alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 22 (Thursday, February 3, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 5684]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2040]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

[Funding Opportunity Number: CE05-029]


Dissemination Research on Fall Prevention: Development and 
Testing of an Exercise Program Package to Prevent Older Adult Falls; 
Notice of Availability of Funds-Amendment

    A notice announcing the availability of fiscal year (FY) 2005 funds 
for cooperative agreements to conduct a research program on translating 
an exercise intervention that rigorous research has shown is effective 
in reducing falls among older adults into a program; testing 
implementation of the program in a community setting; and conducting 
dissemination research focusing on reach, uptake, feasibility, fidelity 
of the implementation, and acceptability was published in the Federal 
Register on November 8, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 215, pages 64762-64769.
    The notice is amended as follows: On page 64765, Column 2, Section 
IV.1. Address to Request application Package, delete the first sentence 
and replace with ``To apply for this funding opportunity, use 
application form PHS 398 (OMB number 0925-0001 rev. 9/2004).

    Dated: January 28, 2005.
William P. Nichols,
Director, Procurement and Grants Office, Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 05-2040 Filed 2-2-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, John C. Malone, certify that:
     1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Liberty MediaInternational, Inc.;
     2.     Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterlyreport;
     3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
     4.     The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
              a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is beingprepared;
              b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of theperiod covered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and
              c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and
     5.     The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
              a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
Date: November 12, 2004     /s/ John C. Malone      John C. Malone   President and Chief Executive Officer
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DOLAN CROSS

No. 7519SC588

(Filed 5 November 1975)

Assault and Battery § 17; Constitutional Law § 36— assault with deadly weapon — maximum sentence not cruel and unusual

Imposition of the maximum sentence of imprisonment of two years upon defendant’s conviction for assault with a deadly weapon did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

Appeal by defendant from *Róuse, Judge.*Judgment entered 12 February 1975 in Superior Court, Randolph County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 22 October 1975.

Defendant was found guilty of assault with a deadly weapon. From the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment for two years, defendant appealed.

*Attorney General Edndsten, by Associate Attorney William A. Raney, Jr., for the State.*

*Ottway Burton and Millicent Gibson, for defendant appellant.*

VAUGHN, Judge.

Any person who commits an assault or an assault and battery, (unless his conduct is covered by some other provision of law providing greater punishment), using a deadly weapon, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by fine, imprisonment for not more than two years, or both such fine and imprisonment. G.S. 14-33 (b) (1).

Defendant’s sole assignment of error is that the trial court, by awarding the maximum sentence provided by law, has in*336flicted cruel and unusual punishment on defendant, under the circumstances of this case.

As long as the punishment rendered is within the maximum provided by law, an appellate court must assume that the trial judge acted fairly, reasonably and impartially in the performance of his office. *State v. Spencer,*7 N.C. App. 282, 172 S.E. 2d 280, modified on other grounds, 276 N.C. 535, 173 S.E. 2d 765.

A sentence of imprisonment which is within the limitation authorized by statute cannot be held cruel or unusual in the constitutional sense. *State v. Caldwell,*269 N.C. 521, 153 S.E. 2d 34; *State v. Newell,*268 N.C. 300, 150 S.E. 2d 405; *State v. Garris,*265 N.C. 711, 144 S.E. 2d 901.

No error.

Judges Bkitt and Arnold concur.
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Omeros Corporation (the
Company) for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned officer of the Company certifies, 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 Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and
shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), or incorporated by
reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except as may be expressly set forth by specific reference in such filing.



