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; Category A and B Pathogens.                     

*Date:*                         September 18, 2008.                     

*Time:*                         12 p.m. to 3 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:*                         Lucy A. Ward, DVM, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program,  Division of Extramual Activities,  NIAID/NIH/DHHS,  6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616,  Bethesda, MD 20892,  301-594-6635,                         *lward@niaid.nih.gov*.                     

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy,  Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious  Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: August 21, 2008. 

Jennifer Spaeth, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E8-19916 Filed 8-28-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
<PAGE> 1                                                         Exhibit 10.3

                     AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT,  made and entered into as of the 30th day of June, 1997, between
Payless  Cashways,  Inc., an Iowa corporation  (the  "Company"),  and G. Michael
Buchen (the "Executive").

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive have entered into an employment agreement
dated October 17, 1996 (the "Employment Agreement"); and

WHEREAS, the parties mutually desire to amend the Employment Agreement;

NOW,  THEREFORE,  in consideration of these premises and other good and valuable
consideration, the parties agree as follows:

         1. All references to the date of "March 1, 1998"  contained  within the
Employment  Agreement  are  hereby  deleted  and the date of "March 1,  1999" is
substituted in lieu thereof.

In witness whereof, the parties have executed this Amendment No. 1 to Employment
Agreement as of the day and year written above.

PAYLESS CASHWAYS, INC.                                  EXECUTIVE


By:   /s/ David Stanley                                 /s/ G. Michael Buchen
      ------------------------------------              ---------------------
      Chairman and Chief Executive Officer              G. Michael Buchen

Approval by the Compensation  Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company
is hereby confirmed.


      /s/ John Weitnauer, Jr.
      -----------------------
      John Weitnauer, Jr.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

RANDALL ALLEN BROWN,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-30239

D.C. No. 3:08-cr-00279-ALH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Ancer L. Haggerty, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 19, 2010** 

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Randall Allen Brown appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed

following his guilty-plea conviction for two counts of bank robbery, in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

OCT 28 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-30239

Brown contends that the district court procedurally erred at sentencing by

presuming that the Guidelines range was reasonable and by failing to explain why

it was rejecting his arguments for a lower sentence. Brown further contends that

the sentence imposed is substantively unreasonable. The record reflects that the

district court made an individualized determination based on the facts, adequately

explained the sentence, and did not otherwise procedurally err. See United States

v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-93, 995 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Additionally, in

light of the totality of the circumstances, the sentence at the bottom of the

Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. See id. at 993-94.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.2  CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)   Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Intelligent Buying, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:  The annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 (the "Form 10-K") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Date: March 30, 2009  /s/ David Gorodyansky  David Gorodyansky Principal Executive Officer   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to INTELLIGENT BUYING, INC. and will be retained by INTELLIGENT BUYING, INC. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #11264 and #11265]

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 12.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Iowa (FEMA-1763-DR), dated 05/27/2008.

*Incident:*                         Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding.                    

*Incident Period:*                         05/25/2008 and continuing through 08/13/2008.                    

*Effective Date:*                         08/13/2008.                    

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         09/29/2008.                    

*EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         02/27/2009.                    

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Iowa, dated 05/27/2008 is hereby amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 05/25/2008 and continuing through 08/13/2008.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Herbert L. Mitchell,

Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. E8-19868 Filed 8-26-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, H. Irwin Levy, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of nStor Technologies, Inc.;

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 suchstatements 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 theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.  The registrant’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 registrantand we 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 theregistrant, 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) Intentionally omitted.

     c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

     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 registrant’sability 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 registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

|                              |
|------------------------------|
| Date: November 10, 2003 |        | By:/s/ H. Irwin Levy  |
|                              |  |  |
|                              |  | H. Irwin Levy*  Chief Executive Officer* |
* 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. 96-20585

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

OTIS GEORGE BRADEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-95-CR-255

_________________________________________________________________ April 11, 1997

Before KING, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Otis George Braden appeals his guilty plea convicti on and

sentence for possession with intent t o distribute cocaine base.

Braden’s unconditional guilty plea bars him from challenging the

district court’s ruling on his pretrial discovery motion. S ee

United States v. Smallwood

, 920 F.2d 1231, 1240 (5th Cir. 1991).

Furthermore, the district court did not commit plai n error by

failing to find that sentencing guideline and statutory provisions-2-

relating to the carrying of a weapon during an offense were

unconstitutional. S ee United States v. Owens

, 996 F.2d 59, 61 (5th

Cir. 1993). Finally, the court did not commit plain error in

refusing to make a downward departure from the sentencing

guidelines based upon the fact that Braden’s behavior was

“aberrant.” S ee United States v. B urleson , 22 F.3d 93, 95 (5th

Cir. 1994).

A F F I R M E D.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS
EASTLAND , TEXAS
JUDGMENT

George Alois Meissner
, * From the 326 th District Cour t of Taylor County, Trial Court No. 23

- 16150N

.

