alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 21, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 57473]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23535]



[[Page 57473]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App), 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 materials, 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 on Alcohol Abuse and 
Alcoholism Special Emphasis Panel, T32 Institutional Training 
Grants.
    Date: November 9, 2010.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Lorraine Gunzerath, PhD, MBA, Scientific Review 
Officer, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Office 
of Extramural Activities, Extramural Project Review Branch, 5635 
Fishers Lane, Room 2121, Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-443-2369, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fa969d8f94809f889bba979b9396d4949392d49d958c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e38f84968d99869182a38e828a8fcd8d8a8bcd848c95">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, 
Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and 
Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, 
Alcohol Research Center Grants; 93.701, ARRA Related Biomedical 
Research and Research Support Awards, National Institutes of Health, 
HHS)

    Dated: September 14, 2010.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-23535 Filed 9-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.1
                               POWER OF ATTORNEY

    KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that each person whose signature appears
below constitutes and appoints Billy D. Prim, as his or her true and lawful
attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution and resubstitution,
to act, without the other, for him or her and in his or her name, place and
stead, in any and all capacities, to sign any or all amendments (including post-
effective amendments) to this report on Form 10-K, and to file the same, with
all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorney-in-fact and
agent full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing
requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all
intents and purposes as he or she might or could do in person, hereby ratifying
and confirming all that said attorney-in-fact and agent, or any of them, or
their substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

    Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this
report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the
registrant and in the capacities indicated.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Signature                      Capacity                                               Date
---------                      --------                                               ----
<S>                            <C>                                                    <C>
/s/ Billy D. Prim              Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer        October 29, 1998
-------------------------      (Principal Executive Officer)
Billy D. Prim


/s/ Mark Castaneda             Secretary, Chief Financial Officer and Director        October 29, 1998
-------------------------      (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Mark Castaneda


/s/ Andrew J. Filipowski       Vice Chairman of the Board                             October 29, 1998
-------------------------
Andrew J. Filipowski


/s/ Craig J. Duchossois        Director                                               October 29, 1998
-------------------------
Craig J. Duchossois


/s/ Steven D. Devick           Director                                               October 29, 1998
-------------------------
Steven D. Devick


/s/ John H. Muehlstein         Director                                               October 29, 1998
-------------------------
 John H. Muehlstein


/s/ Richard A. Brenner         Director                                               October 29, 1998
-------------------------
 Richard A. Brenner
</TABLE>
STEVEN J. GIBOUT,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-5132

_____________________________/

Opinion filed June 15, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Michael Jones, Judge.

James R. Barnes, Pensacola, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Michael Schaub, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE, KELSEY, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
#### T. C. Townsend et al. v. A. K. Shepard.

(No. 2552.)

December 10, 1887.

Appeal from Hill County.

*(Transferred from Austin.)*

D. Derden, counsel for appellants.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 34:9. *Mandamus; jurisdiction of comity court to issue; case stated.*Appellant Whorton was a justice of the peace, and appellant Townsend and appellee Shepard, having some differences, submitted their disputes to arbitration, filing with said justice of the peace their agreement to arbitrate in writing under the statute. Their matters were arbitrated under said agreement and award returned in favor of appellee for the sum of $121.98, and said justice of the peace entered judgment upon said award. Afterwards, however, upon motion of appellant Townsend, said judgment was vacated and set aside. Appellee then brought this suit in the county court, praying for *mandamus*to compel said justice of the peace to proceed to execute the judgment entered upon the award. The county court, upon a hearing of the cause, granted the *mandamus*prayed for by appellee. *Held:*The county court, in granting the *mandamus*and in entertaining this suit for any purpose, acted without jurisdiction and without authority of law. The subject-matter in controversy is not within the original jurisdiction of the county court. The county court can only issue the writs of injunction and *mandamus*to enforce its own jurisdiction, or as an auxiliary to some proceedings within its jurisdiction. [1 App. C. C. §§ 912, 1129, 1209.]

