alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 1, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57112-57122]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22992]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0043]
[FDA No. 225-08-8004]


Memorandum of Agreement Between the Food and Drug Administration, 
the National Cancer Institute, a Part of the National Institutes of 
Health, and the CRIX International Association

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration FDA) is providing notice of a 
memorandum of agreement (MOA) between FDA, the National Cancer 
Institute (NCI) and CRIX International Association. The purpose of the 
MOA is to establish a public-private partnership to pilot the use of a 
nonprofit organization to manage the production instance of the Federal 
Investigator Registry of Biomedical Information Research Data 
(FIREBIRD) system as a vehicle for secure, rapid and efficient 
electronic exchange of clinical investigator credentialing information 
among clinical investigators at trial sites, sponsors (including NCI), 
and FDA; and to continue the development of FIREBIRD to fulfill the 
requirements of FDA and sponsors (including the NCI).

DATES: The agreement became effective August 28, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Randy Levin, Director for Health and Regulatory Data Standards (HF-
18), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 
20857, 301-827-7784;
    George Komatsoulis, Chief Operating Officer, Center for 
Bioinformatics, National Cancer Institute, 8800 Rockville Pike, 
Bethesda, MD 20892-8505, 301-451-2881; and
    James L. Bland, Project Officer, CRIX International Association, 
1195 Freedom Dr., Reston, VA 20190, 703-577-8788.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 20.108(c), which 
states that all written agreements and MOUs between FDA and others 
shall be published in the Federal Register, the agency is publishing 
notice of this MOA.

    Dated: September 24, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S

[[Page 57113]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01OC08.003


[[Page 57114]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01OC08.004


[[Page 57115]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01OC08.005


[[Page 57116]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01OC08.006


[[Page 57117]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01OC08.007


[[Page 57118]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01OC08.008


[[Page 57119]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01OC08.009


[[Page 57120]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01OC08.010


[[Page 57121]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01OC08.011


[[Page 57122]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01OC08.012

[FR Doc. E8-22992 Filed 9-30-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-C
B.9. Number of Agricultural Bank Failures
______________________________________________________________________________________

Year                       Q1           Q2            Q3            Q4           Total
______________________________________________________________________________________

1988......    |            11             6            12             7             36
1989......    |             5             7             5             5             22
1990......    |             3             5             6             3             17
1991......    |             2             2             3             1              8
1992......    |             1             1             1             4              7
1993......    |             1             2             2             0              5
1994......    |             0             0             0             0              0
1995......    |             0             0             0             0              0
1996......    |             0             2             0             0              2
1997......    |             0             0             0             1              1
1998......    |             0             0             1             0              1
1999......    |             0             1             0             0              1
2000......    |             0             0             0             0              0
2001......    |             0             0             0             0              0
2002......    |             1             0             0             1              2
2003......    |             0             1             0             0              1
2004......    |             0             1             0             0              1
2005......    |             0             0             0             0              0
2006......    |             0             0             0             0              0
2007......    |             0             0             0             0              0
2008......    |             1             0             0             2              3
2009......    |             2          n.a.          n.a.          n.a.           n.a.
______________________________________________________________________________________
   Note. Data exclude banks assisted to prevent failure.  Industrial banks and
mutual savings banks also are excluded.  Agricultural banks are defined in the
introduction to section B.
   n.a. Not available.

29
Exhibit 10.4








Exhibit 10.4

 

NOTICE OF CONVERSION




To:   Citadel Security Security Software Inc.




I, Kenneth Schnitzer, on behalf of Schnitzer Interests Limited, hereby elect to convert $200,000 principal of my Promissory Note and $5,961.65 interest accrued upon such principal amount through October 1, 2003 into 164,769 shares of Common Stock (the "shares") of Citadel Security Software Inc. (the "Company") at a conversion price of $1.25 per share.




I understand that the shares issued are restricted and that the certificate representing the shares shall be imprinted with a legend as required under applicable federal and state securities laws, until the registration statement that the Company proposes to file covering the shares is effective.




I am delivering this Notice and the Promissory Note to the Company. Please issue a certificate representing the Shares in my name and to the address specified below.

 


	
Signed: /s/ Kenneth Schnitzer
	
 
	
 

	


		
	
Kenneth Schnitzer, Exec. VP
	
 
	
Date: October 1, 2003




Name: Schnitzer Interests Limited


	
Address:
	
12 Greenway Plaza

	
 
	
Suite 1400

	
 
	
Houston, TX 77046
#### Dorothy Ann JONES, Estate of Edward Lee Johnson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ron ANGELONE, Director; Lonnie M. Sanders, Superintendent, Augusta Correctional Center, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-1967.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 6, 2003.

Decided March 13, 2003.

