alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 18, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 60541]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20752]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of 
the National Cancer Institute Board of Scientific Advisors.
    The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance 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.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Board of Scientific 
Advisors.
    Date: November 14, 2005.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
    Agenda: Director's Report: Ongoing and New Business; Reports of 
Program Review Group(s); and Budget Presentation; Reports of Special 
Initiatives; RFA and RFP Concept Reviews; and Scientific 
Presentations.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 9000 Rockville Pike, 
Building 31, C Wing, 6th Floor, Conference Room 10, Bethesda, MD 
20892.
    Contact Person: Paulette S. Gray, PhD, Executive Secretary, 
Director, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer 
Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6116 Executive Boulevard, 
8th Floor, Rm. 8001, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-5147, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#147366756d645479757d783a7a7d7c3a737b62"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="066174677f76466b676f6a28686f6e28616970">[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.
    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home 
page: http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/bsa.htm, where an agenda 
and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when 
available.

(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: October 4, 2005.
Anthony M. Coelho, Jr.,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-20752 Filed 10-17-05; 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>
#### STATE v. Noberto ROSADO-LUGO.

No. 90-468-C.A.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

May 31, 1991.

*1220James E. O’Neil, Atty. Gen., Jeffrey Greer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Teresa Rusbino, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff.

Richard Casparian, Public Defender, Janice Weisfeld, Barbara Hurst, Asst. Public Defenders, for the State.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This matter came before the Supreme Court on May 8, 1991, pursuant to an order directing both parties to show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. The defendant, No-berto Rosado-Lugo, appeals from convictions of conspiracy to deliver cocaine and delivery of cocaine. The defendant was acquitted on an additional count of delivery of cocaine. After hearing the arguments of counsel and reviewing the memoranda submitted by the parties, we find that the defendant’s arguments are without merit.

The defendant contends that the trial justice erred in admitting into evidence identifications of defendant by two undercover police detectives to whom defendant had allegedly sold cocaine. The defendant argues that the identifications were unreliable because each detective viewed the drug seller for only a short time, the identifications were not made for over two months, and the descriptions did not closely match defendant. We find no error. The record contains sufficient evidence of the identification’s reliability and the detective’s experience in identifying suspects.

The defendant also contends that the trial justice erred in refusing to sever the third count, delivery of cocaine to the second detective, from the two counts for which defendant was convicted. It is well settled that denial of a motion for severance is within the sound discretion of the trial justice and does not constitute a ground for reversal unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion resulting in substantial prejudice to a defendant. *State v. Whitman,*431 A.2d 1229, 1233 (R.I.1981). In this case the three offenses were sufficiently similar to allow the state to charge them together. Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 8(a). Furthermore we can discern no prejudice resulting in a situation in which the jury acquitted defendant on the third count.

Reviewing the defendant’s three remaining contentions, we find that no errors were committed.

Therefore, it is the conclusion of this court that cause has not been shown. The defendant’s appeal is summarily denied and dismissed, and the judgment of the Superi- or Court is affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER OFETS PAYPHONES, INC.PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I,MICHAEL H. McCLELLAN, am the Chief Financial Officer of ETS Payphones, Inc.(the “Company”).

Thiscertification is being furnished pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in connection withthe filing of the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter endedJune 30, 2006 (the “Report”).

Ihereby certify that to the best of my knowledge:

(a)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(b)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of thedates and for the periods covered by the Report.
| Dated: August 14, 2006 |                     |   |
|------------------------|--------------------------|--------|
|                   |                     |   |
|                   | /s/ MICHAEL H. MCCLELLAN |   |
|                   | Michael H. McClellan     |   |
|                   | Chief Financial Officer  |   |

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ETS Payphones,Inc. and will be retained by ETS Payphones, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5069 

To amend the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules 

of Appellate Procedure to ensure access to the Federal judiciary in 

cases where the interest of justice so requires, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 20, 2010 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the 

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure to ensure access 

to the Federal judiciary in cases where the interest of 

justice so requires, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fair Payment of Court 

5 Fees Act of 2010’’. 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5069 IH

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL 

2 PROCEDURE. 

3 Rule 68(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

4 is amended by striking the period at the end and inserting 

5 ‘‘, unless the court determines that the interest of justice 

6 justifies waiving such payment. For the purpose of making 

7 such a determination, the interest of justice includes the 

8 establishment of constitutional or other important prece9 dent.’’. 

