alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 111 (Friday, June 7, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 29138]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14326]



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


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Special Emphasis Panel in Civil and Mechanical Systems; Notice of 
Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announced the 
following meeting;

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Civil and Mechanical Systems 
(#1205).
    Date and Time: June 24, 1996, 8:30 a.m. 4:00 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, Room 330, Arlington, VA 
22230.
    Notice of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Jorn Larsen-Basse, Program Director, 4201 
Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230, Telephone: (703) 306-1360.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: Review and evaluate Civil and Mechanical Systems NSF IIA 
proposals.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information, financial data, such as salaries, and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 552b(c) (4) and (6) of 
the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: June 3, 1996.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-14326 Filed 6-6-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
LCC/MOATT 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

THE SATANIC TEMPLE, INC.; et al., 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

 v. 

CITY OF SCOTTSDALE, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 20-15338 

D.C. No. 2:18-cv-00621-DGC 

District of Arizona, Phoenix 

ORDER

The court’s records reflect that appellants timely filed a motion listed in 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4), which is still pending. The notice of 

appeal is therefore ineffective until entry of the order disposing of the last such 

motion outstanding. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). Accordingly, appellate 

proceedings other than mediation shall be held in abeyance pending the district 

court’s resolution of the pending motion. See Leader Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Indus. 

Indem. Ins. Co., 19 F.3d 444, 445 (9th Cir. 1994); Tripati v. Henman, 845 F.2d

205, 206 (9th Cir. 1988).

Within 7 days after the district court’s ruling on the pending motion, 

appellants shall notify this court in writing of the ruling and shall advise whether 

appellants intend to prosecute this appeal.

FILED

MAR 3 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 100 Filed 03/04/20 Page 1 of 2
LCC/MOATT 2 20-15338 

To appeal the district court’s ruling on the post-judgment motion, appellants

must file an amended notice of appeal within the time prescribed by Federal Rule 

of Appellate Procedure 4.

The Clerk shall serve this order on the district court.

FOR THE COURT:

MOLLY C. DWYER

CLERK OF COURT

By: Lance C. Cidre

Deputy Clerk

Ninth Circuit Rule 27-7

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 100 Filed 03/04/20 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION RULE 13a-14(a)

|I, Christopher P. Johns, certify that:
|--------------------------------------
|                                      
|1.                                    
|                                      
|2.                                    
|                                      
|3.                                    
|                                      
|4.                                    
|                                      
|                                      
|                                      
|                                      
|                                      
|                                      
|                                      
|5.                                    
|                                      
|                                      
|                                      
|                                      

|                        
|------------------------
|Date: February 28, 2006 
|                        
|                        
|/s/ Christopher P. Johns
|                        
|Christopher P. Johns    
|Chairman and President  
|PG&E Funding LLC        



Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION RULE 13a-14(a)

|I, Nicholas Bijur, certify that:
|--------------------------------
|                                
|1.                              
|                                
|2.                              
|                                
|3.                              
|                                
|4.                              
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|5.                              
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                



|Date:  February 28, 2006
|------------------------
|                        
|                        
|/s/ Nicholas Bijur      
|                        
|Nicholas Bijur          
|Treasurer               
|PG&E Funding LLC
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-40817 Conference Calendar

__________________ MILTON L. SHUBBIE, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus JOHN BUFFINGTON, in his official capacity as U.S. Parole Commissioner, Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:94-CV-30

