alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5  U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 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 Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Vaccine Design Program Project.                     

*Date:*                         September 17, 2008.                     

*Time:*                         1 p.m. to 4 p.m.                     

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                     

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817, (Telephone Conference Call).                     

*Contact Person:*                         Kenneth E. Santora, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, NIH/NIAID/DHHS, Room 3146, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-2605,                         *ks216i@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious  Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: August 7, 2008. 

Anna Snouffer, 

Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E8-18742 Filed 8-12-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### Dudley E. Powell v. State

No. 25470.

November 14, 1951.

*452Hon. Edgar Taylor, Judge Presiding.

*W. J. Martin,*Lubbock, for appellant.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is wilfully burning grass not his own, as denounced by Article 1388b, Penal Code; the punishment, a fine of $500.00.

Our able State’s Attorney has confessed error herein because the indictment fails to allege the requisite elements of the offense. Nowhere in the indictment do we find the allegation that the grass in question was “on lands of which he is not in possession or control at the time of setting such fire.”

We are cited Barker v. State, 140 Tex. Crim. R. 580, 146 S. W. (2d) 761, involving the same offense, wherein we dismissed the prosecution because of the absence in the indictment of the allegation that the crime was committed “so as to cause loss or injury to another”.

All requisite elements of an offense denounced by the legislature must appear in the indictment.

Because of the defect in the indictment, the judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
#### TILLMAN v. CENTINEO et al.

No. 15081.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Feb. 4, 1935.

For former opinion, see 158 So. 603.

Robt. B. Todd, of New Orleans, for petitioner.

PER CURIAM.

In this application counsel for appellant calls our attention to the fact that the judgment of the lower court failed to allow interest and that, by an understanding with counsel, interest was-to be considered as having been allowed by the court a qua, in the event of the affirmance of the judgment.

Since there was an amendment by increasing the amount awarded under the judgment, counsel apprehends that there may be some doubt as to the effect of the agreement based upon affirmance. Interest was prayed for in plaintiff’s original petition and its disal-lowance was due to error of the trial court. We believe that the judgment should have allowed it and that we may do so at this time, without the necessity of granting a rehearing.

It is therefore ordered that our original decree be so amended as to allow interest at the *138rate of 5 per cent, per annum from judicial demand, and it is also ordered that the appel-lee he permitted to apply for a rehearing limited to a, consideration of the propriety of an allowance of interest.

Original decree amended.
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 Annual Report of Paradigm Medical Industries, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "Report"), I,
Stephen L. Davis, President 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 the best of my knowledge:
 
 (a)
              the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
  and
 
 (b)
              the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respect, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.
 
 
 Date:
      April 14, 2009
                /s/
      Stephen L. DavisStephen
      L. DavisPresident
      and Treasurer
Exhibit 31.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Jay M. Gellert, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Health Net, Inc. (Amendment No. 1);
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this Amendment No. 1 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 Amendment No. 1.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |                                      
|------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: March 2, 2015 |  | /s/ Jay M. Gellert                   
|                    |  | Jay M. Gellert                       
|                    |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
#### BRUSCATTO v. STEWART (GENERAL EXCHANGE INS. CORPORATION, Intervener).

No. 5286.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Dec. 11, 1936.

Sholars & Gunby, R. B. Guerriero, and H. D. Montgomery, all of Monroe, for Bruscatto and Stewart.

Clark, Parker & Davenport, of Monroe, for General Exchange Ins. Corporation.

DREW, Judge.

In this case appellants and appellee have joined in a motion praying that the case be remanded to the lower court for comple*123tion of the record. Under .the circumstances and the condition of the record, we find no good reason why it should not be remanded.

It is therefore ordered that the record in this case be remanded to the lower court for the purpose of having same completed.
**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

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies this Annual Report of Telular Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2005 (the “Report”).

