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

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, October 4, 2005, 1:30 p.m. to October 4, 2005, 2:30 p.m., Bethesda Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, MD 20814 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on September 16, 2005, 70 FR 54760-54762.                

The meeting will be held November 3, 2005 at the National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20882. The meeting time remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: October 21, 2005.

Anthony M. Coelho, Jr.,

Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 05-21670 Filed 10-31-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Part IV 
Item 14    Exhibit 11   Computation of Per Share Earnings
<TABLE>
                                  1996          1995            1994    
<S>                        <C>           <C>             <C>      
PRIMARY
Net income                 $64,006,073   $53,537,199     $36,984,527
Preferred dividend
 requirement                19,842,834    18,129,144       7,933,704  
                          ------------  ------------    ------------
Net income available for
 common                    $44,163,239   $35,408,085     $29,050,823
                          ------------  ------------    ------------
Average common shares 
   outstanding              35,918,565    33,367,527      26,430,241

Primary earnings per share
 average                         $1.23         $1.06           $1.10   
                          ------------  ------------   -------------
FULLY DILUTED:
Net income                 $64,006,073   $53,537,199     $36,984,527
Preferred dividend
 requirement                   242,000             -               -       
                          ------------   -----------    -------------
Net income                 $63,764,073   $53,537,199      $36,984,527
                          ------------  ------------    -------------
Average convertible preferred
   shares                   10,658,838     9,744,051        6,132,041
Average common shares 
   outstanding              35,918,565    33,367,527       26,430,241
                          ------------  ------------   --------------  
Average fully diluted common
    shares outstanding      46,577,403    43,111,578       32,562,282
                          ------------  ------------   --------------
Fully diluted earnings
 per share                      $1.23*        $1.06*           $1.10*
                          ------------ -------------   --------------
*Actual computation is antidilutive.

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.2 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference into the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-107438, Registration No. 333-144265, Registration No. 333-162733, and Registration No. 333-159282) and Registration Statement on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-145988 and Registration No. 333-166169) of NeoStem, Inc. of our report dated March 31, 2010 (except with respect to the retrospective adjustment of the financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2009 for the final allocation of the purchase price associated with the Erye acquisition discussed in Note 4 as to which the date is April 5, 2011), with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of NeoStem, Inc. and Subsidiaries appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of NeoStem, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010. /s/ Holtz Rubenstein Reminick LLP Holtz Rubenstein Reminick LLP Melville, New York April 5, 2011
#### RON ADAMS, Appellant, v. SHERIFF, WHITE PINE COUNTY, NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 8358

September 17, 1975

540 P.2d 118

*John Manzonie,*Ely, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; and *Rupert C. Schneider,*District Attorney, White Pine County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

A two count indictment was returned against Ron Adams January 29, 1975. When Adams first learned of the indictment from a newspaper article on March 27, 1975, he promptly surrendered and posted bond. The state took no action in the case until May 30, 1975, when arraignment was scheduled for June 16, 1975, 81 days after the arrest and 138 days after the finding of the indictment.

Contending, *inter alia,*he had been denied his right to a speedy trial, Adams sought and was denied habeas relief in the district court; and, in this appeal he argues that our decision in Ex Parte Morris, 78 Nev. 123, 369 P.2d 456 (1962), compels us to reverse. We agree.

The right to a speedy trial in Nevada is legislatively recognized.1 This court has previously determined the “60-day rule” *576prescribed in our statute has flexibility. See, for example, Oberle v. Fogliani, 82 Nev. 428, 430, 420 P.2d 251, 252 (1966), where we said: “If the defendant is responsible for the delay of trial beyond the 60 day limit, he may not complain . . . [T]he trial court may give due consideration to the condition of its calendar, other pending cases, public expense, the health of the judge, and the rights of co-defendants.”

If the state is responsible for the delay, the “burden of showing good cause [for the delay] is upon the prosecution and, if not shown, the accused will be discharged upon timely application. Ex Parte Morris, 78 Nev. 123, 369 P.2d 456 (1962).” *Oberle, supra,*82 Nev. at 431, 420 P.2d at 252.

