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 State

          - [Public Notice 7028]

                    Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive                           ( print page 29601)                        Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, I hereby determine that the individual known as, also known as Abdelali Abou Dher, also known as El Harrachi committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.                

Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that “prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously,” I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.

                    This notice shall be published in the                     **Federal Register.**

Dated: May 14, 2010.

Hillary Rodham Clinton,

Secretary of State.

[FR Doc. 2010-12679 Filed 5-25-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
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

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App), 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 USC, as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, 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 on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel; NIDA Conference Grant (R13) Review.                    

*Date:*                         June 16, 2010.                    

*Time:*                         9 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6101 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Gerald L. McLaughlin, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, Room 220, MSC 8401, 6101 Executive Blvd., Bethesda, MD 301-402-6626,                         *gm145a@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos.: 93.279, Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: May 19, 2010.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-12571 Filed 5-24-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS   OF   PRESIDENT   AND  CEO   PURSUANT  TO  SECTION  302  OF  THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Gail Montgomery, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Nutrition 21, Inc.;

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 registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer  and  I  are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

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

         b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure controls
and  procedures  and  presented  in  this  report  our  conclusions   about  the
effectiveness  of the disclosure  controls and procedures,  as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

         c)  Disclosed  in this report any change in the  registrant's  internal
control over financial  reporting  that occurred  during the  registrant's  most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's  fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual  report)  that  has  materially  affected,  or is  reasonably  likely  to
materially affect, the registrant's  internal control over financial  reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,  based on our
most recent  evaluation of internal  control over  financial  reporting,  to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or  persons   performing  the  equivalent   functions):

         a) All significant  deficiencies and material  weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal  control over financial  reporting which are reasonably
likely  to  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability  to  record,  process,
summarize and report  financial  information;  and

         b) Any fraud,  whether or not  material,  that  involves  management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.


Date: November 13, 2003

Gail Montgomery
President and Chief Executive Officer


                                       21
#### B. M. Long, executor, plaintiff in error, *vs.*John R. Hood, defendant in error.

1. When the plaintiff’s name is signed to an attachment bond by his attorney, the plaintiff’s name should be followed by the words “by his attorney-at-law,” to which should be added the attorney’s name. (R.)

2. An attachment bond is amendable. (R.)

3. Where the defendant has replevied the property attached, and has appeared and pleaded to the merits of the case, the plaintiff has the right to try the case as at common law. (R.)

Attachment bond. Attorney and client. Amendment. Before Judge Wright. Carroll Superior Court. April Term, 1872.

For the facts of this case, see the decision.

Oscar Reese, represented by W. D. Ellis for plaintiff in error, submitted the following brief: An attorney may sign his client’s name to an attachment bond: Code, sec. 3201. Attachment laws are liberally construed : 36 Ga. R., 90. Substantial compliance as to bond sufficient: Dudley’s R., 69 ; 3 Ga. R., 271; 5th *Ibid.,*178; Code, sec. 4. An instrument may be binding though signed in the body of it or on the back: 26 Ga. R., 223; Chitty on Contracts, 71. Principal bound when : 39 Ga. R., 35. Attachment bonds are amendable: Code, sec. 3240; 27 Ga. R., 65; 29th *Ibid.,*642. Appearance and pleading waives process and the service thereof: Code, secs. 3233, 3259. No declaration shall be *226dismissed because the attachment has been dismissed : Code, see. 3233.

No appearance for defendant.

Warner, Chief Justice.

This was an attachment taken out by the plaintiff’s attorney in the name of his client against the property of the defendant. The attachment bond was signed by Oscar Reese, attorney-at-law, for John Long. A motion was made to dismiss the attachment, on the ground that the bond was not a legal bond, which motion was sustained. The plaintiff then made a motion to amend the bond, which was refused by the Court. The property levied on had been replevied by the defendant. The plaintiff had filed his declaration in the case, and the defendant had appeared and filed his plea to the merits thereof. The plaintiff claimed the right to proceed with the trial of the case as in a common law suit, the defendant in attachment having appeared and pleaded to the merits of the action founded thereon, which was also refused, and the plaintiff excepted. As a matter of practice, and in strict conformity with the law, the plaintiff’s attorney should have signed the name of John Long to the bond by his attorney-at-law, Oscar Reese. The bond, however, was amendable, and it was error in the Court in refusing to allow it to be amended : Code, section 3240. The defendant having replevied the property attached, and having appeared and pleaded to the merits of the plaintiff’s declaration founded on the attachment filed in Court, it was error to refuse the plaintiff the right to try the case as at common law against the defendant: Code, 3233, 3234, 3252.

