleicones

Chief Justice