- - - - - - - - - - April 19, 1996 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Milton L. Shubbie appeals from the denial of his motion pursuant to F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b), following the denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Shubbie contends that the Parole Commission delayed resolution of his case; that his state-court convictions did not warrant parole revocation; that his federal parole had expired before he was convicted in state court and that the parole officer's warrant application against him was premature; that theNo. 95-40817 -2- Parole Commission lost jurisdiction over him in 1985, when he was transferred to state custody; that this court awarded him credit for his time in state custody; that the Parole Commission revoked his parole on insufficient evidence regarding the state charges against him; that his parole had outlived itself because federal officials mistakenly turned him over to Louisiana authorities; that he was deprived of his right to carry legal documents from state custody to federal custody; and that the Parole Commission violated the Double Jeopardy Clause by denying him credit for time spent in state custody and federal custody. He also lists as issues whether his parole should be terminated based on the date of his state-court conviction and whether it was proper for the Parole Commission to deny him credit for time spent in state custody. Additionally, Shubbie requests that this court terminate his parole. Shubbie does not brief whether the district court abused its discretion by denying his Rule 60(b) motion, see Travelers Ins. Co. v. Liljeberg Enter., Inc. , 38 F.3d 1404, 1408 (5th Cir. 1994); nor does he brief whether he exhausted administrative remedies regarding the revocation of his parole. See Fuller v. Rich , 11 F.3d 61, 62 (5th Cir. 1994). Shubbie has abandoned the relevant issues on appeal, see Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 844, 848 (5th Cir. 1987); we will not consider the issues he does raise on appeal. APPEAL DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
Case 4:18-cr-00263-JGZ-JR Document 37 Filed 08/16/18 Page 1 of 6
Case 4:18-cr-00263-JGZ-JR Document 37 Filed 08/16/18 Page 2 of 6
Case 4:18-cr-00263-JGZ-JR Document 37 Filed 08/16/18 Page 3 of 6
Case 4:18-cr-00263-JGZ-JR Document 37 Filed 08/16/18 Page 4 of 6
Case 4:18-cr-00263-JGZ-JR Document 37 Filed 08/16/18 Page 5 of 6
Case 4:18-cr-00263-JGZ-JR Document 37 Filed 08/16/18 Page 6 of 6
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

In connection with the Annual Report of HopFed Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, John E. Peck, Chief Executive

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 the result of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 28, 2008



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ John E. Peck                     
|John E. Peck, Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to HopFed Bancorp, Inc.
and will be retained by HopFed Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. The information furnished herein shall not be deemed to be filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAYMOND D. POLLOK, an individual, Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. NORTHROP GRUMMAN HEALTH PLAN, an employee benefit plan, Defendant - Appellee. No. 11-56764 D.C. No. 2:09-cv-07006-JST-PJW
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Josephine Staton Tucker, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted July 10, 2013 Pasadena, California Before: WARDLAW, BYBEE, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Raymond Pollok appeals from the district court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law following a bench trial in his claim for long-term disability 

# FILED
AUG 07 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.benefits under an insurance policy govern ed by ERISA. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm the district court. The district court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous. See Pannebecker v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston , 542 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th Cir. 2008). It was not “illogical, implausibl e, or without support . . . in the record” for the district court to find that: (1) the Northrop Grumman Health Plan (“the Plan”) was in effect and available to Pollok when he became disabled; (2) there was only one “Benefits Online” website c ontaining the Summary Plan Description (“SPD”); (3) the SPD vested discretionary authority in Unum as the Plan’s administrator; and (4) the SPD provided th at benefits payments could be offset against certain benefits received from other sources. See United States v. Hinkson , 585 F.3d 1247, 1251 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Nor were the district court’s legal conclusions in error. See Pannebecker , 542 F.3d at 1217. The Plan vested discretionary authority in the Plan administrator, and therefore it was proper for the district court to review the benefits determination fo r abuse of discretion. See Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co. , 458 F.3d 955, 969 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc). The district court also properly concluded that Pollok’s benefits payments could be offset against certain benefits received from other sources. The district court did not improperly place 2the burden on Pollok to show that the Plan lacked offset provisions. See Zavora v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co. , 145 F.3d 1118, 1120 & n.2 (9th Cir. 1998) (explaining that the burden of establishing the existen ce and terms of an ERISA plan is on the insurer). AFFIRMED.

3
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Aviv Efrat, Chief Executive Officer of PennantPark Investment
Corporation, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Report on Form 10-Q of PennantPark Investment Corporation;

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 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 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) 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 evaluation; and

c) 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 reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The
companys other certifying officer 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; and

b) 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.