Dorothy Ann Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Garrett Hill, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Dorothy Ann Jones appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommenda*997tion of the magistrate judge and denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Although the district court noted that Jones failed to file objections to the magistrate judge’s report, the record does not reflect that Jones was notified of her right to file objections or of the consequences for failing to do so. We conclude, however, that the magistrate judge correctly found Jones’ action barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Therefore, to the extent the district court indicated it reviewed the magistrate judge’s recommendation de novo and adopted it, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Jones v. Angelone,*No. CA-00-850 (E.D.Va. Aug. 5, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02213-BNB

JOSEPH LOUIS DURAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

DIRECTOR COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PAROLE, Unknown,

TOM CLEMENTS,

DR. ANTHONY P. YOUNG,

JOHN SUTHERS, and

DR. JIM MAUCHAD,

Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

At the time Plaintiff, Joseph Louis Duran, initiated the instant action, he was

incarcerated at the San Carlos Correctional Facility in Pueblo, Colorado. On September

30, 2011, Plaintiff submitted a Notice of Change of Address to the Court indicating he

no longer is incarcerated and now is residing in Denver, Colorado.

In an order entered on November 18, 2011, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

instructed Plaintiff that because he no longer is incarcerated he is obligated to pay the

filing fee like any nonprisoner, solely on the basis of whether he qualifies for in forma

pauperis status. See Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1171 n.1 (10th Cir.

1997); see also McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 612-13 (6th Cir. 1997); In re

Prison Litigation Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131, 1138-39 (6th Cir. 1997); McGann v.

Commissioner, Soc. Sec. Admin., 96 F.3d 28, 29-30 (2d Cir. 1996).

Magistrate Judge Boland ordered Plaintiff either to submit an Amended Motion

and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, or in the alternative to

Case 1:11-cv-02213-LTB Document 21 Filed 01/05/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

pay the $350.00 filing fee in full if he desired to pursue his claims in this action. Plaintiff

was warned that the action would be dismissed without further notice if he failed to

comply with the November 18 Order within the time allowed. 

Plaintiff has failed to communicate with the Court and failed to comply with

Magistrate Judge Boland’s November 18 Order within the time allowed. The action,

therefore, will be dismissed.

Finally, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal

from this Order is not taken in good faith, and, therefore, in forma pauperis status will be

denied for the purpose of appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438

(1962). If Plaintiff files a notice of appeal he must also pay the full $455 appellate filing

fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the United States Court of Appeals

for the Tenth Circuit within thirty days in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 24. 

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the Complaint and action are dismissed without prejudice

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) because Plaintiff failed to comply with the order

entered on November 18, 2011, within the time allowed. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is

denied. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are denied as moot.

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 5th day of January , 2012.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Lewis T. Babcock 

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge 

United States District Court

Case 1:11-cv-02213-LTB Document 21 Filed 01/05/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
<Page>


                                                                        Ex. 32.1


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

    In connection with the Annual Report of DataMEG, Corp., a New York Columbia
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I,
Andrew Benson, President and Principal Financial Officer certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to
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/ Andrew Benson
--------------------------
By:  Andrew Benson
President and Principal Financial Officer
#### CHAMPAGNE v. UNITY INDUSTRIAL LIFE INS. CO.

No. 16055.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

June 10, 1935.

For former opinion, see 161 So. 52.

Nofinann & McMahon and Harold M. Rou-chell, of New Orleans, for appellant.

J. I. McCain, of New Orleans, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In application for rehearing, defendant indicates a fear that our opinion may be accepted as a statement that, in determining how much of each premium an industrial company may find it necessary to.apply to its “overhead” expense, or expense of doing business, the actual expenses shown on the books of the company may not be taken into consideration, and that a theoretical maximum percentage of costs to gross premiums cannot be exceeded in determining how much of the premium shall be. devoted to the establishment of a reserve.

We did not so state and, in fact, found it unnecessary to do so because we found that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the contention of the defendant that its overhead expense was as great as it contends it was. Had this evidence conclusively shown that its overhead exceeded the 38 per cent., which is the maximum figure which plaintiff contends could be safely adopted, we would then have found it necessary to determine the legal question which would then have been presented. All that we found was that the defendant has not sustained, by proof, its contention that its overhead is as great as it w.ould have us believe.

We see no reason to remand the matter. Both parties presented what appeared at the time to be all the available evidence.

The rehearing applied for is' denied.

Rehearing denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02189-PAB-MEH

DWAYNE JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

ERWIN MOZER, M.D., and

NURSE JANE DOE, individually,

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on May 22, 2012.

Defendant Erwin Mozer, M.D.’s Motion to Modify Minute Order [#43] to Extend

Defendant’s Expert-Witness-Disclosure-Deadline [filed May 21, 2012; docket #63] is granted in

part and denied in part. For good cause shown, the Court will amend its February 14, 2012 Minute

Order with respect to all parties as follows:

Deadline for Expert Witness Disclosure: July 12, 2012

Deadline for Rebuttal Expert Disclosure: August 1, 2012

Discovery Cutoff: August 10, 2012 

Dispositive Motion Deadline: August 31, 2012 

All other provisions of the Court’s February 14, 2012 Minute Order remain in effect. See

docket #43. 

Case 1:11-cv-02189-PAB-MEH Document 65 Filed 05/22/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.8    
    



[RIGHT NOW TECHNOLOGIES LOGO]  


Purpose: 


To
establish minimum policy regarding executive level "double trigger change of control" provisions for members of the executive management team. 


Definitions:



Double
trigger change of control: Defined as in the event of a change of control of RightNow and change or loss of your position within the 12 months following the change of control. See
detailed definitions of change of control and change or loss of position in individual option agreements. 



Executive
management: Vice President or higher and reports to the CEO 


Policy: 


Executive
Management (other than the Chief Executive Officer) shall: 



	1)
	Receive
a minimum of six months severance in the form of salary continuation in the amount of their then current total compensation (base plus incentive);



	2)
	Accelerated
vesting of options for any option grants subsequent to effective date. 




Chief
Executive Officer shall: 



	1)
	Receive
a minimum of twelve months severance in the form of salary continuation in the amount of their then current total compensation (base plus incentive);



	2)
	Accelerated
vesting of options for any option grants subsequent to effective date. 




Effective
date: April 20, 2004 













QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Daniel E. Ayer, Sr.

v. Case No. 07-cv-304-SM

N.H. State Prison, Warden

O R D E R

After due consideration of the objection filed, I herewith approve the Report

and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Muirhead dated November 7, 2007, for

the reasons forth therein. Petitioner’s claim 8, alleging a violation of petitioner’s

Fourth Amendment rights, is hereby dismissed. 

SO ORDERED.

November 26, 2007 _________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Daniel E. Ayer, Sr. 

Case 1:07-cv-00304-SM Document 11 Filed 11/26/07 Page 1 of 1
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DORIAN KYLE SERMON,

Appellant,

v.

MARISOL HERNANDEZ,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 20

- 00071

- CV

Appeal from the

383rd District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC#2018DCM0750)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellee

recover from Appellant and his sureties, if any, see T EX .R.A PP .P . 43.5, on the judgment and all

costs, for which let execution issue. This decision shall be certified below for observance

.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 25TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021.

YVONNE T. RODRI GUEZ, Chief Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-37-PB

Jaime Silveira

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

April 3, 2007 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to schedule a plea hearing on the negotiated plea

agreement. The government does not object to a continuance of

the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from April 3, 2007 to May 1, 2007. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:07-cr-00037-PB Document 11 Filed 03/30/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED. 

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

March 30, 2007

cc: Paul Garrity, Esq.

Alfred Rubega, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00037-PB Document 11 Filed 03/30/07 Page 2 of 2
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 7Federal Reserve Bank of: ChicagoFilings received during the week ending August 9, 2008FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodBOSP BANCSHARES, INC.                                                                                                   * 3A1BOSP Bancshares, Inc., Sun Prairie, Wisconsin, to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Bank of Sun Prairie, Sun Prairie, Wisconsin.Newspaper: 08/27/2008Federal Register: 08/28/2008CITIZENS BANK                                                                                                           * BranchCitizens Bank, Flint, Michigan, to establish a branch facility to be located at 4834 Richmond Road, Warrenville Heights, Ohio.Newspaper: 08/03/2008Federal Register: Not applicableFIRST COMMUNITY FINANCIAL PARTNERS, INC.                                                                                * 3A3First Community Financial Partners, Inc., Joliet, Illinois, to acquire at least 57.8 percent of the voting shares of First Community Bank of Plainfield (in organization), Plainfield, Illinois.Newspaper: 08/31/2008Federal Register: 09/02/2008HOMETOWN COMMUNITY BANCORP, INC.                                                                                        * 3A5
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PRESENTED IN THE 1996 FORM 10-K405 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           2,928
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,904
<ALLOWANCES>                                       800
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,074
<PP&E>                                          62,469
<DEPRECIATION>                                  41,581
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  98,937
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,341
<BONDS>                                            188
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           150
<OTHER-SE>                                      61,852
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    98,937
<SALES>                                        129,243
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               129,243
<CGS>                                           64,933
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   64,933
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,498
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  93
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,540
<INCOME-TAX>                                       499
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,041
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,041
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.07
        


</TABLE>
#### Joann Vasta, Respondent, v Home Depot, Appellant.

[811 NYS2d 671]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J), dated November 24, 2004, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. In order for the defendant to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, it needed to submit evidence that it neither created the condition which allegedly caused the plaintiff to slip and fall, nor had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition *(see Bosman v Reckson FS Ltd. Partnership,*15 AD3d 517 [2005]; *see also Simmons v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,*84 NY2d 972, 973-974 [1994]; *Cody v DiLorenzo,*304 AD2d 705 [2003]). The defendant failed in this respect *(see Knee v Trump Vil. Constr. Corp.,*15 AD3d 545 [2005]). Therefore, the burden never shifted to the plaintiff to produce evidentiary proof in admis*691sible form sufficient to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact as to the creation of the condition, or notice thereof *(see Bosman v Reckson FS Ltd. Partnership, supra; Karalic v City of New York,*307 AD2d 254, 255 [2003]).

In light of our determination, we do not reach the defendant’s remaining contentions. Cozier, J.P., Ritter, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.