In this case the record is barren of any legal cause for the state’s failure to timely arrest, arraign or try Adams. Accordingly, we reverse and remand this case to the district court with instructions to grant the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

1

NRS 178.556 provides: “If no indictment is found or information filed against a person within 15 days after he has been held to answer *576for a public offense, or if a defendant whose trial has not been postponed upon his application is not brought to trial within 60 days after the finding of the indictment or filing of the information, the court may dismiss the indictment, information or complaint.”

An accused is entitled to a speedy trial pursuant to the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution; and, this right was made applicable to the states in Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (1967). We need not and do not reach constitutional rights or questions in the instant case.
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-162390, 333-120388, 333-136374, 333-140013 and 333-132341) of the Annual Report on Form 10-K, as amended, for the year ended June 30, 2010 (the “Annual Report”), of Cubic Energy, Inc., which Annual Report makes reference to our firm and our report dated September 16, 2010 filed therewith evaluating Cubic Energy, Inc.’s oil and gas reserves effective July 1, 2010.

 
|              | Cambrian Consultants America, Inc. |
|-------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|              |                                    |   |
| Dallas, Texas     |                                    |   |
|              |                                    |   |
| February 23, 2011 | By:                                     | /s/ James L. Merkel |
|              |                                    | James L. Merkel |
|              |                                    | Principal Reservoir Analyst |

 

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                           MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                      16,313
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                               85,688
<ALLOWANCES>                                (2,215)
<INVENTORY>                                 27,615
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           141,488
<PP&E>                                     309,388
<DEPRECIATION>                            (124,946)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             374,463
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       60,747
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    15,915
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                 283,919
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               374,463
<SALES>                                     87,102
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            87,102
<CGS>                                       59,047
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               59,047
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               371
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             10,294
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,431
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,972
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,972
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .43
        


















</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 32 CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF
TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE In connection with the Quarterly Report of Navistar Financial Corporation (the
Corporation), subsidiary of International Truck and Engine Corporation, on
Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Pamela Turbeville,
Principal Executive Officer and I, Andrew J. Cederoth, Principal Financial
Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 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 Corporation. /s/ Pamela TurbevillePamela Turbeville
Principal Executive Officer
March 8, 2004/s/ Andrew J. CederothAndrew J. Cederoth
Principal Financial Officer
March 8, 2004
 This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or
otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This certification shall
also not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by
reference. E-21
Exhibit 31.2
                                  CERTIFICATION
                    Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)

         I, James L. Busby, certify that:

         1. I have  reviewed  this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Cubic Energy,
Inc.

         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. I am  responsible,  as  C.F.O.,  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 I have:

                  (a)  designed  such  disclosure  controls and  procedures,  or
caused  such  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  to  be  designed  under  my
supervision,  to ensure that material  information  relating to the  registrant,
including its  consolidated  subsidiaries,  is made known to me by others within
those  entities,  particularly  during the period in which this annual report is
being prepared;

                  (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures  and presented in this report my  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  annual  report  any  change  in  the
registrant's  internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrant's  fourth  fiscal  quarter  that  has  materially  affected,   or  is
reasonably likely to materially affect,  the registrant's  internal control over
financial reporting.

         5. I have  disclosed,  based on my most recent  evaluation  of internal
control over financial  reporting,  to the  registrant's  auditors and the Audit
Committee of the  registrant's  Board of Directors  (or persons  performing  the
equivalent function):

                  (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:  September 28, 2006


         Signature:  /s/ James L. Busby
                     --------------------
                     James L. Busby, CFO
# L_2007344EN.01004401.xml

| 28.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 344/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 344/44

---

COMMISSION DECISION

of 18 December 2007

on the continuation in the year 2008 of Community comparative trials and tests on propagating and planting material of Malus Mill. under Council Directive 92/34/EEC started in 2004

(2007/872/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 92/34/EEC of 28 April 1992 on the marketing of fruit plant propagating material and fruit plants, intended for fruit production (1),

Having regard to Commission Decision 2003/894/EC of 11 December 2003 setting out the arrangements for Community comparative trials and tests on propagating and planting material of Prunus persica (L.) Batsch, Malus Mill. and Rubus idaeus L. pursuant to Council Directive 92/34/EEC (2), and in particular Article 3 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Decision 2003/894/EC sets out the arrangements for the comparative trials and tests to be carried out under Directive 92/34/EEC as regards Malus Mill. from 2004 to 2008. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Decision 2003/894/EC sets out the arrangements for the comparative trials and tests to be carried out under Directive 92/34/EEC as regards Malus Mill. from 2004 to 2008.

| (2) | Tests and trials carried out in 2004 to 2007 should be continued in 2008, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Tests and trials carried out in 2004 to 2007 should be continued in 2008,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

Community comparative trials and tests which began in 2004 on propagating and planting material of Malus Mill. shall be continued in 2008 in accordance with Decision 2003/894/EC.

