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 meetings.

The meetings 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 Deafness and Other Communications Disorders Special Emphasis Panel, CDRC Conflicts.                    

*Date:*                         October 27, 2005.                    

*Time:*                         1 p.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6120 Executive Blvd., Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Sheo Singh, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, Executive Plaza South, Room 400C, 6120 Executive Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-8683.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.173, Biological Research Related to Deafness and Communicative Disorders, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 16, 2005.

Anthony M. Coelho, Jr.,

Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 05-20238  Filed 10-6-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4659 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4659

    To amend the Truth in Lending Act to require disclosures to all 
     cosigners and guarantors with respect to any consumer credit 
   transaction or consumer lease that are required to be made to the 
 consumer in connection with such transaction or lease, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 23, 2010

  Mr. Hodes introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Truth in Lending Act to require disclosures to all 
     cosigners and guarantors with respect to any consumer credit 
   transaction or consumer lease that are required to be made to the 
 consumer in connection with such transaction or lease, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Credit Card Cosigner Protection Act 
of 2010''.

SEC. 2. DISCLOSURES REQUIRED.

    Section 621 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1631(a)) is 
amended by striking the 2nd sentence and inserting the following new 
sentence: ``In a consumer credit transaction or consumer lease 
involving more than 1 obligor, the creditor or lessor, shall provide 
all disclosures required under this title with respect to any such 
transaction or lease to each obligor.''.
                                 <all>
```
### IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2023 ND 15 7

In the Interest of A.B., a child
Leslie Johnson, L.B.S.W., Cass County Human Service Zone, Petitioner and Appellee

v. A.B., a child, Respondent and J.S., mother, Respondent and Appellant

No. 20230197

In the Interest of A.C., minor child
Leslie Johnson, L.B.S.W., Cass County Human Service Zone, Petitioner and Appellee

v. A.C., a child ; D.C., father, Respondent s and J.S., mother, Respondent and Appellant

No. 20 230198In the Interest of A.W., minor child

Tony Jablonsky, Cass County Human Service Zone, Petitioner and Appellee

v. A.W., a child; A.W., father, Respondents and J.S., mother, Respondent and Appellant

No. 20230199

Appeal from the Juvenile Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Daniel E

. Gast , Judicial Referee.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Rebecca R. Jund, Assistant State’s Attorney, Fargo, N

. D ., for petitioner and appellee; submitted on brief.

Elizabeth J. Sundby, Fargo, N

. D

. for respondent and appellant; submitted on brief.1 Interest of A.B. , A.C. & A.W. No s . 20230197 , 20230198 & 20230199

Per Curiam

. [¶1] J.S. appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights to A.B. , A.C. , and A.W. She argues the court abused its discretion by terminating her parental rights.
[¶2] The juvenile court found the children have been subjected to aggravating circumstances as defined in N.D.C.C. § 27

- 20.3

- 01(3)(h) when J.S. allowed the children to be present in an environment subjecting them to exposure to controlled substances. N.D.C.C. § 27

- 20.3

- 20(1)(b). The court also found the children are in need of protection , and the children have been in the care, custody, and control of the hum an service zone for at least 450 out of the previous 660 nights. N.D.C.C. § 27

- 20.3

- 20(1)(c)(2). J.S. does not challenge these findings. See Interest of B.R., 2023 ND 137, ¶ 2 (“Because the court may terminate parental rights under N.D.C.C. § 27

- 20.3

- 20(1) (b), we need not determine whether the court erred in finding the conditions and causes of the need for protection are likely to continue under N.D.C.C. § 27

- 20.3

- 20(1)(c)(1).”). We conclude t he district court did not abuse its discretion by terminating th e parental rights of J.S. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).
[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte Douglas A. Bahr
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-50630

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALBERTO DIAZ-HERNANDEZ, also known as Juan Alberto Hernandez,

Defendant-Appellant

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

Consolidated with 17-50634

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALBERTO DIAZ-HERNANDEZ, also known as Juan Alberto Diaz, also 

known as Alberto Diaz, also known as Alberto Hernandez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:13-CR-46-1

USDC No. 1:17-CR-153-1

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 2, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-50630 Document: 00514370509 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/02/2018
No. 17-50630

c/w No. 17-50634

2

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Alberto DiazHernandez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Diaz-Hernandez has not filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeals present no 

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 17-50630 Document: 00514370509 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/02/2018
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 14

