alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 24, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 60384]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5235]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Pathogenic and Protective T-Cell 
Responses.
    Date: November 19, 2007.
    Time: 11:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge 5600, 6700B 
Rockledge Drive, Room 3120, Bethesda, MD 20817. (Telephone 
Conference Call)
    Contact Person: Lynn Rust, PhD., Scientific Review 
Administrator, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural 
Activities, NIAID/NIH/DHHS, Room 3120, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 
7616, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 402-3938, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#eb8799d9d9d39dab858283c58c849d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="87ebf5b5b5bff1c7e9eeefa9e0e8f1">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS).

    Dated: October 17, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-5235 Filed 10-23-07; 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>
<PAGE>

                SCHEDULE II - VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS



                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT

To the Stockholders and Board of Directors of
  Infonet Services Corporation
El Segundo, California

     We have audited the consolidated financial statements of Infonet Services
Corporation and its subsidiaries as of March 31, 1999 and 2000, and for each of
the three years in the period ended March 31, 2000, and have issued our report
thereon dated June 12, 2000 (included elsewhere in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K). Our audits also included the financial statement schedule listed in
Item 14. This financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the
Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our
audits. In our opinion, such financial statement schedule, when considered in
relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole,
presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
-------------------------
Deloitte & Touche LLP

Los Angeles, California
June 12, 2000



                                                                     SCHEDULE II

                 INFONET SERVICES CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

           VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                           BALANCE AT CHARGED TO CHARGED             BALANCE AT
                           BEGINNING  COSTS AND  TO OTHER              END OF
       DESCRIPTION         OF PERIOD   EXPENSES  ACCOUNTS DEDUCTIONS   PERIOD
       -----------         ---------- ---------- -------- ---------- ----------
<S>                        <C>        <C>        <C>      <C>        <C>
Allowances for doubtful
  accounts and customer
  credits
  1998....................   $3,163     $1,608    $ (203)     $717      $3,851
  1999....................    3,851      1,021      (891)      105       3,876
  2000....................    3,876      1,381     3,128        21       8,364
</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2390 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2390

 To prohibit the imposition of the death penalty for any violation of 
                  Federal law, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 31, 2019

Mr. Durbin (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Booker, Ms. Harris, Ms. Hirono, 
 Mr. Kaine, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Sanders, and Mr. Schatz) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the imposition of the death penalty for any violation of 
                  Federal law, 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. PROHIBITION ON IMPOSITION OF DEATH SENTENCE.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
person may be sentenced to death or put to death on or after the date 
of enactment of this Act for any violation of Federal law.
    (b) Persons Sentenced Before Date Of Enactment.--Notwithstanding 
any other provision of law, any person sentenced to death before the 
date of enactment of this Act for any violation of Federal law shall be 
resentenced.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE v. JOHNSON

No. 91 PC.

Case below: 43 N.C. App. 228.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 27 November 1979.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 1:10cr8-MCR/GRJ

BRIAN THOMAS SMITH, 

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes before the court upon magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation (doc. 72) dated October 30, 2012. The parties have been furnished a

copy of the Order and Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity

to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made

a de novo determination of any timely filed objections. 

Havingconsidered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections timely filed,

I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted. Accordingly,

it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Order and Report and Recommendation (doc. 72) is

adopted and incorporated by reference in this order. 

2. Defendant’s motion to vacate (doc. 31) is denied.

3. The certificate of appealability (doc. 74) is denied. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of April, 2013.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
* 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

April 25, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51635

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JACINTO CARLOS-DE LA TORRE, also known as Jacinto Carlos,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:04-CR-555-ALL

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

Before REAVLEY, WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jacinto Carlos-De La Torre (Carlos) appeals the 46-month

sentence imposed following his conviction for illegal reentry

after deportation. 

Carlos first argues that his sentence was unreasonable

because the district court imposed a term of imprisonment greater

than necessary to meet 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)’s objectives. We

review the sentence imposed for reasonableness. United States v.

Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261-62 (2005). As Carlos was sentenced at

the low end of the applicable guidelines range, and he identifies
No. 05-51635

-2-

no error in the guidelines calculations, we give great deference

to the sentence imposed. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d

511, 519-20 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005). 

Contrary to Carlos’s arguments, we find that the district court

did not improperly balance the sentencing factors and the

sentence imposed was not greater than necessary to satisfy the

purposes of § 3553(a)(2). Therefore, we conclude that the 46-

month sentence imposed was reasonable.

Carlos’s constitutional challenge to the provisions of

8 U.S.C. § 1326 is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United

States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although he contends that

Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of

the Supreme Court now would overrule Almendarez-Torres, we have

repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that AlmendarezTorres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez,

410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298

(2005). Carlos properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed

in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he

raises it here to preserve it for further review. 

AFFIRMED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ASHOT HRANT GASPARYAN; MARGARITA SOREN HAKOBIAN; GARIK GASPARYAN, Petitioners,
v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 10-70248 Agency Nos. A079-256-052 A079-256-053 A079-811-486
MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 7, 2013 ** Pasadena, California Before: GOODWIN, FISHER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Ashot Gasparyan, Margarita Hakobian, and Garik Gasparyan (the “Gasparyans”) seek review of their claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

# FILED
NOV 20 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. After reviewing the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) and examining the Immigration Judge’s “oral decision as a guide to what lay behind the BIA’s conclusion,” Avetova-Elisseva v. INS , 213 F.3d 1192, 1197 (9th Cir. 2000), we conclude that substantial evidence supported the adverse credibility determination. Zamanov v. Holder , 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011); Singh-Kaur v. INS , 183 F.3d 1147, 1149-50 (9th Cir. 1999). At the least, the inconsistencies and equivocations in Gasparyan’s te stimony concerning the duration of his commitment to the Jehovah’s Witnesses relig ion go to the heart of the Gasparyans’ asylum claim. Singh v. Gonzales , 439 F.3d 1100, 1105 (9th Cir. 2006). The Gasparyans’ challenges to the denial of CAT relief were never presented to the BIA below. We therefor e lack jurisdiction to review them. See Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004); Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft , 339 F.3d 814, 819 (9th Cir. 2003). DENIED.

-2-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                              26
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,043
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (179)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,157
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,951
<PP&E>                                           6,638
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,140)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,846
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,791
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           413
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,788)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,846
<SALES>                                          4,453
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,851
<CGS>                                            1,880
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,753
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (264)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (264)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (264)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)
        

</TABLE>
#### Aaron Alexander, plaintiff in error, vs. The Southern Express Company, defendant in error.

By two judges. — An action against an Express Company for a breach of contract, in failing to deliver plaintiff’s goods according to contract, when the failure to deliver, as well as the contract., is alleged to be before June, 1865, is within the Act of October 13th, 1870, and affidavit must be filed as required by the 1st section of that Act. 5th March, 1872.

Taxes. Relief Act of 1870. Before Judge Johnson. Muscogee Superior Court. May Term, 1871.

In February, 1864, Alexander brought suit in which he averred that in March, 1863, at Mobile, Alabama, and Charleston, South Carolina, he entrusted certain goods to said company as a common-carrier, to be delivered to him at Columbus, Georgia, and that the company failed to deliver them, to his damage, etc. He had filed no affidavit as to payment of taxes on this debt as required by the Act of 13th October, 1870, and for that the Court dismissed the cause. That is assigned as error.

L. T. Downing, for plaintiff in error.

Smith & Alexander, for defendant.

McCay, Judge.

Under the construction we have given to the Act of October 13th, 1870, we are of opinion that this debt was taxable *25property on the 1st June, 1865. In the case of *Dawson vs. Ivy & Gerrard, supra,*we have specially alluded to this case, and stated our reasons for holding this debt to be such an one as is covered by the Act.
#### STATE v. DANCY

No. 72 PC.

Case below: 43 N.C. App. 208.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 December 1979.
EXHIBIT      32.1

| (1)   | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the                Company. |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                 |                                                                   |                              |
|--------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|                            |                                                              |                         |
| Date:                August 21, 2006 | By:                                                          | */s/              MARIO PROCOPIO* |
|                                 | Mario                Procopio Chief                  Executive Officer |

----
#### STATE v. HILL

No. 54 PC.

Case below: 50 N.C. App. 212.

Application by defendant for further review denied 8 July 1981.
<PAGE>

                                                              EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                              ------------

                 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 quarterly report of K-V Pharmaceutical Company
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Ronald J. Kanterman, Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, 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 Company.








Date:  March 25, 2008                        /s/ Ronald J. Kanterman
       --------------                    ------------------------------
                                                Ronald J. Kanterman
                                    Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
                                           (Principal Financial Officer)
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 24, 2018

No. 04-17-00379-CV

IN RE TEXAS REAL ESTATE COMMISSION

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

On June 12, 2017, relator Texas Real Estate Commission filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus. The real party in interest Evan Jacobson filed a response. After reviewing the petition 

and response, we have determined that relator is entitled to the relief requested. Accordingly, the 

petition for writ of mandamus is CONDITIONALLY GRANTED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(c).

Within fifteen days from the date of this order, the Honorable Stephani A. Walsh is 

ORDERED to: (1) vacate the Order Granting Bill of Review and Injunctive Relief; and (2) 

reinstate the July 31, 2013 default judgment. The writ will issue only if we are notified that Judge 

Walsh has not complied with this order.

It is so ORDERED on January 24, 2018.

_____________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 24th day of January, 2018.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk of Court

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2016-CI-03723, styled Evan Jacobson v. Ben Luong, pending in the 45th 

Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Stephani A. Walsh presiding.
# C_2011102EN.01003201.xml

| 2.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/32

---

Notice concerning a request pursuant to Article 30 of Directive 2004/17/EC

Request from a contracting entity

2011/C 102/11

On 23 March 2011 the Commission received a request pursuant to Article 30(5) of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors. The first working day following receipt of the request is 24 March 2011.

That request, from the Italian oil and mining industry association — Assomineraria, on behalf of the contracting entities in the sector, concerns exploration for oil and gas and extraction of oil in Italy. Article 30 provides that Directive 2004/17/EC does not apply where the activity is directly exposed to competition on markets to which access is not restricted. These conditions are evaluated solely for the purposes of Directive 2004/17/EC and are without prejudice to the application of competition rules.

The Commission has a period of three months, as from the working day referred to above, within which to take a decision on this request. The period therefore ends on 24 June 2011.

This period may be extended by three months. Notice of any such extension must be published.

In accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 30(6), further requests concerning exploration for and extraction of oil and gas in Italy submitted before the expiry of the period opened in respect of this request shall not be considered as new procedures and shall be treated in the context of this request.

---
Exhibit 32.1 - President Certification (Section 906)

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


I am the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Your Event,
Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company").  I am delivering this certificate
in connection with the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended February
28, 2009 and filed with the U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("Form
10-Q").

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge,
the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Marilyn Montgomery
-----------------------
    Marilyn Montgomery
    President/CFO


Date  April 9, 2009
      -------------


<PAGE>
#### IN RE HOPPER and HOPPER v. MORGAN

No. 14 PC.

Case below: 11 N.C. App. 611.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 7 December 1971.
|Exhibit 32.1
|------------

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Quadra Projects Inc. a Nevada corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended May 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Claude Diedrick, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Director of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, 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 result of operations of the Company.
|   

/s/ Claude DiedrickClaude DiedrickPresident, Chief Executive Officer, ChiefFinancial Officer, Treasurer and DirectorDate: July 12, 2010

---