10 SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL RULES OF APPEL11 LATE PROCEDURE. 

12 Rule 39 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 

13 is amended by adding at the end the following new sub14 division: 

15 ‘‘(f) WAIVER OF COSTS FOR CERTAIN APPEALS.— 

16 The court shall order a waiver of costs if the court deter17 mines that the interest of justice justifies such a waiver. 

18 For the purpose of making such a determination, the in19 terest of justice includes the establishment of constitu20 tional or other important precedent.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with BILLS
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

         Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned Chief Executive Officer of Flexible Solutions International, Inc.
(the "Company"), hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB/A (Amendment No. 1) of the Company for the year ended
December 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date:  December 5, 2005                    /s/ DANIEL B. O'BRIEN
                                           ---------------------
                                           Daniel B. O'Brien
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5017 

To ensure the availability of loan guarantees for rural homeowners. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 14, 2010 

Mr. KANJORSKI (for himself, Mr. HODES, Mr. WILSON of Ohio, Mr. 

HINOJOSA, and Mr. COURTNEY) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To ensure the availability of loan guarantees for rural 

homeowners. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rural Housing Preser5 vation and Stabilization Act of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LOAN GUARANTEE FEES. 

7 (a) FEES.— 

8 (1) UP-FRONT AND ANNUAL FEES.—Paragraph 

9 (8) of section 502(h) of the Housing Act of 1949 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5017 IH

1 (42 U.S.C. 1472(h)(8)) is amended to read as fol2 lows: 

3 ‘‘(8) GUARANTEE FEES.—With respect to a 

4 guaranteed loan under this subsection, the Secretary 

5 may collect from the lender— 

6 ‘‘(A) at the time of issuance of the guar7 antee, a fee equal to not more than 3.5 percent 

8 of the principal obligation of the loan; and 

9 ‘‘(B) an annual fee during the term of the 

10 loan equal to not more than 0.5 percent of the 

11 outstanding principal balance of the loan.’’. 

12 (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 739 

13 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 

14 Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appro15 priation Act, 2001 (as enacted by Public Law 106– 

16 387; 114 Stat. 1549A–34) is hereby repealed. 

17 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF AMOUNT OF LOAN GUARAN18 TEES.—Section 513 of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 

19 U.S.C. 1483) is amended by adding at the end the fol20 lowing new subsection: 

21 ‘‘(f) AUTHORIZATION FOR LOAN GUARANTEES.—The 

22 Secretary may, to the extent approved in appropriation 

23 Acts, guarantee loans under section 502(h) in aggregate 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5017 IH

1 amounts not to exceed $30,000,000,000 for fiscal year 

2 2010 and for each fiscal year thereafter.’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No s . 46065 and 4606 6

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

PATRICIA ANN POOL ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Filed: March 11, 2019

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Minidoka County. Hon. Jonathan P. Brody , District Judge.