- 11529 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 0:14

- cv
- 60347

- WPD

DELVIN MCKINNEY,
Petitioner

- Appellant,

versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent

- Appellee.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ (June 26, 2015)
Before TJOFLAT , MARTIN and ANDERSON , Ci rcuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Delvin McK inney was convicted of six drug

- trafficking offenses, which Case: 14-11529 Date Filed: 06/26/2015 Page: 1 of 32 included distributing cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school and playground area. On July 21, 2005, the District C ourt sentenced McKinney to concurrent prison
terms of life imprisonment on one count and 360 months on the remaining counts,
and imposed a special assessment of $600 ($100 on each count). McKinney appealed his convictions, and we affirmed. United States v. McKinney , 219 F

. App ’ x
. 921 (11th Cir. 2007). 1 On February 22, 2008, McKinney filed a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidenc e and requested an evidentiary hearing. The District Court denied McKinney’s motion. And, o n February 17 , 2009, we affirmed t he District Court’s d ecis ion. United States v. McKinney , 312 F. App ’ x
. 247 (11th Cir. 2009).
On March 5, 2008, McKinney moved the District Court to vacate his convictions and sentences pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The District C ourt d enied the motion on May 6, 2008. A nd , on A pril 6, 2009, we denied a certificate of appealability. On January 27, 2014, McKinney moved the District Court for leave
to amend the motion h e filed on March 5, 2008. The District C ourt denied the motion on January 30, 2014, as an attempt to file a succ essive § 2255 motion without obtaining leave of the Court of Appeals. McKinney now appeals from that
decision.
The District Court was correct that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain

1 While his appeal was pending, McKinney filed several motions for a new trial. All were denied. Case: 14-11529 Date Filed: 06/26/2015 Page: 2 of 33 McKinney’s successive § 2255 motion. To f ile such a motion in the District Court, McKinney must first obtain leave of this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).
AFFIRMED. Case: 14-11529 Date Filed: 06/26/2015 Page: 3 of 3
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4675 

To prohibit the further extension or establishment of national monuments 

in Nevada except by express authorization of Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 24, 2010 

Mr. HELLER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To prohibit the further extension or establishment of national 

monuments in Nevada except by express authorization 

of Congress. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON FURTHER EXTENSION OR ES4 TABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS IN 

5 NEVADA. 

6 This proviso of the last sentence of the first section 

7 of the Act of September 14, 1950 (64 Stat. 849, chapter 

8 950; 16 U.S.C. 431a), is amended by inserting ‘‘or Ne9 vada’’ after ‘‘Wyoming’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



The Board of Directors
theglobe.com, inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration  statements on Form
S-8 of theglobe.com, inc. of our report dated February 20, 2004 (except for Note
14,  as to which  the date is March  24,  2004),  relating  to the  consolidated
balance sheets of  theglobe.com,  inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2003,
and the related consolidated statements of operations,  stockholders' equity and
comprehensive  loss, and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2003,  which
report appears in the 2003 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of theglobe.com, inc.





/s/ RACHLIN COHEN & HOLTZ LLP

Fort Lauderdale, Florida
March 29, 2004
Order entered July 13, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-01211-CV

ENNIS HAYWOOD, Appellant

V.

JPACK INVESTMENTS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-17-04786-E

ORDER

In light of the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY appellee’s June 29, 2018 motion to 

dismiss as moot.

/s/ DAVID J. SCHENCK 

JUSTICE
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Aventine RenewableEnergy Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Ronald H. Miller, Chief Executive Officer of AventineRenewable Energy Holdings, Inc.,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatto the best of my knowledge and belief:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to Aventine Renewable Energy Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by AventineRenewable Energy Holdings, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 
|   | /s/ Ronald H. Miller    |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Ronald H. Miller        |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|   | May 12, 2008       |

 

1

----
#### STATE ex rel. Cory GIPSON v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2003-KH-1860.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 29, 2003.

In re Gipson, Cory;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 167,798.

Denied. Relator’s request for mandamus relief is denied and he should refile his application in the Court of Appeal with a copy of the pleading he filed in district court.
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 annual report of CelLynx Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-K for the year ending September 30, 2009. as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Daniel R. Ash, Chief Executive Officer
(Principal 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, as amended, 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.





Date:
      January 13, 2010
            
            /s/ Daniel R. AshDaniel
      R. Ash
              Chief