Dated August 9, 2007.



|                                  
|----------------------------------
|/s/ Aviv Efrat                    
|Aviv Efrat Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001041588
<NAME> ACCESS POWER, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         213,885
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  635,410
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     21,800
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,134,733
<PP&E>                                         823,684
<DEPRECIATION>                                 324,028
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,586,389
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          852,967
<BONDS>                                        750,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          4
<COMMON>                                        31,249
<OTHER-SE>                                   (254,315)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,586,389
<SALES>                                         14,550
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               180,051
<CGS>                                            2,955
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,660,826
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,290
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,503,945)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,503,945)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,503,945)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.10)



</TABLE>
H. Res. 730 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

October 13, 2009. 

Whereas La Crosse is located on the western border of middle-Wisconsin on the east side of the Mississippi River; 

Whereas the first Europeans to see the site of La Crosse 

were French fur traders who traveled the Mississippi 

River in the late 17th century; 

Whereas La Crosse was incorporated as a city in 1856; 

Whereas Thomas Morris sponsored a bill in the Wisconsin 

State Senate that led to the creation of the current day 

University of Wisconsin-La Crosse; 

Whereas University of Wisconsin-La Crosse was founded as 

the La Crosse Normal School in 1909 for the purpose of 

teacher preparation; 

Whereas the philosophy of Fassett A. Cotton, the university’s 

first president, was to train the whole person; 

Whereas ‘‘Mens Corpusque’’, Latin for mind and body, is the 

motto on the university seal; 

Whereas the college changed its name to Wisconsin State 

College-La Crosse in 1951 when the La Crosse State 

Teachers Colleges could establish baccalaureate degrees 

in liberal arts; 
2 

•HRES 730 EH 

Whereas University of Wisconsin-La Crosse offers 88 undergraduate programs in 44 disciplines and 26 graduate 

programs; 

Whereas University of Wisconsin-La Crosse celebrated its 

50th anniversary in 1959, the same year that presidential 

candidate John F. Kennedy visited the campus and spoke 

to the student body in Graff Main Hall auditorium; 

Whereas U.S. News & World Report ranked the University 

of Wisconsin-La Crosse second among Midwestern public 

universities offering bachelor’s and master’s degrees; 

Whereas the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse men’s athletic teams took the nickname ‘‘Eagles’’ in fall 1989, and 

the women teams a year later; 

Whereas the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse athletic 

teams have won 59 NCAA Division III national titles in 

nine different sports; and 

Whereas 2009 marks the 100th anniversary of the founding 

of the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse: Now, therefore, 

be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives honors the 

University of Wisconsin-La Crosse on its 100th anniversary 

and commends the institution’s status as a leading public 

university that excels in academics, athletics, and quality of 

life for students. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Roderick Bartlett, President, Chief Executive Officer of TransAct Energy Corp., (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:  (1) the

amended

Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78 o(d)); 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:

November 17, 2010   /s/ Rod Bartlett Roderick Bartlett President and Chief Executive Officer    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been furnished to TransAct Energy Corp. and will be retained by TransAct Energy Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Phillip A. HUMPHREY, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 64383.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Aug. 9, 1994.

Robert E. Steele, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., F. Martin Dajani, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and CRIST and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from his conviction, by a jury, of possession of a controlled substance, § 195.202, RSMo Supp.1993. He was sentenced by the court as a prior offender and prior drug offender to a prison term of five years. We affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
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 Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Graham K. Cooper, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer 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, to my knowledge:

(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: May 9, 2008



/s/ Graham K. CooperGraham K. CooperChief Financial Officer and Treasurer


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.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF 10-K REPORT
OF
CROWN MEDIA HOLDINGS, INC.
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010

1.     The
undersigned is the Chief Executive Officer of Crown Media Holdings, Inc. ("Crown Media Holdings"). This Certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This Certification accompanies the 10-K Report of Crown Media Holdings for the year ended December 31, 2010.

2.     I
certify that such 10-K 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 such 10-K Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Crown Media Holdings.



/s/ WILLIAM J. ABBOTT William J. Abbott,President and
Chief Executive Officer


---