alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13** 

**- 1068** 

In re: LIONELL ELIJAH EPHRAIM,

a/k/a Lionel Elizah Williams

,

Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

. ( 1:11

- cv

- 00107 )

Submitted : March 26, 2013 Decided: March 29, 2013

Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Lionell Elijah Ephraim , Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Lionell Elijah Ephraim petitions for a writ of

mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed

ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petitions. He seeks an

order from this court directing the district court to act on the

petitions

. We find the present record does not reveal undue

delay in the district court. Accordingly, while we grant leave

to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequ ately presented in the materials before

th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
|Exhibit 32.1
|------------



|CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofST Online Corp.(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Scott Pedersen, 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; and2.
     The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated this 9thday of May, 2007.

SCOTT PEDERSENScott PedersenChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

















---
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5809 

To amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to remove a limitation on amounts 

provided under the clean school bus program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2023 

Ms. PORTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to remove a limitation on amounts provided under the clean school bus 

program, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘California Clean 

5 School Bus Equity Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CLEAN SCHOOL BUS PROGRAM. 

7 Section 741(b)(7) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

8 (42 U.S.C. 16091(b)(7)) is amended to read as follows: 

9 ‘‘(7) DEPLOYMENT AND DISTRIBUTION.—The 

10 Administrator shall— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5809 IH

1 ‘‘(A) to the maximum extent practicable, 

2 achieve nationwide deployment of clean school 

3 buses and zero-emission school buses through 

4 the program under this section; and 

5 ‘‘(B) ensure a broad geographic distribu6 tion of awards.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

# TIME AND DATE: 

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission Investor Advisory Committee will hold a public meeting on Thursday, June 10, 2021. The meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. (ET) and will be open to the public.

# PLACE: 

The meeting will be conducted by remote means and/or at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F St NE, Washington, DC 20549. Members of the public may watch the webcast of the meeting on the Commission's website at *www.sec.gov.*

# STATUS: 

This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a majority of the Commission may attend the meeting. On May 26, 2021, the Commission published notice of the Committee meeting (Release Nos. 33-10944, 34-92018), indicating that the meeting is open to the public and inviting the public to submit written comments to the Committee.

# MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED: 

The agenda for the meeting includes: Welcome remarks; approval of previous meeting minutes; a panel discussion regarding best execution and its role in post-NMS market structure; a panel discussion regarding best execution issues unique to wholesale brokers; a panel discussion regarding 10b5-1 plans; a discussion of a recommendation regarding individual retirement accounts; subcommittee reports; and a non-public administrative session.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed; please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

Dated: May 26, 2021.

Vanessa A. Countryman,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2021-11502 Filed 5-26-21; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
II 

Calendar No. 659 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5528 

[Report No. 118–258] 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 30, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

DECEMBER 2, 2024 

Reported by Mr. PETERS, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To require the Director of the Office of Management and 

Budget conduct a review to determine the impact of 

the lowest price technically acceptable source selection 

process on national security, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Safe and Smart Fed5 eral Purchasing Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5528 RS

1 SEC. 2. REVIEW TO DETERMINE THE IMPACT OF THE LOW2 EST PRICE TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE 

3 SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS ON NATIONAL 

4 SECURITY. 

5 (a) REVIEW.—The Director shall review the procure6 ment management practices of Defense and Civilian agen7 cies to determine whether the provisions of section 

8 15.101–2 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation have cre9 ated any national security risk. 

10 (b) REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after the en11 actment of this Act, the Director shall submit a report 

12 on the results of the review under subsection (a) to— 

13 (1) the Committee on Oversight and Account14 ability of the House of Representatives; and 

15 (2) the Committee on Homeland Security and 

16 Governmental Affairs of the Senate. 

17 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

18 (1) DEFENSE AND CIVILIAN AGENCY.—The 

19 term ‘‘Defense and Civilian agency’’ has the mean20 ing given the term ‘‘agency’’ in section 133 of title 

21 41, United States Code. 