Vs. No. 11

- 24

- 00 194

- C V * August 21 , 20 2 4

Lorna Brooke Meissner
, * Memorandum Opinion by Williams , J. (P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J., Trotter , J. , and W illiams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes tha t the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed. The costs incurred by reason of this appeal are taxed against George Alois Meissner

.
#### Richard Walter HAGAN, appellant, v. STATE of Florida, appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. En Banc.

March 19, 1954.

Ellis Stuart Rubin, Miami,-for appellant.

Richarcl W. Ervin, Átty. Gen., Bart L. Cohen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See case of Lightfoot v. State, Fla., 64 So.2d 261.

-ROBERTS, C. J.,- and TERRELL; THOMAS, SEBRING, - MATHEWS and DREW, JJ., concur.

HOBSON, J;, dissentSi

HOBSON, Justice

(dissenting).

I do not believe that the question posed herein was actually presented or properly decided in the case of Lightfoot v. State, Fla., 64 So.2d 261, 265. The majority per curiam opinion filed in that case made the pronouncement that “* * * . the validity of the grand jury so far as the .number of its members is concerned must be., determined with respect ,to the -date the body was organized, and that a grand jury composed of twenty-three members being -valid on the day of organization, the acts of the grand jury thereafter are valid sq long as a quorum participate. In this regard, we have the conviction that it cannot be said that if a grand jury composed of twenty-three members may. be legally organized under the Act, the actions of the body can be thereafter successfully challenged accordingly as fewer or more than eighteen sit at particular meetings.”

I do not take serious issue with the proposition that the validity of the grand jury, so far as the number of its members is concerned, must be determined with respect to the date the body was organized. However, in the Lightfoot case we were faced only with the,question of the validity of Chapter 25554, Laws of Florida 1949, on its face and were not then, but are now, confronted with the question whether in its -operation asdisclosed- by this -record the constitutional -guaranty of appellant ■ herein of due process of law has'been violated. We have -repeatedly held that an act of the legislature may be valid on its- face -and yet in its operation its provisions may be carried out in such manner as to trench upon and do violence to some constitutional guaranty and thus- necessitaté a holding of unconstitutionality in the application of the otherwise valid legislative enactment.

In my opinion appellant has demonstrated that the method pursued by the twenty-three man grand jury worked a violation of his constitutional right to due process of law. For a more detailed expression of the writer’s view with regard to this subject, see his original opinion in the case of Lightfoot v. State, Fla., 64 So.2d 261, *162wherein it was at least suggested that if it were made to appear, as it is in this case, that more than eighteen grand jurors actually voted upon the query whether an in'dictment should be found or a no true bill returned, the constitutional rights of the party against whom an indictment was so found would be shown to have been infringed in such a manner as to necessitate a holding of invalidity of the challenged legislative act by virtue of the method by which its provisions were carried out. I would hold in this case that appellant’s constitutional right to due process of law was violated.
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  Fearless  International,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form  10-KSB/A  for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Carol Stephan, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 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:  November 13, 2007

       By:    /s/ CAROL STEPHAN
              -----------------
       Name:  Carol Stephan
       Title: Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

FESTUS KANDJABANGA,

Petitioner

v.

DREXEL UNIVERSITY,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 497 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 28th day of March, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta name="pdf:PDFVersion" content="1.2">
<meta name="xmp:CreatorTool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="pdf:hasXFA" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:modify_annotations" content="true">
<meta name="dc:creator" content="capture">
<meta name="dcterms:created" content="1998-09-02T21:50:49Z">
<meta name="dcterms:modified" content="1998-09-02T21:50:50Z">
<meta name="dc:format" content="application/pdf; version=1.2">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator_tool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="access_permission:fill_in_form" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:modified" content="1998-09-02T21:50:50Z">
<meta name="pdf:hasCollection" content="false">
<meta name="pdf:encrypted" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Length" content="16741">
<meta name="pdf:hasMarkedContent" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Type" content="application/pdf">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print_faithful" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator" content="capture">
<meta name="pdf:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_for_accessibility" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:assemble_document" content="true">
<meta name="xmpTPg:NPages" content="1">
<meta name="pdf:hasXMP" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_content" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print" content="true">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.DefaultParser">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.pdf.PDFParser">
<meta name="access_permission:can_modify" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:created" content="1998-09-02T21:50:49Z">
<title></title>
</head>
<body><div class="page"><p></p>
<p>0 
< 
(0 
-7 
-7 
</p>
<p>0 
-4 
c/J---l </p>
<p></p>
</div>
</body></html>
#### ROYER v. CAREY et al.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

March 7, 1933.

LB BLANC, Judge.

One of the grounds on which the application for rehearing is based is that the court unintentionally overlooked passing on the question of whether or not a penalty was due, when the defendant had admitted that they made a lump sum settlement of the plaintiff’s claim without the approval of the court.

Whilst it is a fact that the plaintiff did attempt to make that an issue in the case by filing a supplemental petition, which defendant answered by denying the allegations it contained, the evidence shows merely that the payment of $19.50 was made as compensation that was due during the period of disability, and there is nothing to justify a conclusion that it constituted such lump settlement as the statute provides shall have the approval of the court.

The application otherwise presents nothing that did not receive our careful consideration in the opinion herein handed down.

For these reasons, the rehearing herein is refused.