alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7113

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MARY ELLEN GRAVELY,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 98-7131

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JETAUN O. GRAVELY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District

Judge. (CR-95-27-R, CA-98-348-R, CA-98-347-R)

Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: January 6, 1999
2

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mary Ellen Gravely, Jetaun O. Gravely, Appellants Pro Se. Anthony

Paul Giorno, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellants seek to appeal the district court’s orders denying

their motions filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp.

1998). We have reviewed the records and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals on the reasoning of

the district court. Gravely v. United States, Nos. CR-95-27-R; CA98-348-R; CA-98-347-R (W.D. Va. May 28, 1998). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
----

----

| (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: August 22, 2011 | By:  | /s/ Sheldon Finkel                                                                 |
|-----------------------|-----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                  |      | Shelly Finkel               Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)  |
|                  |      |                                                                                                                                                               |

----
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 28 (Monday, February 11, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 7751]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 08-584]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of General Medical Sciences; 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 General Medical 
Sciences Initial Review Group; Biomedical Research and Research 
Training Review Subcommittee A.
    Date: March 6, 2008.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, 
MD 20817.
    Contact Person: Carole H. Latker, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of 
General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Natcher 
Building, Room 3AN18, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-2848, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1c707d6877796e7f5c72757b716f32727574327b736a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bfd3decbd4dacddcffd1d6d8d2cc91d1d6d791d8d0c9">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, 
Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and 
Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and 
Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental 
Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, 
Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 1, 2008.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 08-584 Filed 2-8-08; 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>
1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F/A of Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 4.
    
    The companys other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosing controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company 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 company, 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.
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the company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
evaluations; andd.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially
affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over
financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the
audit committee of the company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 companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the companys internal control over financial reporting.
  By:
    /s/ Graham BriggsGraham BriggsChief Executive Officer
Table of Contents

Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATIONPursuant to 18 United States Code Section 1350, 
As adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the 
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned hereby certifies that, to such officers knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2008 of Net Serviços de Comunicação S.A. (the Company) filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof 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 such annual report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| |                                 
| | --------------------------------
| |                                 
| |                                 
| | Name: João Adalberto Elek Júnior
| | Title: Chief Financial  Officer 
| | Date: April 22, 2009            

---
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 14

- 00041

- CR

MILTON LEE GARDNER

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

From the 77th District Court

Limestone County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13074

- A

ORDER

Appellant’s Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant’s Motion for

Rehearing is granted. Appellant’s motion for rehearing is due November 5, 2015.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion granted

Order issued and filed November 5, 2015
Exhibit
32.1


CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Nasus Consulting, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Russell
R. Desjourdy, Chief Executive Officer 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 result of operations of the
      Company.




Date:
November 14,
2008                                                       /s/ Russell R.
Desjourdy


Russell
R. Desjourdy


Chief
Executive Officer and


Chief
Financial Officer
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) Update

LaVon B. Rutherford, CHP

SEC Health Physics Team Leader

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH)

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania| April 17, 2019
PURPOSE

 Update the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health (Advisory Board)

 Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) summary of petitions

- in qualification

- under evaluation

- currently under Board review

- potential SEC petitions (83.14)
Summary

 Petitions received – 251*

- Petitions in qualification process – 0

- Petitions qualified for evaluation – 150

- NIOSH evaluation in progress – 2

- NIOSH evaluation completed – 149

 Reports with the Advisory Board – 10

 Petitions not qualifying for evaluation – 101

*NOTE: 251 includes 5 petitions received prior to the federal regulation.
SEC Petitions under Evaluation

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 1990-2014

 Livermore, CA

 Petition SEC-0221

 Addendum to address remaining years 

 All employees

 Expected completion: November 2019
SEC Petitions under Evaluation cont.