Reversed and dismissed.
News United States Air Force
 Tech Report: The F-16 Fighting FalconPublished April 29, 2015
                        
                        By Air Force News Service
                
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)**-- The F-16 Fighting Falcon is a compact, multi-role fighter aircraft. It is highly maneuverable and has proven itself in air-to-air combat and air-to-surface attack.
While the airframe itself hasn't changed much since it was introduced in the late 1970's, it's avionics and weapon systems have been continuously upgraded, making this multi-role fighter aircraft just as deadly today as it was nearly four decades ago.
The Air Force Tech Report is a video series that airs every other week and gives viewers a quick look at current technology the Air Force uses to fly, fight and win.f-16 



Tech Report 



DMA 



fighter aircraft 



F-16 Fighting Falcon
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet at September 30, 1997 (Unaudited) and the
Consolidated Statement of Operations for the Nine Months Ended September 30,
1997 (Unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             444
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,492
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (481)
<INVENTORY>                                     19,585
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                38,559
<PP&E>                                          19,086
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,125)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  56,545
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,837
<BONDS>                                          3,056
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            59
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,869
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    56,545
<SALES>                                         92,079
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                97,627
<CGS>                                           64,758
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   69,253
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 478
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,149
<INCOME-TAX>                                       426
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                723
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       723
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12
<FN>
<F1>Provision for doubtful accounts and inventory provision included in total
costs.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
** **

**EXHIBIT32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350)**

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of ForceProtection, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), does herebycertify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

The Annual Reportfor the year ended December 31, 2006 (the “Form 10-K”) of theCompany fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the informationcontained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date:  March 16, 2007     |     |
|---------------------------|----------|
|                      |     |
| /s/ Gordon McGilton       |     |
| Gordon McGilton           |     |
| *Chief Executive Officer* | * * |
| * *                  | * * |
| * *                  | * * |
| Date: March 16, 2007      |     |
|                      |     |
| /s/ Michael Durski        |     |
| Michael Durski            |     |
| *Chief Financial Officer* | * * |

 

 

----
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Clarence SINGLETON.

No. 2010-KK-2454.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 17, 2010.

In re State of Louisiana; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. K, No. 480-846; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-0889.

Denied.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATIONS
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
on Form 10-Q of NorthWest Indiana Bancorp (the "Company") for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "Report"), each of David A. Bochnowski, Chairman of the Board
and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Robert T. Lowry, Senior Vice
President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, hereby
certifies, 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; and





(2)           The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:   November 16,
      2009
            /s/ David A. BochnowskiDavid
      A. BochnowskiChairman
      of the Board and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Robert T. LowryRobert
      T. LowrySenior
      Vice President, Chief FinancialOfficer
      and Treasurer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to NorthWest Indiana Bancorp and will be
retained by NorthWest Indiana Bancorp and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1364 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1364

                    For the relief of Zdenko Lisak.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 6, 2007

Mr. LaTourette introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                    For the relief of Zdenko Lisak.

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

SECTION 1. WAIVER OF GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL OF, OR DENIAL OF ADMISSION TO, 
              ZDENKO LISAK.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding sections 212(a) and 237(a) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, Zdenko Lisak may not be removed from 
the United States, or denied admission to the United States, by reason 
of any act of his that is a ground for removal or denial of admission 
and is reflected in the records of the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service of the Department of Justice, or the Visa Office of the 
Department of State, on the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Rescission of Outstanding Order of Removal.--The Attorney 
General shall rescind any outstanding order of removal or deportation, 
or any finding of deportability, that has been entered against Zdenko 
Lisak by reason of any act described in subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
#### Ladd M. Waters & Bro. v. Samuel Walker.

(No. 3861.)

Appeal from Delta County.