22 (2) DIRECTOR.—The term ‘‘Director’’ means 

23 the Director of the Office of Management and Budg24 et. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Calendar No. 659 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5528 

[Report No. 118–258] 

AN ACT 

To require the Director of the Office of Manageand for other purposes. able source selection process on national security, the impact of the lowest price technically accept- ment and Budget conduct a review to determine 

DECEMBER 2, 2024 

Reported without amendment 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The undersigned, Dr. Panos Kontzalis and Harvey Lalach, hereby 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 quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Anavex Life Sciences Corp. for the period ended December 31, 2006 (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 Anavex Life Sciences Corp. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Dated:  February 14, 2007

/s/ Dr. Panos Kontzalis

Dr. Panos Kontzalis, CEO

(Principal Executive Officer)

/s/ Harvey Lalach

Harvey Lalach

President, CFO and Secretary

(Principal Financial Officer and

Principal Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Anavex Life Sciences Corp. and will be retained by Anavex Life Sciences Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

CW1063945.1
#### TARRANT COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT a/k/a John Peter Smith Hospital; Dr. James M. O’Brien; James M. O’Brien & Associates, Relators, v. The Honorable Ken CURRY, Judge, Respondent.

No. 95-0150.

Supreme Court of Texas.

March 16, 1995.

Greg Fitzgerald, Hurst, A.W. Arnold, III, Benton Jordan Barton, Dallas, Sullivan H. Bradley, Jr., Fort Worth, for relators.

Lowell E. Dushman, Fort Worth, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This original mandamus proceeding puts in issue the scope of the blood donor privilege statute. Tex. Health & Safety Code § 162.010(e) (1992) provides (emphasis supplied):

> The court may not disclose to any other person the name of a donor *or any other*
>       *446
>       *information that could result in the disclosure of a donor’s identity,*including an address, social security number, designated recipient, or replacement donor information.

Section 162.011 also provides further safeguards against discovery which threatens “the disclosure of the name of a donor *or other information that could result in the disclosure of a donor’s identity.”*(Emphasis supplied.)

The underlying wrongful death suit is against a blood bank and physician for allegedly inadequate screening procedures producing the contaminated-blood AIDS-induced death of a patient receiving a transfusion. The trial court has protected the identity of blood donors by ordering information specific to identity redacted or otherwise kept confidential. The blood bank has narrowed the likely donors to Donor X, who is non compos mentis with active AIDS and whose interests are represented by a court-appointed attorney ad litem. Redacted medical records on Donor X were produced, and plaintiffs took the pseudonym-deposition of one of Donor X’s sisters. The deposition testimony and certain of her medical records may suggest that Donor X knew she was HIV-positive when she donated the blood. No names of Donor X’s husbands or relatives were used during the deposition, but the ages of the siblings, the locations of Donor X, her doctors’ names and hospitals used, etc., were disclosed.

Plaintiffs sought the birth date of Donor X during the deposition. They contended that the birth date would further clarify the sequence of events to tend to show that the defendants should have discovered that Donor X was HIV-positive when she gave blood. Defendants and her attorney ad litem objected on the basis of the blood donor privilege statute. They contend that with the other information disclosed in the deposition, a specific birth date would effectively identify Donor X. After hearing, the Honorable Ken Curry as presiding judge ordered that the birth date of Donor X had to be disclosed. Defendants and the attorney ad litem brought this mandamus proceeding to prevent disclosure.

A majority of this Court holds that section 162.010(e) clearly applies to protect the exact date of birth from disclosure under the facts presented, and that Judge Curry’s order is therefore contrary to the statute. Without hearing argument, we conditionally grant the writ of mandamus and direct Judge Curry not to allow the disclosure of the birth date of Donor X. Tex.R.App.P. 122.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.32

  SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
             AND THE NON-EMPLOYEE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
            OF AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ("AKAMAI" OR THE "COMPANY")

                          REVISED AS OF SEPTEMBER 2006

      The Executive Chairman and each non-employee director are issued a number
of deferred stock units ("DSUs") having a value of $120,000 based on the closing
sale price of Akamai's common stock on the date of its annual meeting of
stockholders. In addition, Akamai's Executive Chairman and its Lead Director are
entitled to $40,000 of additional compensation, of which $20,000 is paid in cash
and $20,000 is paid in DSUs. Chairs of the Audit Committee and the Compensation
Committee are entitled to $25,000 in additional compensation, of which $5,000 in
paid in cash and $20,000 is paid in DSUs. The Chair of the Nominating and
Corporate Governance Committee is entitled to $10,000 of additional
compensation, of which $5,000 is paid in cash and $5,000 is paid in DSUs. Each
non-employee director is eligible to receive fair market value options to
purchase 25,000 shares of its common stock when he or she joins the Board of
Directors. Akamai also reimburses directors for reasonable out-of-pocket
expenses incurred in attending meetings of the Board of Directors.