Order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed

. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford

, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge; and BRAILSFORD, Judge

________________________________________________
PER CURIAM

Patricia Ann Pool pleaded guilty to felony possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine , Idaho Code § 37

- 2732(c)(1) . Before the sentence hearing, Pool was charged with a second felony possession of controlled substance , methamphetamine, I.C. § 37

- 2732 (c)(1) . Pool pleaded guilty to the second charge of felony possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine. On each charge, t he district court imposed a concurrent, unified

sentence of seven

- year s , with four years d eterminate, and retained jurisdiction. Pool was sent to participate in the rider program. After receipt of a letter from the Idaho Department of Correction recommending relinquishment, the district court relinquished jurisdiction. Pool filed2 an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Pool appeals, claiming that the district court erred by refusing to grant probation. We note that the decision to place a defendant on probation or whether, instead, to relinquish jurisdi ction over the defendant is a matter within the sound discretion of the district court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. State v. Hood , 102
Idaho 711, 712, 639 P.2d 9, 10 (1981); State v. Lee , 117 Idaho 203, 205

- 06, 786 P.2d 594, 596

- 97 (Ct. App. 1990). The record in this case shows that the district court properly considered the information before it and determined that probation was not appropriate. We hold that Pool has

failed to show that the district court ab used its discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction. The order of the district court relinquishing jurisdiction and Pool ’s sentence are affirmed.
EXHIBIT 10









EXHIBIT 10.10




 




PALIGENT INC.




 




THIRD EXTENSION TO THE BOARD

OF DIRECTORS




CONSULTING AND

CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT




 




THIS THIRD EXTENSION TO THE

BOARD OF DIRECTORS CONSULTING AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT, AS AMENDED (the

“Third Extension”), is made as of this 16th day of May, 2001 (the “Effective

Date”) by and between PALIGENT INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and

Zola P. Horovitz, Ph.D. (the “Consultant”).




 




WHEREAS, the Company and the

Consultant have entered into a Board of Directors Consulting and

Confidentiality Agreement dated as of January 1, 1998 (the “Agreement”);




 




WHEREAS, the Company and the

Consultant have entered into an Extension to the Agreement dated December 3,

1998 (the “Extension”);




 




WHEREAS, the Company and the

Consultant have entered into an Extension to the Agreement dated February 9,

2001 (the “Second Extension”);




 




WHEREAS, the Company and the

Consultant wish to extend the Extension Term for an additional period of one

year commencing January 1, 2001 and ending on December 31, 2001 (the “Third

Extension Term”);




 




NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and

the Consultant, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein,

hereby agree as follows:




 




16.                                 DEFINITIONS




Capitalized terms used

herein and not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective meanings set

forth in the Agreement, the Extension and the Second Extension.




 




17.                                 THIRD EXTENSION




17.1    Engagement.

The Company hereby retains the Consultant and the Consultant hereby agrees to

perform the services described in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the Agreement for the

Third Extension Term.




 




17.2    Incorporation

of Agreement Provisions. Except as modified herein, the Company and Consultant

agree that all of the provisions of the Agreement, the Extension and the Second

Extension are incorporated herein and shall apply to the Consultancy during the

Third Extension Term with the same force and effect as if forth herein.




 




18.                                 REPRESENTATION, WARRANTIES

AND COVENANTS




Consultant hereby represents, warrants and covenants to the Company

that the Consultant is under no contractual or other restriction or obligation

which is inconsistent with his execution of this Third Extension or the

performance of his duties hereunder and that, during the Third Extension Term,

Consultant did not enter into any agreement either written or oral in conflict

with this Third Extension.




 




The Consultant and the Company have executed and

delivered this Third Extension as a document under seal as of the Effective

Date.




 




	

  PALIGENT INC.


  	

  CONSULTANT:


  
	

   


  	

   


  
	

  By:


  	

  /s/ Salvatore A. Bucci


  	

   


  	

  /s/ Zola P. Horovitz


  	

   


  
	

   


  	

  Salvatore A. Bucci


  	

  Zola P. Horovitz, Ph.D.


