alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 155 (Monday, August 11, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 46641]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18555]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[ID-200-1120-DD-241A]


Notice of Public Meeting, Twin Falls District Resource Advisory 
Council Meeting, Idaho

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Public Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
(FLPMA), the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), and the 
Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of 2004 (FLREA), the U.S. 
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Twin Falls 
District Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.

DATES: September 11, 2008. The Twin Falls District RAC meeting will 
begin at 9:30 a.m. (MST) and end no later than 4 p.m. at Grandstands 
Restaurant in Buhl, Idaho, located at 1003 Main Street. The public 
comment period for the RAC meeting will take place 10 a.m. to 10:30 
a.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Tiel-Nelson, Twin Falls 
District, Idaho, 2536 Kimberly Road, Twin Falls, Idaho 83301, (208) 
736-2352.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 15-member RAC advises the Secretary of 
the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of 
planning and management issues associated with public land management 
in Idaho. The Twin Falls District RAC business meeting agenda will 
include the following topics: Wood River Land Trust presentation, 
setting goals for 2009 RAC meetings, Wilderness Study Area discussion, 
and addressing how RAC members can better interpret Resource Management 
Plans. Additional topics may be added and will be included in local 
media announcements. More information is available at http://www.blm.gov/id/st/en/res/resource_advisory.3.html. All meetings are 
open to the public. The public may present written comments to the RAC 
in advance of or at the meeting. Each formal RAC meeting will also have 
time allocated for receiving public comments. Depending on the number 
of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for 
individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend 
and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or 
other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided 
above.

    Dated: August 6, 2008.
Bill Baker,
District Manager.
 [FR Doc. E8-18555 Filed 8-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GG-P
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sloud, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gene Sokolov, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; 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:  May 1, 2009 |  | By   /s/ Gene Sokolov  
|------------------ |  | -----------------------
|                   |  |                        
|                   |  | Gene Sokolov           
|                   |  | Chief Financial Officer
#### In re WRAGG.*

No. 8745.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 8, 1938.

Before FOSTER, SIBLEY, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

*

Rehearing denied April 7, 1938.

HOLMES, Circuit.Judge.

Loosely and informally presented to the court, this record consists of a file of papers containing a petition for leave to appeal informa pauperis from an order dismissing a proceeding under subsection (s) of section-75 of the Bankruptcy Act, as amended, 11 U.S.C.A. § 203(s). An uncertified copy of the order sought to be reviewed is attached. Dated January 4, 1938, it sustains objections-to the debtor’s proposal to her creditors, and denies her leave to amend in order to obtain-the benefits of said subsection (s), but grants leave to file a voluntary petition in bankruptcy.

*253The file also contains an affidavit of the debtor averring poverty, reciting dismissal of the original petition, and asserting belief that she is entitled to the redress which she seeks; a purported copy of petition for appeal in forma pauperis, addressed to the District Court; purported copy of objection of creditor to allowance of said appeal; purported copy of order denying the same, and certifying that, in the opinion of the trial court, the appeal was not taken in good faith; an alleged brief history of the case; purported copy of the petition of a secured creditor for foreclosure of its lien under a former decree of the court, suspended by the approval of the original petition; and purported order granting the petition of the secured creditor for foreclosure. Neither the affidavit, the petition, nor the so-called brief history of the case shows why the proposal of the debtor was not approved, nor why the petition was dismissed and leave for further proceedings under subsection (s) denied. The only reference in any of the papers which throws any light on the merits of the case is a recital in the order from which the appeal is sought, that, in view of the conclusion reached by the court, “it is unnecessary to pass on the question of whether the debtor is a farmer or not within the meaning of the law.”

Several reasons present themselves, but we think the petition should be denied on the certificate of the trial court that, in its opinion, the appeal was not taken in good faith. By the express terms of the statute, the right to prosecute an appeal to this court in forma pauperis is withheld in cases where the trial court makes such certificate. 28 U.S.C.A. § 832.

It is ordered that the petition be, and the same hereby is, denied.
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 amended Quarterly Report of Midas Medici Group Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Johnson Kachidza, 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 results of operations of the Company.











Date: May 17, 2010
By:
/s/ Johnson KachidzaJohnson Kachidza

Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
EXHIBIT 23.2

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the  incorporation by reference in Post Effective  Amendment No. 1
to Registration  Statement No. 33-94914 on Form S-8,  Registration No. 333-30237
on Form S-8 and Registration  No. 333-22535 on From S-3 of Hirsch  International
Corp.  and  Subsidiaries  of our report dated April 22, 1999,  appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Hirsch  International  Corp. and  Subsidiaries for
the year ended January 31, 2001.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
-------------------------
Deloitte & Touch LLP


Jericho, New York
May 7, 2001
#### Stephen N. Keener, Respondent, v. Ransome & Smith Company, Appellant.