Dated: November 4, 2010/s/ Gregory A. DemopulosGregory A. Demopulos, M.D.Principal Executive Officer
Cyber Merchants Exchange, Inc.
                          NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
                                  JUNE 30, 2003

                                                                    Exhibit 31.2

I, Frank S. Yuan, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-KSB of Cyber Merchants Exchange,  Inc.
(the "Registrant");

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

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

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  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,  or caused such  disclosure
controls and  procedures to be designed  under our  supervision,  to ensure that
material  information  relating to the  registrant,  including its  consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,  particularly
during the period in which  this  report is being  prepared;  b)  evaluated  the
effectiveness  of  the  registrant's  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  and
presented  in  this  report  our  conclusions  about  the  effectiveness  of the
disclosure controls and procedures,  as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such  evaluation;  and c) disclosed in this report any change in
the registrant's  internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected,  or is
reasonably  likely to affect,  the registrant's  internal control over financial
reporting; and;

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

Date: October 13, 2003

/S/ FRANK S. YUAN
-----------------
FRANK S. YUAN
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Accounting Officer)
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.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - 40 CFR Part 52 
          - [R04-OAR-2004-KY-0001-200425(w); FRL-7868-8] 

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

# ACTION:

Withdrawal of direct final rule. 

# SUMMARY:

                        Due to adverse comment, EPA is withdrawing the direct final rule published December 17, 2004, (69 FR 75473) approving revisions to the Edmonson County portion of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Commonwealth of Kentucky on August 24, 2004. The submittal provides the 10-year update to the original 1-hour ozone maintenance plans for three 1-hour ozone maintenance areas, including the Edmonson County Maintenance Area, and also provides revised 2004 motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) and establishes 2015 MVEBs. EPA stated in the direct final rule that if EPA received adverse comment by January 18, 2005, the rule would be withdrawn and not take effect. EPA subsequently received adverse comment. EPA will address the comment in a subsequent final action based upon the proposed action also                               ( print page 5928)                            published on December 17, 2004 (69 FR 75495). EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action.                     

# DATES:

The direct final rule is withdrawn as of February 4, 2005. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Michele Notarianni, Air Planning Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. ((404) 562-9031 (phone) or                         *notarianni.michele@epa.gov*                         (e-mail).)                     

# List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

        - Environmental protection
        - Air pollution control
        - Intergovernmental relations
        - Nitrogen dioxide
        - Ozone
        - Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
        - Volatile organic compounds

Dated: January 24, 2005. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 05-2069 Filed 2-3-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
DENNIS T. HUTTO
,
Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Respondent. ___________________________/ 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. 1D 16

- 1587

Opinion filed September 13, 2016.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus

-- Original Jurisdiction

. Dennis Hutto, pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Pro se petitioner Dennis Hutto seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the circuit

court to complete its ministerial duty of transmitting Hutto’s timely notice of appeal of

an order prohibiting him from further pro se filings to this court. Finding merit to

Hutto’s claim, we grant the petition.2 The circuit judge in this case entered an order prohibiting the petitioner from

bringing further pro se filings on December 9, 2015. The petitioner filed a timely

motion for rehearing on December 10, 2015. * The court denied the mot ion on

December 21, 2015. The petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal on December 28,

2015. Instead of docketing and transmitting the notice of appeal to this court, the court

sent it back to the petitioner with a letter stating that the court refused to accept the

notice of appeal on the basis of the order prohibiting further pro se filings.

The circuit court entered an appealable order and had the ministerial duty to

accept the petitioner’s notice of appeal and transmit a certified copy to this cou rt. See,

e.g. , G.W. v. Rushing , 22 So. 3d 819 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). The circuit court could not

use the order prohibiting the petitioner from further pro se filings

– the very same

order, in fact, that the petitioner was attempting to appeal

– to refuse to accept a timely

notice of appeal of an appealable order that the court rendered.

The petition is granted. The circuit court is directed to transmit to this court a

certified copy of the petitioner’s notice of appeal.

PETITION GRANTED.

WOLF, LEWIS, an d OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.

* The timely motion for rehearing postponed rendition of the underlying order. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(i).
Exhibit 99.2


                            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 Annual  Report of AKI,  Inc. and AKI Holding Corp.
(collectively,  the  "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2002
as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Kenneth A. Budde, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.  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
               operation of the Company.