      Under the terms of the Company's Policy on Non-Employee Director
Compensation Payable Upon Departure From the Board, upon a non-employee
director's departure from the Board, such director, if he or she has completed
one year of Board service, will receive a cash payment equal to the pro-rated
annual cash retainer payable to such director under Akamai's non-employee
director compensation plan and 100% of the unvested shares underlying deferred
stock units held by such director will accelerate at the time of departure and
become exercisable in full. In addition, if a director has completed three years
of Board service at the time of departure, 100% of the unvested options
initially granted to such director upon joining the Board will accelerate at the
time of departure and become exercisable in full.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-2535

___________________________

Tolanda Osby, individually, and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated;

Reta Massing; Nicole Martin; Catenya Peak; Kimberly Fuhr; Carol Lindsey; Alice

Ruble; Andrea Hensley; Arthur Johnson; Brenda Johnson; Angela Turner; Carol

Cox; Karen Beltz; Lola Kunkle; Antjuan Shaw; James Eric Weatherwax; Lisa

Butler; Melvin Marshall, Jr.; Lolita Louis; Joan Jodie Euritt,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellees,

v.

Daniel Barela; Erica Begay,

lllllllllllllllllllllIntervenor plaintiffs - Appellants.

Citigroup, Inc.; Citibank, N.A.; Citicorp Credit Services, Inc.

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - St. Joseph

____________

 Submitted: March 25, 2013

Filed: April 1, 2013

[Unpublished]

____________

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

____________
PER CURIAM.

Daniel Barela and Erica Begay appeal the district court’s denial, as untimely,

1

of their motion to intervene in a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

(Osby case). Having conducted careful review, we cannot say that the district court

abused its discretion in concluding that the motion to intervene was untimely. See

Planned Parenthood of the Heartland v. Heineman, 664 F.3d 716, 718 (8th Cir 2011)

(standard of review); Am. Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota v. Tarek ibn Ziyad

Acad., 643 F.3d 1088, 1094 (8thCir. 2011) (factors). Given the district court’s denial

of the motion to intervene, the court properly denied appellants’ related requests to

unseal the settlement agreement and to stay the filing of notices, and the court also

properly denied asmoot appellants’ requestfor preliminary injunctive relief. Because

we affirm the denial of intervention, we do not reach appellants’ challenges to the

merits of the district court’s other rulings in the Osby case, including the court’s

authority to recertify the class after initial settlement was reached. See Planned

Parenthood, 664 F.3d at 719 n.3 (where district court properly denied motion to

intervene, appeals court would not reach prospective intervenor’s arguments

concerning court’s jurisdiction); Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. North Little Rock Sch.

Dist., 378 F.3d 774, 779, 781 (8thCir. 2004) (where motion to intervene was properly

denied, appeals court lacked jurisdiction to consider merits ofjudgment in case where

intervention was denied; “only a party to a lawsuit may appeal from an adverse

judgment”). We also do not reach the newly raised argument in the reply brief. 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the

1

Western District of Missouri.

-2-
---

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002



I, John Boschert, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of Caleco Pharma Corp. (the Company), hereby certify 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 my knowledge:

|(i)  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company, for the
      fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2010, and to which this certification is
      attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
|---- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|(ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                          



| | By:    | /s/
      John Boschert         
| | ------ | --------------------------------
| |        |                                 
| | Name:  | JOHN BOSCHERT                   
| |        |                                 
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer and     
| |        | Chief Financial Officer         
| |        | (Principal Executive Officer and
| |        | Principal Financial Officer)    
| |        |                                 
| | Date:  | March 17, 2010                  



A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---