Done at Brussels, 18 December 2007.

For the Commission

Markos KYPRIANOU

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 157, 10.6.1992, p. 10. Directive as last amended by Commission Decision 2007/776/EC (OJ L 312, 30.11.2007, p. 48).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 333, 20.12.2003, p. 88.

2

---
#### NORMAN CECIL TRUAX, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 7840

September 29, 1975

540 P.2d 104

*601*Lohse & Lohse Chartered,*Reno; *Coffin & Nicholls,*Reno; *Horace R. Goff,*State Public Defender, and *Michael R. Griffin,*Deputy Public Defender, Carson City, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *Larry R. Hicks,*District Attorney, and *Kathleen M. Wall,*Assistant Chief Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Norman Cecil Truax was convicted, by jury verdict, of burglary and sentenced to a seven year term in the Nevada State Prison.

The central contention on appeal is that the trial court committed reversible error when it permitted Terry Bullard, a prosecution witness, to make an in-court identification. Bul-lard, who worked at the company Truax was convicted of *602burglarizing, had entered his employer’s building and observed Truax and two other men in the process of burglarizing the establishment.

It is argued that, since Bullard failed to identify Truax at the first of two photographic lineups, the positive identification made at the second lineup — and at trial — was the result of “impermissible suggestiveness.”

Bullard testified that in the first photograph Truax was not wearing glasses, as he was at the second lineup, and during the burglary, and that his in-court identification was based on the inadvertent and accidental confrontation with Truax during the burglary, not on repetitive viewing of the photographs.

This testimony, elicited at the hearing outside the presence of the jury, supports the trial judge’s conclusion that the in-court identification was based on Bullard’s independent observations of Truax, and not on the viewing of photographs. Moss v. State, 88 Nev. 19, 492 P.2d 1307 (1972). Cf. Baker v. State, 88 Nev. 369, 498 P.2d 1310 (1972).

In an ancillary contention Truax argues his constitutional rights were violated because he was not afforded counsel at the two “photographic lineups.” Since the lineups were conducted prior to the time charges were filed, the contention is without merit. *Baker, supra.*

Truax also suggests “the trial as a whole was so improper as to constitute a denial of due process.” In support of this omnibus contention, he alludes to several isolated events which occurred at different stages of the trial, none of which he deemed serious enough to warrant objections or prejudicial enough to warrant an assignment of error. Under these circumstances, the contention, which even now is not seriously argued or supported by competent authority, is summarily rejected. Cf. Septer v. Warden, 91 Nev. 84, 530 P.2d 1390 (1975), and cases cited therein.

Affirmed.1

1

The Second Judicial District Court is directed to give appellant’s court appointed counsel the certificate specified in NRS 7.260 in order that they may be compensated for their services on this appeal.
#### Jose DE JESUS LLAMASNUNES, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-71591, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 4, 2005.**

Decided April 11, 2005.

Law Offices of Albert C. Lum, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner.

CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Luis E. Perez, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before KOZINSKI, HAWKINS and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

 This panel unanimously finds this case suit*874able for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

*874MEMORANDUM***

Jose De Jesus Llamas-Nunes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion an immigration judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal. The immigration judge determined that petitioner failed to establish the requisite exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying United States citizen relative.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary denial of cancellation of removal, as well as petitioners’ non-colorable due process challenge to that denial. *See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003); *Torres-Aguilar v. INS,*246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001). Petitioner’s due process challenge to the BIA’s streamlining procedures is foreclosed by *Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft,*350 F.3d 845, 852 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part, and DENIED in part.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40904

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DYLLER IVAN LEMUS-VASQUEZ, also known as Wilmer Gomez-Alfaro,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:13-CR-1630-1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Dyller Ivan LemusVasquez 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). Lemus-Vasquez 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 appeal presents no 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 16, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-40904 Document: 00513080844 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2015
No. 14-40904

2

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

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 14-40904 Document: 00513080844 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2015