E. H. Bennett, counsel for appellants.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

*464§ 268. *Justices1 courts, jurisdiction of; in suit on note, attorney's fee stipulated for in the note is part of the “amount in*controversyThis suit - originated in a justice court, and was brought upon a note for $200, together with interest after maturity at the rate of ten per cent, per annum, and ten per cent, attorney’s fees in case of legal proceedings to enforce collection. Judgment was rendered in both the justice court and the county court, to which the cause was subsequently appealed, in favor of defendant, and from the judgment of the county court this appeal is prosecuted to this court. Appellee here submits a motion to dismiss the appeal because the note sued upon shows that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdiction of the justice court, and that the justice not having jurisdiction, the county court acquired none, and that none has been con-' ferred upon this court by this attempted appeal, both of said lower courts having had no jurisdiction. By our constitution the jurisdiction of justices of the peace in civil matters is limited to cases where the amount in controversy is $200 or less, exclusive of interest. [Const., art. 5, § 19.] In the case of McRae v. Robinson, 2 Civil Cas. Ct. App., § 556, where the suit was upon a note in which the principal debt and ten per cent, attorney’s fees aggregated more than $200, it was held the ten per cent, attorney’s fees was a part of the plaintiff’s cause of action, and constituted a part of the amouut in controversy. [Citing 2 Civil Cas. Ct. App., § 352.] Such fees, though not an element of damages in such a suit for the collection of money, can be made such by express contract. [Roberts v. Palmore, 41 Tex. 617; Miner v. Bank, 53 Tex. 559.] When expressly contracted for and sought to be recovered on a suit on the contract, they are part of a contract, and must be considered in estimating the amount in controversy, in determining the jurisdiction of the court. It is clear, from the law as thus quoted, that the. justice of the peace had no juris*465diction of the amount in controversy in the case in hand, the amount being more than $200, and that the county court could acquire none by appeal from the judgment in the justice court, and that this court can acquire no jurisdiction in said case on appeal from the county court, further than is necessary to reverse the judgment of. the county court, with an order that the suit be dismissed in the courts below.

December 9, 1891.

Reversed and dismissed.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Terrell BELLVIE.

No. 2011-KK-1936.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 14, 2011.

In re State of Louisiana;- — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs Criminal District Court Div. 4, No. 526-525; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-1226.

*1132Granted; the ruling of the court of appeal is vacated; the ruling of the commissioner, magistrate court is reinstated.

WEIMER, J., would deny.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 82 (Wednesday, May 17, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S6767]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                       RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, leadership time is 
reserved.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 88 (Thursday, May 25, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5608]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                     PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

  Under clause 1 of rule XXII,

       Mr. EDWARDS introduced a bill (H.R. 1740) for the relief of 
     Michael Patrick McNamara and Thomas Parnell McNamara, Jr.; 
     which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform and 
     Oversight.

                          ____________________
```
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 12 - 00641 - CR

ANTONIO DARNELL JOHN SON APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOOD COUNTY

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- Appe llant Antonio Darnell Johnson pleaded guilty to burglary of a building , and a jury assessed his punishment at two years’ confinement. Johnson’s court

appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support of that motion. Counse l avers that in her professional opinion, the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). This court informed Johnson that he may file a pro se brief, but he did not do so. The State declined to submit a brief. Once an appellant’s court

- appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders , this court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State , 904 S.W.2d 920, 922

– 23 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw . See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82

– 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree with counsel that this appeal i s wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State , 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accor dingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/s/ Bill Meier
BILL MEIER JUSTICE PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and MEIER, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: January 30 , 201 4
Exhibit 15.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements pertaining to the employee stock option plans of United Microelectronics
Corporation:



|1. | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-102605) pertaining to the Employee Stock Option Plan,
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-126889) pertaining to the Employee Stock Option Plan and the 2004 Employee Stock Option Plan, and
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|3. | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-142809) pertaining to the 2004 Employee Stock Option Plan and 2005 Employee Stock Option Plan
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of our reports dated April 21, 2015, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of United Microelectronics Corporation and the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting of United Microelectronics Corporation, included in its Annual Report (Form 20-F) of United Microelectronics Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2014.

/s/ Ernst & Young

Taipei, Taiwan,

Republic of China

April 21, 2015