  
	

   


  	

  President and Chief Executive Officer
II 

Calendar No. 356 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 509 

[Report No. 111–173] 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 29, 2009 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

APRIL 26, 2010 

Reported by Mrs. BOXER, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To reauthorize the Marine Turtle Conservation Act of 2004, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Marine Turtle Con5 servation Reauthorization Act of 2009’’. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 509 RS

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO PROVISIONS PREVENTING FUND2 ING OF PROJECTS IN THE UNITED STATES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Marine Turtle Conservation 

4 Act of 2004 is amended— 

5 (1) in section 2(b) (16 U.S.C. 6601(b)), by 

6 striking ‘‘in foreign countries’’; 

7 (2) in section 3(2) (16 U.S.C. 6602(2))— 

8 (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph 

9 (A), by striking ‘‘in foreign countries’’; and 

10 (B) in subparagraph (D), by striking ‘‘of 

11 foreign countries’’; and 

12 (3) in section 4 (16 U.S.C. 6603)— 

13 (A) in subsection (b)(1)(A), by inserting 

14 ‘‘State or’’ before ‘‘foreign country’’; and 

15 (B) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘in for16 eign countries’’. 

17 (b) STATE DEFINED.—Section 3 of such Act (16 

18 U.S.C. 6602) is amended by adding at the end the fol19 lowing new paragraph: 

20 ‘‘(7) STATE.—The term ‘State’ means each of 

21 the several States of the United States, the District 

22 of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 

23 Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Com24 monwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, any 

25 other territory or possession of the United States, 

26 and any Indian tribe.’’. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 509 RS

1 SEC. 3. LIMITATIONS ON EXPENDITURES. 

2 Section 5(b) of the Marine Turtle Conservation Act 

3 of 2004 (16 U.S.C. 6604(b)) is amended— 

4 (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘$80,000’’ 

5 and inserting ‘‘$150,000’’; and 

6 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

7 paragraph: 

8 ‘‘(3) LIMITATION ON PROJECTS IN THE UNITED

9 STATES.—Not more than 20 percent of the amounts 

10 made available from the Fund for any fiscal year 

11 may be used for projects relating to the conservation 

12 of marine turtles in the United States.’’. 

13 SEC. 4. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE MARINE TURTLE CON14 SERVATION ACT OF 2004. 

15 Section 7 of the Marine Turtle Conservation Act of 

16 2004 (16 U. S. C. 6606) is amended by striking ‘‘each 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 509 RS

1 of fiscal years 2005 through 2009’’ and inserting ‘‘each 

2 of fiscal years 2009 through 2014’’. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 356 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 509 

[Report No. 111–173] 

AN ACT 

To reauthorize the Marine Turtle Conservation Act 

of 2004, and for other purposes. 

APRIL 26, 2010 

Reported without amendment 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1
Heafner Tire Group, Inc.                                            Exhibit 11.1
Computation of Earnings Per Share
(Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                 YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                                     --------------------------------------------
                                                                         1999             1998             1997
                                                                     -----------      -----------       ---------

<S>                                                                    <C>              <C>             <C>
Average shares outstanding during the period                           5,203,896        6,062,322       4,736,501
Incremental shares under stock options and warrants computed
  under the treasury stock method using the average market
  price of issuer's stock during the period                                   --               --              --
                                                                     -----------      -----------       ---------

     Total shares for diluted EPS                                      5,203,896        6,062,322       4,736,501
                                                                     ===========      ===========       =========

Income applicable to common shareholders:

  Loss from operations before extraordinary charge                            --       (2,508,000)             --
                                                                                      ===========


  Net income (loss)                                                  $(6,588,000)     $(4,724,000)      $ (14,000)
                                                                     ===========      ===========       =========


(Loss) income per basic common share:
  Loss from operations before extraordinary charge                            --            (0.41)             --

  Net income (loss)                                                  $     (1.27)     $     (0.78)      $   (0.00)
                                                                     ===========      ===========       =========

Income (loss) per diluted share:
  Loss from operations before extraordinary charge                            --            (0.41)             --

  Net income (loss)                                                  $     (1.27)     $     (0.78)      $   (0.00)
                                                                     ===========      ===========       =========
</TABLE>