alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 24 (Friday, February 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 6042]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2430]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Drug Abuse; 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 contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special 
Emphasis Panel, Rapid Assessments Tools of Sexual and Drug Use Risk 
Behaviors (5555).
    Date: February 11, 2010.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6101 Executive Boulevard, 
Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call)
    Contact Person: Gerald L. McLaughlin, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on 
Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, Room 220, MSC 8401, 6101 Executive Blvd., 
Bethesda, MD 20892-8401, 301-402-6626, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0c6b613d38396d4c626564226b637a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f7909ac6c3c296b7999e9fd9909881">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.279, Drug 
Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 28, 2010.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-2430 Filed 2-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Washington LOUIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D10-1945.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 27, 2011.

Washington Louis, Carrabelle, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

*Affirmed. See Terry v. State,*808 So.2d 1249 (Fla.2002).

POLEN, GERBER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>   This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
           from the Balance Sheet and Statement of Operations included in
           the Company's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997 and
           is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Financial
           Statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                         <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              Jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               12-MOS
<CASH>                                        1,795,657
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   220,817
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              2,883,303
<PP&E>                                          508,936
<DEPRECIATION>                                  253,513
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                4,963,795
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           538,884
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                      5,529,419
<OTHER-SE>                                   (1,435,096)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  4,963,795
<SALES>                                          67,823
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              1,179,553
<CGS>                                            36,098
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    36,098
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              1,834,187
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              110,684
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (801,416)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (801,416)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (801,416)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    ($0.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    ($0.25)


</TABLE>
#### R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, Appellant, v. Carolyn GRAY, in re Engle Progeny Cases Tobacco Litigation, Appellee.

No. 1D10-3787.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 17, 2011.

Larry Hill and Charles F. Beall, Jr., of Moore, Hill & Westmoreland, P.A., Pensacola, and Gregory G. Katsas of Jones Day, Washington, DC, for Appellant.

Steven L. Brannock, Celene H. Hum-phries, and Tyler K. Pitchford of Brannock *&*Humphries, Tampa, and Matthew D. Schultz and Robert M. Loehr of Levin, Papantonio, Thomas, Mitchell & Echsner, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *See R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Martin,*53 So.3d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

BENTON, C.J., DAVIS and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

SHAMEKIA S. OCHOA
, Appellant,

v.

EDWARD G. BONDI
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 1642

[ December 16, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Carlos A. Rodriguez , Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE

19

- 25817 (14)

.

Morgan L. Weinstein of Twig, Trade, & Tribunal, PLLC, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

David A. Strauss of The Strauss Law Firm, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ROSS

, D AMOORGIAN and C IKLIN
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PETRA MARTINEZ; STANLEY 

ATKINSON, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

 v. 

AMERICA’S WHOLESALE LENDER, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 19-16268 

D.C. No. 5:18-cv-02869-LHK 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 2, 2020**

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Petra Martinez and Stanley Atkinson appeal pro se from the district court’s 

judgment dismissing their diversity action alleging state law claims arising out of 

foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We 

review de novo a district court’s dismissal based on res judicata. Stewart v. U.S. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

JUN 9 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-16268 

Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm. 

The district court properly determined that the requirements for diversity 

jurisdiction were met, as the amount in controversy was over $75,000.00 and all 

parties were citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), (c)(1) (setting 

forth requirements of diversity jurisdiction and explaining that for purposes of 

diversity jurisdiction, “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of every State 

. . . by which it has been incorporated and of the State . . . where it has its 

principal place of business”); Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 80 (2010)

(explaining that a corporation’s “principal place of business” is “the place where 

the corporation’s high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the 

corporation’s activities”). 

The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ action as barred by the 

doctrine of res judicata. See Giles v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 

884 (9th Cir. 2007) (in diversity cases where only substantive state law is at issue 

“we apply the preclusion law that the [state court which issued the first judgment] 

would apply”); Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 51 P.3d 297, 306-07 (Cal. 2002) 

(California’s doctrine of res judicata).

We reject as meritless plaintiffs’ contention that defendants committed 

“fraud upon the court.” 

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 
3 19-16268 

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.
Report of Independent Accountants on Management's Assertion on
          Compliance with Minimum Servicing Standards Set Forth in the
             Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers


Board of Directors
NF Investments, Inc.

