alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 37 (Friday, February 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 10413]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4523]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Collection of Information Submitted for OMB Review

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act and OMB Guidelines, 
the National Science Foundation is posting a notice of information 
collection that will affect the public. Interested persons are invited 
to submit comments by March 17, 1995. Copies of materials may be 
obtained at the NSF address or telephone shown below.
    Agency Clearance Officer: Herman G. Fleming, Division of Contracts, 
Policy, and Oversight, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, or by telephone (703) 306-1243. 
Comments may be submitted to:
    OMB Desk Officer: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
ATTN: Dan Chenok, Desk Officer, OMB, 722 Jackson Place, Room 3208, 
NEOB, Washington, DC 20503.
    Title: Survey of Course & Curriculum Development Program Principal 
Investigators and unsuccessful Applicants.
    Affected Public: Individuals.
    Respondents/Reporting Burden: 530 respondents: average 13 minutes 
per response.
    Abstract: NSF will use data from two mails surveys to improve its 
undergraduate Course & Curriculum Development program. One asks 
Principal Investigators about the nature of, products developed by, and 
impact of their projects. The other asks unsuccessful applicants about 
the experience and consequences of undergoing the proposal process.

    Dated: February 17, 1995.
Herman G. Fleming,
Reports Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-4523 Filed 2-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
Exhibit 99.1

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

      I, Raymond P. Warrell, Jr., M.D., Chief Executive Officer of Genta
Incorporated, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify that:

      (1) The Company's annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended December
31, 2002 (the "Form 10-K") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

      (2) The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Raymond P. Warrell, Jr., M.D.
---------------------------------
Raymond P. Warrell, Jr., M.D.
Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, Michael Bohm, Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of American Skandia Life Assurance Corporation (the Company), hereby certify that the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.

Dated:    March 24, 2006



/s/ Michael A. BohmName:

Michael A. BohmTitle:

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is
not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,
 AS AMENDED, AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Consorteum Holdings, Inc. (hereinafter the "Company")
hereby certifies to such officer's knowledge that the Company's Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2009 (the "Report"), as 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,
as amended, and the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company. This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and
shall not be deemed to be part of the Report or "filed" for any purpose
whatsoever.


Date: October 13, 2009

Name:  /s/ Craig A. Fielding
       -----------------------
       Craig A. Fielding

Title:  Chief Executive Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 11, 2023

No. 04-23-00763-CR & 04-23-00764-CR

Jerry L. MASSEY,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2023CR4026W & 2023CR4027W

Honorable Joel Perez, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, appeal nos. 04-23-00763-CR & 04-23-

00764-CR are DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.

It is so ORDERED on October 11 2023.

_____________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 11th day of October, 2023.

_____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court
Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual Balance 

in 75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Ann

Balan

75th 

-1.92% -5.70% 0.45% 1.77% -1.48% -3.9

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2005 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actu

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Level of Monthly Benefits (PIA)

Proposed Provision: For OASI beneficiaries becoming eligible for benefits in 2018 and later, mfactors by the ratio of life expectancy at 67 for 2013 to the life expectancy at age 67 for the 4th the year of benefit eligibility. Unisex life expectancies, based on period life tables, would be uprojected by SSA's Office of the Chief Actuary. Disability benefits are not affected by the propworker beneficiaries, upon attaining normal retirement age, would be subject to a proportional benefits based on the worker's years of disability.

January 13, 2006

Present Law Change From Present Law in Results with this prov

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

0.005.00

10.0015.0020.0025.00

2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075

Year

Percent

Cost rates with this provisionCost rates under present lawIncome rates with this provisionIncome rates under present law

OASDI tax rate schedule 

(employees and employers, each)

1993 and later 6.2%

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditu

0

100200300400500600700800900

1000

2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 205

Year

Percent

Present law with thi
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Actuarial Publications |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|

| www.socialsecurity.gov | Home  FAQs  Contact Us  Search | **Search**  |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|

| Solvency Provisions | Provisions Affecting Trust Fund Investment in EquitiesUpdated May 3, 2006   |
|---------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 28 (Thursday, February 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 7352]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02709]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; 
Notice of Closed Meetings

    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 
meetings.
    The meetings 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 Biomedical Imaging and 
Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel; Career Award and Conference 
Grant Review (2016/05).
    Date: March 18, 2016.
    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, Suite 
920, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Mark Martin, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
6707 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 920, Bethesda, MD 20892, (240) 447-
2148, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3b565a495015565a494f52557b565a525715555253155c544d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d6bbb7a4bdf8bbb7a4a2bfb896bbb7bfbaf8b8bfbef8b1b9a0">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and 
Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel; P41 BTRC review (2016/05).
    Date: March 23-25, 2016.
    Time: 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Wyndham Boston Beacon Hill, 5 Blossom Street, Boston, MA 
02114.
    Contact Person: Dennis Hlasta, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, 
National Institutes of Health, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 
20892, (301) 451-4794, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e98d8c8787809ac78185889a9d88a9878081c78e869f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8eeaebe0e0e7fda0e6e2effdfaefcee0e7e6a0e9e1f8">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: February 4, 2016.
David Clary,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-02709 Filed 2-10-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway, J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 5, 2009

jm 

# Order

May 5, 2009

138806 (22)

MICHAL DEWAYNE SMITH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 138806
COA: 289392 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________ ________________