Y-12 Plant 1977-1994

 Oak Ridge, TN

 Petition SEC-0250

 All employees

 Expected completion: July 2019
Under Advisory Board Review

 Hanford (SEC-00056) – NIOSH reviewing 

documentation to determine whether prime contractors 

radiological control program were meeting bioassay 

commitments

 Savannah River Site (SEC-00103) – NIOSH working 

to resolve issues raised by SC&A and the work group

 Los Alamos National Lab (SEC-00109) – NIOSH 

working to resolve issues raised by SC&A and the work 

group
Under Advisory Board Review CONT.

 Sandia National Laboratory (SEC-00188) – Addendum 2 to the 

petition evaluation will be presented at this meeting

 Idaho National Lab (SEC-00219) – An update is scheduled for 

this meeting

 Argonne National Laboratory - West (SEC-00224) – NIOSH is 

working to resolve issues raised by SC&A and the work group

 Area IV Santa Susanna (SEC-00235) – An update is scheduled 

for this meeting
Under Advisory Board Review CONT.

 Metals and Controls (SEC-00236) – NIOSH is working to 

resolve issues raised by SC&A and the work group

 De Soto Avenue Facility (SEC-00246) – NIOSH is working to 

resolve issues raised by SC&A and the work group

 Superior Steel Co. (SEC 0247) – An update is scheduled for 

this meeting
Sites with evaluation period awaiting action

 Hanford (SEC-0057) 1984-1990 (Primes only)

 Savannah River Site (SEC-0103) 1973-2007

 Los Alamos National Laboratories-A (SEC-0109) 1996-2005

 Sandia National Laboratory (SEC-0188) 1997-2011

 Idaho National Laboratory (SEC-00219) 1949-1970
 Lawrence Livermore National Lab (SEC-0221) 1990-2014

 Argonne National Laboratory – West (SEC-0224) 1958-1979

 Area IV Santa Susanna (SEC- 0235) 1991-1993

 Metals and Controls (SEC- 0236) 1968-1997(Res) 

 De Soto Avenue Facility (SEC-0246) 1965-1995

Sites with evaluation period awaiting action cont.
Potential SEC Petitions (83.14)

 West Valley Demonstration Project

– NIOSH is evaluating a potential SEC for the AWE 

period 1966-1973
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

December 12, 2012

p1205

Order 

December 12, 2012

145969

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 145969

COA: 305017 

Saginaw CC: 10-034573-FC

DAVARRIO DEONTE WEBB,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 16, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE in part the judgment of the Court of 

Appeals to the extent that the Court of Appeals vacated the defendant’s convictions. We 

do not disturb the Court of Appeals determination that the lack of an expert witness 

deprived the defendant of an opportunity to present a defense to the charged crimes, or its 

ruling that the defendant is entitled to funds to retain a DNA expert. However, the error 

in denying funds may have been harmless and, at this point in the proceedings, it would 

be premature to vacate the defendant’s convictions before the results of independent 

DNA testing are known. We REMAND this case to the Saginaw Circuit Court for 

further proceedings not inconsistent with this order. The trial court shall provide funds 

sufficient to permit the defendant to obtain independent DNA testing. Testing shall 

proceed forthwith, and the results shall be provided to both parties as soon as reasonably 

possible. Within 56 days of receiving the test results, the defendant may seek further 

relief, if appropriate, in the trial court. 

We do not retain jurisdiction.
EXHIBIT
32




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
Brighton Oil & Gas, Inc. on Form 10-KSB/A for the period from January 27,
2005 (Inception) through December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his
knowledge:




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/ EARL MOORE
              Earl
      Moore
              CEO
              Dated: 
      August 20, 2007
              
              
              /s/
      MARK SMITH
              Mark
      Smith
              CFO
              Dated:
       August 20, 2008




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.
Ames Laboratory

Special Exposure Cohort 

Petition Evaluation Report

LaVon B. Rutherford, CHP

Special Exposure Cohort Health Physics Team Leader

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Division of Compensation Analysis and Support

August 2011

Richland, WA
Summary

 November 2010: NIOSH completed a review of the 

existing SEC class definitions and presented the 

findings of that review to the Advisory Board

 March 2011: NIOSH informed an Ames Laboratory 

claimant that we were unable to reconstruct the 

radiation dose for the claim

 April 2011: NIOSH received an 83.14 SEC petition

 April 2011: Petition qualified for evaluation

 June 2011: NIOSH evaluation report issued 
Summary—cont. 