We have examined  management's  assertion,  included in the accompanying  report
titled Report of Management  that NF  Investments,  Inc. (NFI) complied with the
minimum  servicing  standards set forth in the Mortgage  Bankers  Association of
America's Uniform Single Attestation  Program for Mortgage Bankers (USAP) during
the year ended December 31, 1997. Management is responsible for NFI's compliance
with  those  requirements.  Our  responsibility  is to  express  an  opinion  on
management's assertion about NFI's compliance based on our examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on  a  test  basis,  evidence  about  NFI's  compliance  with  those
requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered  necessary in
the circumstances.  We believe that our examination  provides a reasonable basis
for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on NFI's
compliance with specified requirements.

In our opinion, management's assertion that NFI complied with the aforementioned
requirements  during the year ended December 31, 1997 is fairly  stated,  in all
material respects.


                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
                                        ---------------------


February 16, 1998
Exhibit 32.1

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANTTOSECTION 906**

**OFTHESARBANES-OXLEYACT**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Highwoods Properties, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Edward J. Fritsch, President and Chief Executive 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; and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

 

| /s/ EDWARDJ.FRITSCH                                    |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Edward J. FritschPresident and Chief Executive Officer |   |
| August 8, 2008                               |   |

 

 

51
#### Jonathan STELLY v. MORROW, MORROW, RYAN & BASSET, et al.

No. 2011-C-1222.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 23, 2011.

In re Stelly, Jonathan; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 2009-1715; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 10-1353.

Denied.
#### William THOMPSON, Appellant, v. Michael Francis YOUNG, Dr., Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department of Correction, originally sued as “Young,” Ap-pellee.

No. 00-1485.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 26, 2000.

Decided Jan. 8, 2001.

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, HANSEN, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

William Thompson, an Arkansas inmate, appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which he claimed that Dr. Michael Young was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical condition. After de novo review, *see Weaver v. Clarke,*45 F.3d 1253, 1255 (8th Cir.1995), we agree with the district court Thompson failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim against the prison doctor. The Eighth Amendment does not prohibit a prison doctor from exercising his own independent medical judgment, and inmates do not have a constitutional right to any particular type of treatment. *See Long v. Nix,*86 F.3d 761, 765 (8th Cir.1996).

*565Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
#### Keefe WESLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D10-1149.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Aug. 2, 2011.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kristen L. Davenport, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *See Alvarez v. State,*827 So.2d 269 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), *review denied,*845 So.2d 887 (Fla.2003).

SAWAYA, MONACO and TORPY, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-25-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-26-1998
<CASH>                                               1,527 
<SECURITIES>                                             0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                       25,551 
<ALLOWANCES>                                           342 
<INVENTORY>                                         26,293 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    54,720 
<PP&E>                                              61,473 
<DEPRECIATION>                                      28,731 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     115,041 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               22,637 
<BONDS>                                             64,421 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0 
<PREFERRED>                                         14,121 
<COMMON>                                                59 
<OTHER-SE>                                          23,120 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       125,290 
<SALES>                                             75,922 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    75,922 
<CGS>                                               58,202 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       58,202 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    13,529 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   2,396 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      4,641 
<INCOME-TAX>                                         2,698 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  1,943 
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0 
<CHANGES>                                                0 
<NET-INCOME>                                         1,411 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.24 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.24 
                                               


</TABLE>
** **

**Consent of Independent Registered PublicAccounting Firm**

 

We consent tothe incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (Nos. 333-178881, 333-177586, 333-167388, 333-157417, 333-140238and 333-104105,) on Form S-8 and Registration Statements (Nos. 333-170140, 333-166277, 333-148779, 333-146691 and 333-138405)on Form S-3 of Senesco Technologies, Inc. and Subsidiary of our report dated September 28, 2012, relating to our audits of theconsolidated financial statements, which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Senesco Technologies, Inc. and Subsidiaryfor the year ended June 30, 2012. Our report dated September 28, 2012, relating to the consolidated financial statements includesan explanatory paragraph relating to an uncertainty as to the Company's ability to continue as a going concern.

 

/s/ McGladrey LLP

 

New York, New York

September 28, 2012
<PAGE>


                                                                    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 Quarterly Report of Northfield Laboratories Inc. on Form
10-Q/A for the period ended August 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jack J. Kogut, Chief
Financial Officer of Northfield Laboratories Inc., certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 that:


     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


Date: October 20, 2003


/s/ Jack J. Kogut
-----------------------
Jack J. Kogut
Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Leon WILLIAMS.