Let the judgment of the Court below be reversed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-2019

NESRIA H. ABDELA,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A78-600-684)

Submitted: May 26, 2004 Decided: June 23, 2004

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler,

Assistant Attorney General, Allen W. Hausman, Senior Litigation

Counsel, Andrew M. Eschen, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION,

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Nesria H. Abdela, a native and citizen of Ethiopia,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s (IJ)

denial of asylum and withholding of removal. For the reasons

discussed below, we deny the petition for review.

Abdela asserts that she established her eligibility for

asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility

for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence [s]he presented

was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find

the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502

U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record

and conclude that Abdela fails to show that the evidence compels a

contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that

Abdela seeks.

Additionally, we uphold the IJ’s denial of Abdela’s

application for withholding of removal. The standard for

withholding of removal is more stringent than that for granting

asylum. Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999). To

qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must demonstrate

“a clear probability of persecution.” INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480

U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Because Abdela fails to show she is eligible

for asylum, she cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of

removal.
- 3 -

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
# C o urt o f A ppe a ls

o f th e S ta te o f G e o rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 4 A0 74 7 . KENNETH W AYNE CLAY v . THE STATE.

I n Febru ary 201 9 , K enneth W ayne Clay p lead ed gu ilty to o ne c o u nt o f f ailing

to register as a s ex o f

f e nd er

. O v e r f

o u r years later, in A ugu st 2023, Clay f iled an

extrao rd inary mo tio n f

o r a new trial. The trial c o u rt d ismissed that mo tio n, and Clay
f iled this d irec t ap p eal. 1 W e lac k j u risd ic tio n.
A n ap peal f

ro m an o rd er d enying an e xtrao rd inary mo tio n f o r a new trial mu st
be initiated by f

iling an ap p lic atio n f

o r d isc retio nary rev iew

. OCGA § 5- 6

- 35 (a) (7 ), (b); Ba lkco m v

. S ta te , 227 Ga. A p p

. 327 , 329 (489 SE2d 1 29 ) ( 1 9 9 7). “ Co mp lianc e

w ith the d isc retio nar

y a p p e a l s p r o ce d u r e i s j u r i s d i ct i o n a l .” Ha i r Res to ra ti on S peci a li s ts

v

. S ta t e o f Ga

. , 36 0 G a. A p p

. 9 01 , 9 03 (86 2 SE2d 56 4) (2021 ) (p unc t uatio n o mitted ).
Thu s, Clay’ s failu re to fo llo w t h e p r o p er p ro ced u re d ep riv es u s o f j u risd ic t io n o v er this ap p eal. M o reo v er, to the extent that Clay’ s extrao rd inary mo tio n f or a new trial

may b e c o nstru ed as a mo tio n to vac ate his j u d gment o f c o nv ic tio n, “ a p etitio n to

v ac ate or mo d if

y a j u dgment o f c o nv ic tio n is no t an ap p r o priate remed y in a c riminal

c ase[,]” and any ap p eal f

ro m a n o rd er d enying or d ismissing su c h a p etitio n o r mo tio n

mu st be d ismissed

. H

a rper v

. Sta te , 286 Ga. 21 6 , 21 8 (1 ), ( 2) (6 86 SE2d 7 86 ) (2009 );

see a l s o R o b e r t

s v

. Sta te , 286 Ga. 532, 532 (6 9 0 SE2d 1 50) (201 0 )

. Fo r eac h o f the

1 This ap p eal rep resents Clay’ s third ap p earanc e bef o re this Co u rt. I n 2020, w e d ismissed , in a n u np u blished o p inio n, Clay’ s ap p eal f ro m an o rd e r d enying his mo tio n
to c o rrec t an illegal and v o id sentenc e. See Case No

. A 20A 07 20 ( A pril 3, 2020). Last
year, w e d ismissed Clay’ s ap p eal f ro m an o r d er d enying his po st- c o nv ic tio n mo tio n
to su p p ress ev id e nc e. See Case N o

. A 23A 1 1 80 (M arc h 30, 2023). January 18, 2024abo v e reaso ns, this ap p eal is hereby D I SM I SSED

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a ls o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O ffic e , A t la n t a ,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t ify t h a t t h e a b o v e is a tr u e e

x t r a c t fr o m

t h e m in u t e s o f t h e C o u r t o f A pp e a ls o f G e o r g ia

. W it n e s s m y s ig n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o f s a id c o u r t h e r e t o a ffix e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r la s t a b o v e w r

it t e n

.