      Executive Officer
              (Principal
      Executive Officer)





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
ATKINS v. The STATE.

A17A0240.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

September 28, 2018

Bentley Childs Adams IV, Christina Marie Cribbs, for Appellant.

Paul L. Howard Jr., Atlanta, Arthur Conley Walton, for Appellee.

Bethel, Judge.

In *Atkins v. State* , No. S17G1996, 304 Ga. 240, 818 S.E.2d 567, 2018 WL 3965743 (Ga. Aug. 20, 2018), the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed in part and reversed in part our previous decision in *Atkins v. State* , 342 Ga. App. 422, 803 S.E.2d 122 (2017). Specifically, the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed our holding that under OCGA § 24-4-412, the trial court properly prohibited Atkins from seeking testimony regarding the victim's sexual activity, but reversed our decision that a victim's prior statements can constitute sufficient corroboration under OCGA § 16-6-3. Instead, our Supreme Court concluded that a victim's prior consistent statement cannot provide the required corroborating evidence needed to support a conviction for statutory rape. In so ruling, it determined there must be a showing of some independent evidence separate from the victim's statement that supports the conclusion that the defendant committed the statutory rape of the victim.

Accordingly, we adopt the judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia as our own, and we vacate the jury's verdict with respect to the statutory rape conviction only.

*Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.*

Barnes, P. J., Miller, P. J., Doyle, P. J., McFadden, P. J., and McMillian, Mercier, Reese, and Gobeil, JJ., concur.
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 of Atlas America Series 25-2004 (A) L.P. (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Freddie M. Kotek, Chief Executive Officer of the Managing General Partner,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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, and


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





By:
/s/ Freddie M. KotekName:
Freddie M. KotekTitle:
Chief Executive Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
August 13, 2009
#### A.O. SMITH CORPORATION, et al. v. PERFECTION CORPORATION, et al.

No. 2003-CC-1799.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 5, 2003.

In re Perfection Corporation; American Meter Company;—Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. F, No. 99-15646; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-C-0088.

Denied.
STATE v. Juan Carlos RODRIGUEZ

302A14-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 7, 2018

Barbara S. Blackman, Kathryn L. VandenBerg, Assistant Appellate Defenders, John F. Carella, Staff Attorney, for Rodriguez, Juan Carlos.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Jennifer Martin, Patrick B. Weede, Michael Silver, Assistant District Attorneys, Mary Carla Babb, Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney Generals, James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of September 2017 by Defendant Requesting Court to Take Judicial Notice:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of June 2018."
Order entered March 28, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00613-CV

ENVISION REALTY GROUP, LLC AND JACKSON POTTER, AND THEIR 

ATTORNEY DAVID J. POTTER, Appellants

V.

CHUAN C. CHEN, Appellee

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-17-16534-G

ORDER

Before the Court is Appellants’ unopposed motion to extend time to file reply brief. We 

GRANT the motion. Appellants’ reply brief shall be filed by April 1, 2019.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-21-00295-CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF 

VICKI GOINES AND CLIFTON "SONNY" GOINES

From the 13th District Court

Navarro County, Texas

Trial Court No. D20-29209-CV

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The parties’ “Agreed Motion for Remand after Remediation” was filed on August 

31, 2022. The parties assert they have entered into a mediated settlement agreement, 

believe no further proceedings in this Court are necessary, and request this Court remand 

the case to the trial court for proceedings consistent to the mediated settlement 

agreement.

Although we do not have the authority to do exactly what the parties have 

requested, we do have the authority to set aside the trial court's judgment without regard 

to the merits and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of a judgment in 

accordance with the parties' agreement. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B). Accordingly, 
In the Matter of the Marriage of Goines Page 2

the "Agreed Motion to Remand after Remediation" is granted to the extent authorized. 

The Final Decree of Divorce, signed on August 13, 2021, is set aside without regard to the 

merits, and the case is remanded to the trial court for rendition of a judgment in 

accordance with the parties' Mediated Settlement Agreement.

Because the Court was unable to grant the entirety of the parties' motion, the Court 

has endeavored to implement the substance of the parties' agreed motion to achieve the 

same result. If the parties determine that the judgment of the Court does not accomplish 

the parties' intended result, a timely motion for rehearing must be filed which addresses 

the manner in which the Court can implement the agreement of the parties within the 

limitations of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1; 49.1.

There being no agreement as to costs, costs of this appeal are taxed against Clifton 

“Sonny” Goines.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Johnson, and 

Justice Smith

Motion granted; judgment set aside; case remanded

Opinion delivered and filed September 7, 2022

[CV06]