  /s/ Kenneth A. Budde
  -------------------------
  Kenneth A. Budde
  Chief Financial Officer
  September 24, 2002
Smith Barney Futures Management LLC
                         388 Greenwich Street, 7th Floor
                          New York, New York 10013-2396






May 31, 2000



Campbell & Company, Inc.
Court Tower Building, Towson
210 West Pennsylvania Avenue
Suite 770
Baltimore, MD 212104


Attn: Mrs. Theresa D. Becks

         Re:      Management Agreement Renewals

Dear Mrs. Becks:

We are  writing  with  respect  to your  management  agreements  concerning  the
commodity pools to which reference is made below (the "Management  Agreements").
We are extending the term of the Management  Agreements through June 30, 2001and
all other provisions of the Management Agreements will remain unchanged.

                       Smith Barney Potomac Futures  Fund L.P.
                       Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P.
                       Smith Barney Global Markets Futures Fund
                       Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P. II
                       Smith Barney Campbell F.M. and Energy Fund plc
                       Smith Barney Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P.
                       Smith Barney Diversified 2000 Futures Fund L.P.




Please  acknowledge  receipt of this  modification  by signing  one copy of this
letter and returning it to the  attention of Mr. Daniel  Dantuono at the address
above or fax to  212-723-8985.  If you have any  questions  I can be  reached at
212-723-5416.

Very truly yours,

SMITH BARNEY FUTURES MANAGEMENT LLC


By:
         Daniel A. Dantuono
         Chief Financial Officer,
         Director & Treasurer

AGREED AND ACCEPTED

CAMPBELL & COMPANY, INC.



DAD/sr
t ¥46-/6

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA# 02-16-00218-CR OFFENSE: 49.04

Luis A. Cervantes v. The State of

STYLE: Texas COUNTY: Tarrant

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM TRIAL COURT: Criminal District Court No. 4

DATE: 12/08/16 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 1433251D

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Luis A. Cervantes v. The State of

STYLE: Texas

APPS/^AMT7** Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

DATE:

JUDGE: 3£Se ftP\ L4M^_

CCA#: ;»»6"/fe

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

PC:_

DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-20281 Conference Calendar

STANLEY LAMAR REED, also known as Stanley Johnson, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus MONTGOMERY WARDS; MAXWELL I CHUKU, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. CA-H-95-3934

- - - - - - - - - - October 23, 1996 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Stanley Lamar Reed appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Although not for the reasons advanced by Reed, the district court’s dismissal of the complaint under Heck arguably was in error. See Mackey v. Dickson , 47 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir. 1995)(claim of unlawful arrest, standing alone, does notNo. 96-20281 - 2 - implicate the validity of a criminal prosecution following arrest). Nevertheless, we AFFIRM the dismissal of Reed’s complaint because it seeks relief against private parties and fails to allege a constitutional violation by a state actor. See Yeager v. City of McGregor , 980 F.2d 337, 339 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 510 U.S. 821 (1993). AFFIRMED.
STATE v. Tyler Deion GREENFIELD

11A19-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 29, 2019

Jess D. Mekeel, Assistant Attorney General, Ben R. David, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

Kathryn L. VandenBerg, Assistant Appellant Defender, for Greenfield, Tyler Deion

The following order has been entered on the joint motion filed on the 28th of January 2019 to Stay Briefing:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th of January 2019."
#### Carla PHILLIPS, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. BJC HEALTH SYSTEM and Barnes-Jewish Hospital, Defendants, and Washington University, Defendant/Respondent, and Randall C. Paniello, M.D., Defendant/Respondent.

No. ED 81659.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

July 15, 2003.

Stephen R. Woodley, Gray, Ritter & Graham, P.C., St. Louis, MO, for appellant.

Stephen G. Reuter, Robyn G. Fox, Catherine Y. Jochens, Moser and Marsalek, P.C., St. Louis, MO, for respondents.

Before GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J. and PAUL J. SIMON, SR. J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, Carla Phillips, appeals from an adverse judgment in a negligence action. No error of law appears. A written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).