— Judgment and order.affirmed, with costs. All concurred.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                Exhibit 10.23(d)
                                                                ----------------


                                 LEUKOSITE, INC.

                                 THIRD AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                   AMENDED AND RESTATED 1993 STOCK OPTION PLAN
                   -------------------------------------------

       This THIRD AMENDMENT (this "Amendment") to the Amended and Restated 1993
Stock Option Plan (the "Plan") of LeukoSite, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), is being adopted by resolution of the Board of Directors at a
meeting held on March 11, 1998 and is being proposed to be adopted by resolution
of the Stockholders of the Company on May 4, 1998 (the "Effective Date").
Effective from and after the Effective Date, the Plan is hereby amended as
follows:

       1. Section 4 of the Plan hereby is amended by replacing the number
"1,500,000" in the sixth (6th) line thereof with the number "2,125,000", said
amendment being for the purpose of increasing the total number of shares of
common stock, $.01 par value per share, that may be subject to options granted
under the Plan from 1,500,000 shares to 2,125,000 shares.

       Except to the extent amended hereby, all of the terms, provisions and
conditions set forth in the Plan are hereby ratified and confirmed and shall
remain in full force and effect. The Plan and this Amendment shall be read and
construed together as a single instrument.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) 

Petitioner, ) MISC. NO. 2:09-mc-50995

v. ) Honorable Arthur J. Tarnow

) Honorable Steven R. Whalen

)

UNIVERSAL IMAGING, INC. )

)

Respondent. )

)

____________________________________)

ORDER

Upon consideration of the United States’ motion for summary enforcement of a subpoena

issued by the Special Agent in Charge, Office of the Regional Inspector General of the

Department of Health and Human Services, pursuant to section 6(a)(4) of the Inspector General

Act of 1978, dated October 6, 2008, and upon a determination that the investigation is within the

authority of the Inspector General and the records sought are relevant to the inquiry, it is hereby

ordered that the United States’ motion is GRANTED. Respondent Universal Imaging, Inc. shall

produce within 15 days of the date of this order the following, pursuant to paragraphs 18 and 22-

25 of the subpoena: 

1. All records, electronic or otherwise, reflecting or consisting of

communications with referring physicians or physicians in a position to make referrals to

Universal Imaging, Inc., including, but not limited to, emails, correspondence, notes of telephone

conversations, electronic records, contracts or agreements not heretofore produced, and diaries,

and excluding only records relating solely to individual named patients; and 

b. All records, electronic or otherwise, reflecting, or connected in any way to,

2:09-mc-50995-AJT Doc # 14 Filed 10/22/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 130
payments or transfers of other items of value to physicians, and the basis or calculation, if any,

for each such payment or transfer of value.

This order is without prejudice to the existing agreement between the parties as to the

production of hard copy medical records upon a schedule to be established by the government

and agreed to by the parties.

BY THE COURT:

S/ARTHUR J. TARNOW 

Arthur J. Tarnow

United States District Judge

Dated: October 22, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on

October 22, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/THERESA E. TAYLOR 

Case Manager

2:09-mc-50995-AJT Doc # 14 Filed 10/22/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 131
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

HON. PATRICK J. DUGGAN

CIVIL ACTION NO.09-13648

IJOMA RAYMOND,

Petitioner,

-vWARDEN WARREN,

Respondent.

 /

ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, PETITIONER'S

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

At a session of said Court, held in the U.S.

 District Courthouse, City of Detroit, County

 of Wayne, State of Michigan on October 2, 2009.

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

 U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

The petitioner has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. The Court concludes it would

be premature to grant petitioner's motion at this time. Should the Court determine that 

appointment of counsel is appropriate at some future time, petitioner's motion may be 

reconsidered. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED without 

prejudice.

s/Patrick J. Duggan 

Patrick J. Duggan

United States District Judge

Dated: October 2, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on

October 2, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.(Ijoma Raymond #406446 3511 Bemis Rd.