 July 2011: NIOSH presented the evaluation 

report to the Advisory Board during the Board’s 

conference call

• Prior to taking action on the recommended class, the 

Advisory Board wanted a better understanding of 

how DOL determines eligibility of claims under 

EEOICPA for the Ames Laboratory
Summary—cont. 

 July 2011: NIOSH issues a revised evaluation report 

changing the class recommended start date from 

January 1, 1942 to August 13, 1942, based on the 

formation of the Manhattan Engineer District (MED)
Proposed Class

All Department of Energy employees, its 

predecessor agencies, and its contractors and 

subcontractors who worked in any area of the 

Ames Laboratory at Iowa State University during 

the period from August 13, 1942 through 

December 31, 1970, for a number of work days 

aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring 

either solely under this employment or in 

combination with work days within the 

parameters established for one or more classes 

of employees included in the Special Exposure 

Cohort.
AGENDA 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

Teleconference of the 

Carborundum WG 

June 13, 2019 

Conference Call Number: 1-866-659-0537 

Participant Pass Code: 9933701 

10:30 a.m. (Eastern Time) Welcome and roll-call/introductions 

WG Discussion 

DCAS White Paper: “NIOSH Response to Findings on the MCNP Analysis for Carborundum” 

SC&A review of DCAS White Paper: “Reply to NIOSH Response... Carborundum” 

Plans/Follow-up 

Adjourn
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6447

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

HENRY WESLEY CHISOLM,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (CR-98-1186)

Submitted: August 29, 2002 Decided: September 5, 2002

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry Wesley Chisolm, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Henry Wesley Chisolm appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion styled as one to Correct a Plain Error Pursuant

to Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. See United States v.

Chisolm, No. CR-98-1186 (D.S.C. Jan. 31, 2002). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit
10.9


 


November
13, 2015


Ralph
L. Nachman, MD


Weill
Cornell Medical College


1300
York Avenue


New
York NY 10021


 


 


 


Dear
Dr. Nachman


 


Thank
you so much for your willingness to join the Scientific Advisory Board of Regen Biopharma Inc. the function of the Scientific
Advisory Board is to review research strategy and projects that Regen Biopharma Inc.may undertake and help identify those projects
which may lead to future developments and clinical treatments in the fields of immune- and stem cell therapy. Other areas may
be pursued as well, with advice from this SAB.


 


In
consideration for your efforts, you will receive 100,000 shares of Regen Biopharma Series A Preferred stock. Regen’s common
stock currently trades on the OTC Bulletin Board (OTCBB:RGBP). The 100,000 Series A Preferred shares are consideration for participating
in telephonic conference calls and reviewing scientific strategy and data. It is anticipated that the frequency and timing of
such calls will be approximately one call every month. Should we request an annual face to face meeting, expenses will be paid
by Regen Biopharma inc. for any out of pocket expenses associated with the meeting.


 


Additionally,
this agreement may be renewed by mutual consent each year on its anniversary date. The compensation on renewal will be another
payment of 100,000 Series A preferred stock in Regen on each anniversary that this contract is renewed by the Company.


 


It
is anticipated that members of the Scientific Advisory Board will potentially serve as primary research consultants to the Company
as such projects are undertaken. Compensation for such projects will be negotiated separately on a case-by-case basis between
the Company and the consultant.


 


Thank
you again for your participation in this exciting initiative.


 


/s/
Harry Lander


 


Harry
M. Lander


President