I, Michael J. Boyle, President & Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Jeffrey L. Herrmann, Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

          (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 result of operations of the Company.

| /s/ Michael J. Boyle                                                            |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                                                 |   |
| Michael J. Boyle                                                                |   |
| President & Chief Executive Officer                                         |   |
| December 14, 2005                                                               |   |
|                                                                            |   |
|                                                                            |   |
| /s/ Jeffrey L. Herrmann                                                         |   |
|                                                                                 |   |
| Jeffrey L. Herrmann                                                             |   |
| Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer   and Chief Financial Officer |   |
| December 14, 2005                                                               |   |
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                        Consent of Independent Auditor

We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated January 25,
2002, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of
Koppers Industries, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended December 31, 2001 in the following Registration Statements:

     .  Registration Statement No. 333-59121 on Form S-8 pertaining to the
        Koppers Industries, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan;

     .  Registration Statement No. 333-39478 on Form S-8 pertaining to the
        Koppers Industries, Inc. 1998 Stock Option Plan, the Koppers Industries,
        Inc. 1997 Stock Option Plan and the Koppers Industries, Inc. Restated
        and Amended Stock Option Plan;

     .  Registration Statement No. 333-39486 on Form S-8 pertaining to the
        Employee Savings Plan of Koppers Industries, Inc. and Subsidiaries and
        the Koppers Industries, Inc. Saving Plan for Union Hourly Employees.


                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
February 8, 2002
#### Pauline Simpson v. State.

No. 24938.

November 1, 1950.

*229
      *E. A. Blair,*Lubbock, for appellant.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The information contains three counts, charging, respectively; (a) that appellant on October 20, 1949, unlawfully possessed beer for the purpose of sale; (b) that on March 26, 1945, appellant was convicted of an offense of like character; and (c) that on November 14, 1944, appellant was convicted of an offense of like character.

The information was not subject to any valid objection and was sufficient to invoke the provisions of Art. 61, P. C.

The punishment assessed against appellant was confinement in jail for one year.

In cases of this character, to enhance the punishment it is necessary that the succeeding conviction be subsequent to the prior conviction, both in point of time of the commission of the offense as well as the conviction. Harrison v. State, 145 Tex. Cr. R. 386, 168 S. W. 2d 243; Square v. State, 142 Tex. Cr. R. 493, 154 S. W. 2d 852; Childress v. State, 134 Tex. Cr. R. 504, 116 S. W. 2d 396.

In the instant case, the allegations of the information complied with the rule stated.

The question is whether the state sustained such allegations by the proof — that is, whether the conviction of March 26, 1945, was shown to be for an offense committed subsequent to the conviction of November 14, 1944.

*230To sustain this proof, the state relies, alone, upon the judgment of conviction. The information upon which that judgment was founded was not offered in evidence, nor is the date of the offense for which the appellant was convicted otherwise shown in the testimony. The judgment of conviction recites only that the appellant was, on the date mentioned (March 26, 1945), found guilty of selling whisky, as charged, with punishment assessed at a fine of $200. There is nothing in the judgment identifying the date the offense was committed for which appellant was there convicted.

From what has been said, it is apparent that the state failed to establish, by proof, the allegations of the information relative to the prior convictions.

The facts being insufficient to warrant the conviction, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion approved by the court.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 160 (Monday, August 18, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 48207]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18992]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 459-226]


Union Electric Company, dba AmerenUE; Notice of Availability of 
Environmental Assessment

August 8, 2008.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) 
regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office 
of Energy Projects has reviewed an application for non-project use of 
project lands and waters at the Osage Project (FERC No. 459) and has 
prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed non-project 
use. The non-project use of project lands and waters is located near 
mile marker 31.2+3.3 on the Big Niangua Arm of the Lake of the Ozarks, 
in Camden County, Missouri. The Osage Project is located in Benton, 
Camden, Miller, and Morgan counties, Missouri.
    In the application, Union Electric Company, dba AmerenUE requests 
Commission approval to authorize Lake Development LLC to construct 12 
boat docks with 384 covered boat slips and 36 personal watercraft 
slips. The EA contains Commission staff's analysis of the probable 
environmental impacts of the proposal and concludes that approving the 
licensee's application, with staff's recommended environmental 
measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly 
affecting the quality of the human environment.
    The EA is attached to a Commission order titled ``Order Modifying 
and Approving Non-Project Use of Project Lands and Waters,'' which was 
issued August 7, 2008, and is available for review and reproduction at 
the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, 
NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. The EA may also be viewed on the 
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``elibrary'' 
link. Enter the project number (prefaced by P-) and excluding the last 
three digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For 
assistance, contact FERC Online Support at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0d4b485f4e4263616463685e787d7d627f794d6b687f6e236a627b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9cdad9cedfd3f2f0f5f2f9cfe9ececf3eee8dcfaf9eeffb2fbf3ea">[email protected]</span></a> 
or toll-free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary..
[FR Doc. E8-18992 Filed 8-15-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Order entered August 27, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00336-CR

No. 05-15-00337-CR

CHARLES ANTHONY WILLIAMS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F11-49252-V, F11-49253-V

ORDER

Appellant was convicted of two offenses of violating the conditions of his civil 

commitment as a sexually violent predator. In the statement of facts, appellant identifies the 

complaining witness of one of the underlying sexual assaults by her full name. Accordingly, we 

STRIKE appellant’s brief.