Ypsilanti, MI 48197)

s/Marilyn Orem 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-13648-PJD-MJH Doc # 7 Filed 10/02/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 305
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


                            RTW, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY
          Statement Regarding Computation of Basic and Diluted Income
                                (Loss) Per Share


<Table>
<Caption>
                                                                2000               2001               2002
                                                            -------------      -------------      -------------
<S>                                                         <C>                <C>                <C>
BASIC WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING                       5,427,420          5,151,929          5,151,929

STOCK WARRANTS                                                          -                  -                  -

STOCK OPTIONS

      Options at $  4.50                                                -                  -                  -
      Options at $  3.80                                                -                  -                  -
      Options at $  2.60                                                -                  -                  -
      Options at $  2.42                                                -                  -                  -
      Options at $  2.20                                                -                  -                  -
      Options at $  2.00                                                -                  -                  -
      Options at $  1.98                                                -                  -                  -
                                                            -------------      -------------      -------------

WEIGHTED AVERAGE COMMON AND COMMON
      SHARE EQUIVALENTS OUTSTANDING                             5,427,420          5,151,929          5,151,929
                                                            =============      =============      =============

NET INCOME (LOSS) ($000'S)                                  ($      9,708)     ($     25,215)     $      14,319
                                                            =============      =============      =============

INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE:
      BASIC INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE                         ($       1.79)     ($       4.89)     $        2.78
                                                            =============      =============      =============

      DILUTED INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE                       ($       1.79)     ($       4.89)     $        2.78
                                                            =============      =============      =============
</Table>
#### People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Bibbs, Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 51,316.

First District, Second Division.

October 11, 1966.

Alan M. Kahn, of Chicago, for appellant; Daniel P. Ward, State’s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and Ronald Sandler, of counsel), for appellee.

Opinion by

JUSTICE BURKE.

Not to be published in full.
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 Endeavor Explorations Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Belkis Jimenez Rivero, President, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and a member of
the Board of Directors, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 results of operations of the Company.













/s/ Belkis Jimenez Rivero


Belkis Jimenez Rivero


Chief Executive Officer






December 15, 2009











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 Endeavor Explorations Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Belkis Jimenez Rivero, Chief Financial Officer of the Company and a member of the Board
of Directors, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 results of operations of the Company.




















/s/ Belkis Jimenez Rivero


Belkis Jimenez Rivero


Chief Financial Officer






December 15, 2009
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh 128644 Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 128644 COA: 259694 Oakland CC: 2003-188764-FH ROBERT JAMES BLACK, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 12, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d1024 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.

October 31, 2005

Clerk
#### Harold OSTRANDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David TRIPPETT, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-2438.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Aug. 11, 2003.

Before RYAN and BOGGS, Circuit *566Judges; and ROSEN, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Gerald E. Rosen, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

*ORDER*

Harold Ostrander appeals a district court judgment that dismissed his complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

Ostrander filed his complaint in the district court alleging that the defendant Michigan prison officials placed him on a food loaf diet for two weeks for an inadequate reason under prison policy after he refused to close his food slot door despite a guard’s order to do so. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Ostrander filed a timely notice of appeal. On appeal, Ostrander contends that he stated claims upon which relief can be granted under the Eighth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Upon de novo review, *see White v. McGinnis,*131 F.3d 593, 595 (6th Cir. 1997); *McGore v. Wrigglesworth,*114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir.1997), we affirm the judgment for the reasons stated by the district court in its opinion dated October 10, 2002. Essentially, Ostrander failed to state a violation of his right to due process. *See Sandin v. Conner,*515 U.S. 472, 482-84, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995). Further, the district court correctly concluded that Ostrander has no viable Eighth Amendment claim. *See Wilson v. Seiter,*501 U.S. 294, 298, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991); *Rhodes v. Chapman,*452 U.S. 337, 347, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981); *Cunningham v. Jones,*567 F.2d 653, 659-60 (6th Cir.1977).

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is affirmed. *See*Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 657 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.657

                       One Hundred Fourth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
   the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

                                 An Act

 
  To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the 
 construction of three hydroelectric projects in the State of Arkansas.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINES.

    Notwithstanding the time limitations of section 13 of the Federal 
Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
upon the request of the licensee for FERC Projects numbered 4204, 4660, 
and 4659 (and after reasonable notice), is authorized, in accordance 
with the good faith, due diligence, and public interest requirements of 
such section 13 and the Commission's procedures under such section, to 
extend the time required for commencement of construction for the 
project for up to a maximum of 3 consecutive 2-year periods. This 
section shall take effect for the project upon the expiration of the 
extension (issued by the Commission under such section 13) of the 
period required for commencement of construction of such project.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```