No. 2011-KO-1369.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 16, 2011.

In re Williams Jr., Leon; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Webster, 26th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 79,131; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,301-KA.

Denied.
#### John SAN MARTIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D09-628.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 16, 2011.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Marti Rothenberg, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Timothy R.M. Thomas, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before, SUAREZ and SÁLTER, Jj., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

On this appeal from convictions and a 30-year sentence with a 25-year min-man for attempted armed robbery and armed burglary, the sole issue challenges the admission of the defendant’s inculpato-ry statements to the police. Of the various grounds asserted, the only one which deserves discussion argues that the *Miranda*
      *1172waiver, which was otherwise impeccably secured, was spoiled by the utterance, “S-t, nigga ain’t got one,”1 stated while he was indicating his willingness to speak without counsel by initialing that provision of the standard waiver form. It was not.

In agreement with both sides, we take it from this comment that the defendant was reflecting his awareness of and perhaps displeasure with the fact that there was no attorney actually present when he waived his *Miranda*rights. It is established, however, that these rights do not include one to have a lawyer immediately available before questioning can begin. As the Supreme Court has stated, *“Miranda*does not require that attorneys be producible on call ... *Miranda*requires only that the police not question a suspect *unless he waives his right to counsel,”*[e.s.], which San Martin clearly did. *See Duckworth v. Eagan,*492 U.S. 195, 204, 109 S.Ct. 2875, 106 L.Ed.2d 166 (1989); *see also Everett v. State,*893 So.2d 1278, 1285 (Fla.2004), *cert. denied,*544 U.S. 987, 125 S.Ct. 1865, 161 L.Ed.2d 747 (2005).

Affirmed.

. *See Almeida*v. *State,*737 So.2d 520, 523 (Fla.1999), ce*rt. denied,*528 U.S. 1182, 120 S.Ct. 1221, 145 L.Ed.2d 1121 (2000) ("Custodial utterances are extraordinarily rich in diversity. ... ”).
#### Curtis J. GRAHAM, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D10-2910.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 12, 2010.

Curtis J. Graham, pro se, Petitioner.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the merits.

WOLF, KAHN, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
- 1 -

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MATTHEW FLOREZ AND LEXUS 

BROWN,

 Appellants,

v.

PASCUAL Q. OLIBAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-19-00302-CV

Appeal from the

143rd District Court

of Reeves County, Texas

(TC# 19-07-23056-CVR)

O R D E R

James D. Lucas is listed as an attorney of record for a party in this appeal. County records 

indicate that James D. Lucas currently serves as an associate judge for the 388th District Court of 

El Paso County. 

The Texas Code of Judicial Conduct restricts an active judge's ability to engage in the 

practice of law. See Tex. Code Jud. Conduct, Canon 4(G), reprinted in Tex. Gov't Code Ann., tit. 

2, subtit. G, app. B (establishing that a judge shall not practice law except as permitted by statute 

or this Code); see also Canon 5(A)(2)(requiring a full-time commissioner, master, magistrate, or 

referee of a district court to comply with all canons including Canon 4(G)); Canon 5(D)(stating 

that a part-time commissioner, master, magistrate, or referree of a district court should not 

practice law "in any court subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the court which he or she serves 

. . . ") 

As of this date, Judge Lucas has not filed a motion to withdraw or substitution in this 

matter. See Tex.R.App.P. 6.5. The Court has attempted to ascertain whether Judge Lucas intends 

to continue his representation of the party in this appeal and, if so, by what authority, but Judge 

Lucas' status as attorney in this matter remains unclear.

Therefore, to expedite a decision and for other good cause, the Court orders James D. 

Lucas to either (1) file a motion to withdraw as counsel or a motion to substitute counsel that 
- 2 -

complies with Tex.R.App.P. 6.5, or, in the alternative, (2) provide this Court with a written 

explanation as to why Lucas may continue to serve as appellate counsel in this case while also 

serving as an associate judge of the 388th District Court. The motion to withdraw or substitute 

must strictly adhere to each requirement of Tex.R.App.P. 6.5 or will not be deemed timely.

Judge Lucas' response to this Order is due no later than 15 days from this date.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of June, 2021.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox and Alley, JJ.