We ORDER appellant to file, within TEN DAYS of the date of this order, an amended 

brief that identifies the complaining witness of the underlying sexual assault by initials only.

We ORDER Peri Wood, official court reporter of the 292nd Judicial District Court to 

file, within TEN DAYS of the date of this order, State’s Exhibit no. 5, a CD.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to Peri Wood, official court reporter, 

292nd Judicial District Court, and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4223

To designate the United States Post Office located at 125 West South

Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, as the ‘‘Andrew Jacobs, Jr., United States

Post Office’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 26, 1996

Mr. TRAFICANT (for himself and Mr. VISCLOSKY) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

A BILL

To designate the United States Post Office located at 125

West South Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, as the ‘‘Andrew Jacobs, Jr., United States Post Office’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The United States Post Office located at 125 West

5 South Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, shall be known and

6 designated as the ‘‘Andrew Jacobs, Jr., United States

7 Post Office’’.
2

•HR 4223 IH

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the post

4 office referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a ref5 erence to the ‘‘Andrew Jacobs, Jr., United States Post

6 Office’’.

Æ
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 June 30, 2008 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:
      July 30, 2008
              
              By:
      /s/ Gene SokolovGene SokolovChief
      Financial Officer
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-12342

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 9:16-cr-80018-RLR-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LAVANCE PALMER,

a.k.a. Rasta,

a.k.a. Sean Grant,

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(February 13, 2017)

Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-12342 Date Filed: 02/13/2017 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Robert E. Adler, appointed counsel for Lavance Palmer in this direct 

criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the 

appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of 

the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the 

entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is 

GRANTED, and Palmer’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-12342 Date Filed: 02/13/2017 Page: 2 of 2
222 So.2d 346

#### A. Robert RAY v. CITY OF PRICHARD.

1 Div. 583.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 8, 1969.

Frankie L. Fields, Mobile, for petitioner.

Mayer W. Perloff, Mobile, opposed.

Certiorari to Court of Appeals.

LAWSON, Justice.

Petition of A. Robert Ray for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision in Ray v. City of Prichard, 45 Ala.App. 32, 222 So.2d 345 (1 Div. 383).

Writ denied.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and MERRILL and HARWOOD, JJ., concur.
#### Bucknor’s Appeal.

Penalties for taking an appeal for delay, under the Act of May 25, 1874, will not be imposed in a case where an administrator took three appeals in the same case, the first two being from interlocutory decrees, — the administrator having filed an affidavit that the appeals were not taken for delay.

April 10, 1886, orally.

March 27, and April 10, 1886.

Rule for damages under the Act of May 25, 1874, § 1, P. L. 227, in Appeals No. 427, Jan. T., 1884, 139 July T., 1884, and No. 312, Jan. T., 1885, from O. C. Phila. Co., to review the action of the court below respectively, 1, in decreeing that W. H. Bucknor, administrator of A. J. Bucknor, Jr., deceased, should petition for the sale of the decedent’s real estate to pay debts; 2, in ordering the sale and directing a return; and, 3, in dismissing exceptions and confirming the sale. Before Mercur, C. J., Gordon, Trunkey, Clark, and Williams, JJ. Sterrett and Green, JJ., absent, March 27, 1886. Green, J., absent April 10, 1886.

Of the three above recited appeals taken in this case, the court quashed the first two and affirmed the last : 18 W. N. C. 118 ; 2 Cent. 306; 4 Atl. 738.

The petition for the above rules alleged that the appeals were taken merely for delay. The rules were argued by counsel March 27, 1886, and continued to April 10, 1886, when the administrator filed an answer denying that the appeals were taken merely for the purpose of delay but averred that they were taken under the advice of counsel, for 'the purpose of litigating and determining material questions.

*H. C. Terry,*for rule; N. *G. Thompson,*contra.

Mercur, C. J.,

We have not always been examiners of what are definitive decrees; but, however that may be, this is not a case which calls for the operation of the Act of 1874.

Rule discharged.

See, also, the next case.