, C le r

k

. 01/18/2024
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

March 29, 2016

a0321 

# Order

Clerk March 29, 2016

151057

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 151057

COA: 324953

Oakland CC: 89

- 095782

- FC

JOHN MARSHALL ATKINS, JR.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_____________________________________/

By order of December 22, 2015, the application for leave to appeal the January 21,

2015 order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in

Montgomery v Louisiana

, cert gtd 575 US ___; 135 S Ct 1546; 191 L Ed 2d 635 (2015).

On order of the Court, the case having been decided on January 25, 2016, 577 US ___;

136 S Ct 718; 193 L Ed 2d 599 (2016), the application is again conside red and, pursuant

to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the sentence of the

Oakland Circuit Court for the defendant’s first

- degree murder conviction, and we

REMAND this case to the trial court for resentencing on that convictio n pursuant to MCL

769.25 and MCL 769.25a. See Montgomery

, supra ; Miller v Alabama , 567 US ___; 132

S Ct 2455; 183 L Ed 2d 407 (2012). In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED,

because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented sh ould be reviewed

by this Court.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                      5
       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                                    0
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1,065,980
<ALLOWANCES>                                        (36,659)
<INVENTORY>                                         154,406
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1,245,718
<PP&E>                                            4,923,373
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (4,176,271)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    3,074,836
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1,524,869
<BONDS>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                          4,136,697
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                       (3,085,562)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      3,074,836
<SALES>                                           3,782,748
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  3,785,684
<CGS>                                             2,499,402
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     2,499,402
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   70,036
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (335,938)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (335,938)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (335,938)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (.08)
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit C

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1869-3 Filed: 05/07/19 Entered: 05/07/19 09:23:25 Page 1

of 3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company Docket Nos. ER17-910-002

ER17-1509-002

ER17-2181-002

ER18-1102-001

ORDER ESTABLISHING PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE 

(Issued April 25, 2019)

1. A preliminary conference is scheduled for May 9, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. in a hearing

room to be designated at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.1 The purpose of

the preliminary conference is to establish a procedural schedule and discuss other matters

as may be necessary.

2. Pursuant to the April 23, 2019 order of the Chief Administrative Law Judge, the

proceeding is subject to the Commission’s Track III procedural time standards.

Accordingly, the hearing is set for February 10, 2020 and the initial decision is due

July 3, 2020. Consistent with these dates, the participants should submit a joint proposed

procedural schedule to the undersigned on or before May 6, 2019.

3. At a minimum, the joint proposed procedural schedule should include dates for the

following items:

 Direct Testimony

 Answering Testimony

 Cross-Answering Testimony

 Rebuttal Testimony

1 According to the Chief Administrative Law Judge’s April 23, 2019 Order, “[t]he 

Presiding Judge shall adjust any other procedural dates consistent with this Order.” 

Moreover, the Chief Administrative Law Judge’s April 19, 2019 Order does not mention 

any deadline for the preliminary conference, and leaves the adjustment of all other 

procedural dates to the undersigned’s discretion. As such, the fifteen (15) day deadline to 

hold a preliminary conference is waived. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1869-3 Filed: 05/07/19 Entered: 05/07/19 09:23:25 Page 2

of 3
Docket No. ER17-910-002, et al. - 2 -

 Deadline for Final Discovery Requests

 Deadline for Parties to Answer All Outstanding Discovery Requests

 Joint Statement of Positions on the Issues, Joint Witness List, and Index 

of Exhibits

 Pre-Hearing Briefs

 Hearing

 Initial Briefs

 Reply Briefs

 Initial Decision 

Steven A. Glazer

Presiding Administrative Law Judge

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1869-3 Filed: 05/07/19 Entered: 05/07/19 09:23:25 Page 3

of 3