On order of the Chief Ju stice, the motion to waive f ees is considered and it
is DENIED because MCL 600.2 963 requires that a prisone r pursuing a civil action be liable for filing fees. Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $12.00, shall submit a copy of this order with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned
with this order. Failure to comply with this orde r shall result in the appeal not being
filed in this Court. If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of the deposits made to plain tiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of $363.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court. Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full.
The Clerk of the Court sh all furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 38 (Monday, February 27, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 10534]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4692]



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


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 95-24, RM-8583]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Clarendon, Texas

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by ROHO 
Broadcasting proposing the allotment of Channel 257C2 to Clarendon, 
Texas, as the community's first local aural transmission service. 
Channel 257C2 can be allotted to Clarendon in compliance with the 
Commission's minimum distance separation requirements without the 
imposition of a site restriction. The coordinates for Channel 257C2 at 
Clarendon are 34-56-16 and 100-53-16.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before April 14, 1995, and reply 
comments on or before May 1, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554. 
In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should 
serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: Keith 
Hodo, ROHO Broadcasting, P.O. Box 1090, Clarendon, Texas 79226 
(Petitioner).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 95-24, adopted February 
9, 1995, and released February 21, 1995. The full text of this 
Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during 
normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M 
Street, NW, Washington, D.C. The complete text of this decision may 
also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, ITS, Inc., 
(202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW, Suite 140, Washington, D.C. 20037.
    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply 
to this proceeding.
    Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to 
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are 
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve 
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing 
permissible ex parte contacts.
    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, 
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 95-4692 Filed 2-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1270

WOODROW W. WILLIAMS, JR.; GERALDINE J. WILLIAMS, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versusU.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Andrew Cuomo, Secretary; FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Linda H. Daschale, Administrator for Federal Aviation Administration, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-97-961-WMN) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 19, 1998 Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Woodrow W. Williams, Jr., Geraldine J. Williams, Appellants Pro Se.Earle Bronson Wilson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Woodrow W. Williams, Jr., and Geraldine J. Williams appealfrom the district court’s orders (1) denying relief on their complaint in which they sought compensatory and punitive damages and the return of money garnished from Mr. Williams’ federal salary and retirement pay, and (2) denying their motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Williams v. United States Dep’t of Housing & Urban Dev. , No. CA-97-961-WMN (D. Md. Nov. 25, 1997; Jan. 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.

AFFIRMED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SURINDER KAUR; et al.,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-73209

Agency Nos. A096-167-433

A096-167-434

A096-167-435

ORDER and MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued January 13, 2014

Submitted March 6, 2015

San Francisco, California

Before: McKEOWN,** TALLMAN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

This case is submitted as of the date of this order.

FILED

MAR 06 2015

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.

 ** Judge McKeown was drawn to replace Judge Alarcón following his

death. Judge McKeown has read the briefs, reviewed the record, and listened to

the audio recording of oral argument held on January 13, 2014.
Surinder Kaur petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s

(BIA) denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal. Kaur’s

petition for review was timely filed, see Abdisalan v. Holder, 774 F.3d 517 (9th

Cir. 2014) (en banc), and we have jurisdiction over this appeal under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(1). 

The BIA erred in concluding that Dinu v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir.

2004) foreclosed Kaur’s asylum claim. While legitimate criminal investigation or

prosecution does not constitute persecution on the basis of a protected ground, see

id. at 1044, Kaur credibly testified that she was beaten and raped by a police

inspector, which did not constitute “interrogation tactics . . . directed at the

legitimate goal of finding evidence of crime,” id. Because her abuse was not part

of a legitimate criminal investigation, her claim was not foreclosed by Dinu, and

therefore the BIA erred in failing to consider Kaur’s claim of persecution on

account of a protected ground.

Moreover, even if there had been a legitimate prosecutorial purpose for such

actions, the BIA erred in failing to consider whether Kaur presented sufficient

evidence that her persecution was motivated in part by her political opinion. See

Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1112 (9th Cir. 2006) (noting that an asylum

2
claim can succeed if one of the motives for persecution was based on a protected

ground). 

We therefore remand to the BIA to consider Kaur’s claim that she was

persecuted based on imputed political opinion. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12,

16 (2002) (per curiam).

PETITION GRANTED. 

3
Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual Balance 

in 75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

B

7

-1.70% -4.20% 0.37% 1.09% -1.32% 

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2008 Trustees Report Office of the Chief A

July 16, 2008

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Retirement Age

Proposed Provision: Index benefits to longevity after the normal retirement age (NRA) reaccurrent law. Under current law, the NRA reaches 67 for individuals who attain age 62 in 20Under this provision, the NRA would be further increased by one month for those attaining other year after 2022.

Present Law Change From Present Law in Results with this 

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

0.02.04.06.08.0

10.012.014.016.018.020.0

2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068 2078

Year

Percent

Cost rates with this provisionCost rates under present lawIncome rates with this provisionIncome rates under present law

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

 (assets as a percentage of annual expe

0

100200300400500600700800900

1000

2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 

Year

Percent

Present law With this p
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6289

MARK I. BEDFORD,

 Petitioner – Appellee,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director VDOC,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, District 

Judge. (7:12-cv-00411-MFU-RSB)

Submitted: July 30, 2013 Decided: August 5, 2013

Before WYNN, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Ivan Bedford, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Mark Ivan Bedford seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Bedford has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED