alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 209 (Friday, October 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 66766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27424]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


National Toxicology Program (NTP); Office of Liaison, Policy and 
Review; Meeting of the NTP Board of Scientific Counselors: Amended 
Notice

AGENCY: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), 
National Institutes of Health, HHS.

ACTION: Extension of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The NTP announces an amended date for submission of written 
public comments for the November 30-December 1, 2010 meeting of the NTP 
Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC). Information regarding the BSC 
meeting was published on October 19, 2010, in the Federal Register (75 
FR 201) and is available on the BSC meeting page (http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/165). The guidelines and deadlines published in 
this Federal Register notice still apply, except that the deadline for 
submission of written comments is extended to November 16, 2010.

DATES: The BSC meeting will be held on November 30-December 1, 2010. 
The deadline for submission of written comments and for pre-
registration to attend the meeting, including registering to present 
oral comments, is November 16, 2010.

ADDRESSES: The BSC meeting will be held in the Rodbell Auditorium, Rall 
Building at the NIEHS, 111 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle 
Park, NC 27709. Public comments on all agenda topics and any other 
correspondence should be submitted to Dr. Lori White, Designated 
Federal Officer for the BSC, NTP Office of Liaison, Policy and Review, 
NIEHS, P.O. Box 12233, K2-03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; 
telephone: 919-541-9834; fax: 919-541-0295; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f98e91908d9c959db997909c918ad7979091d79e968f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c9bea1a0bdaca5ad89a7a0aca1bae7a7a0a1e7aea6bf">[email protected]</span></a>. 
Courier address: NIEHS, 530 Davis Drive, Room K2136, Morrisville, NC 
27560.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Lori D. White (telephone: 919-541-
9834 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3b4c53524f5e575f7b55525e534815555253155c544d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="43342b2a37262f27032d2a262b306d2d2a2b6d242c35">[email protected]</span></a>).

    Dated: October 21, 2010.
John R. Bucher,
Associate Director, National Toxicology Program.
[FR Doc. 2010-27424 Filed 10-28-10; 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>
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 27, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

DAVID REED, 

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;

WARDEN OF EL RENO

CORRECTIONAL CENTER, 

 Respondents - Appellees. 

No. 09-6224

(D.C. No. 5:09-CV-00939-C)

ORDER

The captioned appeal is dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to 10th Cir. R.

42.1.

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of this court.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 09-6224 Document: 01018357068 Date Filed: 01/27/2010 Page: 1
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 ManTech International Corporation (the Company) Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, George J. Pedersen, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
and Kevin M. Phillips, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: May 5, 2006



|       |  |                                                               
|------ |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ GEORGE J. PEDERSEN                                        
|Name:  |  | George J. Pedersen                                            
|Title: |  | Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer
|       | 
|By:    |  | /s/ KEVIN M. PHILLIPS                                         
|Name:  |  | Kevin M. Phillips                                             
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer                                       



29
#### Winn *v.*Little Rock.

Opinion delivered June 9, 1924.

Taxation — exemption of cemeteries — invalidity of tax title.— Since, under Const., art. 16, § 5, cemeteries used exclusively as such are exempt from taxation, one who purchased at tax sale land used by a city for a public cemetery acquired no title, and the city, suing therefor,- was not required to first file an affidavit of tender of taxes, as provided by Crawford & Moses’ Dig., § 3708.

Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Second Division; *Richard M. Mcmn,*Judge;

affirmed.

Appellant *pro se.*

Before plaintiff could maintain a suit in ejectment or for possession, it was essential that the plaintiff file the affidavit required by 'law. C. & M. Digest, §§ 3708-9-10.

*A. B. Cypert*and *John F. Clifford,*for appellee.

The property involved, being part of a cemetery, used exclusively as such, is not subject to taxation, and appellant’s tax deed is void. Constitution, art. 16, § 5; 26 R. C. L. 399; 37 Cyc. 1469. Since the assessment of taxes on the property and a sale thereof for taxes were void, the appellant acquired no title whatever, and it was not necessary to file the affidavit contemplated by the statute *12relied on by the appellant. 2'2 Ark. 118; 37 Ark. 100; 51 Ark. 397.

Wood, J.

This is an action by the appellee against the appellant in ejectment to recover the possession of a certain tract of land, which is described in the complaint, containing 14.59 acres, more or less, and a part of Oakland Cemetery, to which appellee cleraigns title through various mesne conveyances from the United States Grovernment, as set up in its complaint. The appellee alleges that it is a city of the first class, and is legally holding the tract described exclusively for public purposes, to-wit, a public cemetery for burial of the dead. The appellee further alleges that the appellant was in possession of the land without any vestige of .right, title or claim, and wrongfully refuses to surrender the possession thereof to the appellee.

The appellant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the appellant was in possession of the lands under a tax. title, and that the appellee had not complied with the statute requiring it to file an affidavit of tender of taxes before the commencement of its action. The appellant did not file any answer to the complaint. The court overruled his motion, and appellant stood upon the motion. The court rendered judgment in favor of appellee ag-ainst the appellant, from which is this appeal.

Under article 16, § 5, of our Constitution, cemeteries used exclusively as such are exempt from taxation. If the land in controversy whs assessed and sold for taxes, as appellant claims, then such proceeding was null and void, and the appellant acquired no right thereunder. Section 3708 of Crawford & Moses’ Digest, upon which appellant relies to sustain his motion, does not extend to sales that are void for want of power. *Wallace*v. *Brown,*22 Ark. 118; *Hunt*v. *Curry,*37 Ark. 100; *Kelso*v. *Robinson,*51 Ark. 397; see also 37 Cyc. 1469 (b); 26 E. C. L. § 399, p. 443.

The judgment is correct, and it is therefore affirmed.
#### Place *v.*The State, on the Relation of Patterson.

The act respecting certain specific taxes (R. S. 1843, p. 235) authorizes the county treasurer, in vacation, &c., to determine the sum to be charged for a year for a license to retail spirituous liquors, to receivo the amount, and give a receipt, &c.

The 175th section of that act applies only to the applications of brokers.

The 17th section of the act of 1841 (Acts of 1841, p. 42) was revised by the above-cited act of 1843 on the subject, and was consequently repealed by the general repealing act of 1843 (R. S. 1843, p. 1023).

ERROR to the *La Porte*Circuit Court.

Blackeord, *J.*

Patterson, the relator, filed an affidavit in the Circuit Court, stating that he had applied to the county treasurer of *La Porte*county, to ’determine the sum to be charged for a license for a year to retail spirituous liquors, &c.; that he offered to pay, &c., and demanded a receipt, &c.; that the defendant refused, &c. Upon that affidavit, a *mandamus*issued, requiring said treasurer, &c. The defendant made the following return to the writ: 1. That he was not authorized to receive a tax for a license to extend beyond the then next term of the commissioners’ Court. 2. That the board of commissioners had previously, on a remonstrance, &c., ordered that no license to retail spirituous liquors, &c., should be granted, &c. The state demurred to both parts of the return, and the demurrer was sustained. The Court ordered a *peremptory mandamus*to issue.

The first part of the return is insufficient. The act respecting certain specific taxes authorizes the county treasurer, in vacation, &c., to determine the sum to be charged for a year for such license as aforesaid, to receive the amount, and give a receipt, &c., unless he is prohibited by the 175th section of that act. But that section, we think, applies only to the applications of brokers, and does not affect this case. R. S. *3201843, p. 237. The 17th section of the act of 1841 (Acts of 1841, p. 42), upon the proviso in which section, the second part of the return is founded, was revised by the above-cited act of 1843 on the subject, and was consequently repealed by the general repealing act of 1843. R. S. 1843, p. 1023.

*J. B. Niles*and *A. L. Osborn,*for the plaintiff.

*J. W. Chapman,*for the defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is affirmed with costs.
**Exhibit31(a)**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, J.M. Haggar, III,certify that:

 

1.               Ihave reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Haggar Corp.;

 

2.               Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.               Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)              designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)             evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)              disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)              allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)             anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

| Date: May 10,  2005 |
|---------------------|
|                |
|                |
|                | /s/ J.M. Haggar, III |   |
|                | J.M. Haggar, III |
|                |   |
|                | Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                     |  |  |  |

 

----
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-13-00731- CV

Elf reda Cher ie Allen, Appellan t

v. CitiMor tgage, Inc., Appellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TARRANT COUNTY , 236 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT

NO. 236 -24 4370 -10 , H ONO RAB LE TO M LO WE, J UDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Elfre da Cherie Al len filed a notice of appea l in October 2013. She
s t at ed that she was appea ling a “memora ndum opinion and judgme nt on contest fo r aff idavit of inability to pay cost s .” She attache d a copy of a memorandum opinion and judgme nt issued by the For

t Worth Court of Appea ls. See Allen v. C i t i Mort gage , No. 02-13-00027- CV, 2013 Tex. App. L EXI S 8918 (Tex. App.—For t Worth J uly 18, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (noting that appellant failed to pa

y filing fee and dismiss ing appea l for failure to c omply with a require ment of rules of a ppellate pr ocedur e and a

supreme c ourt order ). On November 6, 2013, the C lerk of this Court reque sted a response from Al l en by November 18, 2013. The Clerk advised Allen that she must inform this Court of the basis on which jurisdiction e x ists or that this Court would dismiss this c ause for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. Ap p . P
. 4 2.3(a) ; see also Tex. Gov’t Code §§ 22.201(d) (listing counties within Third Cou rt o fAppea ls District), .220(a) (“Ea ch court of appea ls has appellate jurisdiction of all civil case s within

its district of which the district courts or county courts have jurisdiction when the amount in controve rsy or the judgme nt rende red exceeds $250, exclusive of interest and costs.”). Allen has not filed a r esponse. We dismiss the appea l for wa nt of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.3(a)
.

__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Jus tice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Rose, and Goodwin Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: De cembe r 13, 2013

2
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**Section 1350 Certification of Chief Financial Officer**

 

        In connection with the quarterly report ofNano-Proprietary, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter endedSeptember 30, 2004, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Douglas P, Baker, the Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, 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 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

        2.     The informationcontained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of theCompany as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the report.

 

|  

Date:  October 29, 2004 |   /s/ Douglas P.Baker               Douglas P. Baker Chief Financial Officer |
|--------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Appeal Reinstated; Order filed January 13, 2015

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 14

- 00947

- CV

____________ MARIANN BACHARACH , Appellant

V.

JOHN DOE , Appellee

On Appeal from the Co unty Civil C our t at Law No

. 2

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1050977



### ORDER
On January 8, 2015, this court abated this appeal for determination of appellant’s affidavit of indigence filed December 16, 2014. On the same day, this court received a clerk’s record containing the county cler k’s contest to appellant’s affidavit and the trial court’s order sustaining the contest, signed January 6, 2015. The appeal is reinstated.
The Rules of Appellate Procedure permit appellant to challenge this ruling ifshe files a motion within 10 days afte r the order sustaining the contest is signed.

See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(j)(2). According to the partial clerk’s record, the trial court signed an order denying appellant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to chapter 27 of the Texas Civil
Practice and Remedies Cod e on October 20, 2014. Appellant’s notice of appeal was due November 10, 2015, but was not filed until November 21, 2015, a date within 15 days of the due date for the notice of appeal. A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when the perfect ing instrument is filed within 15 days
of its due date. Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Appellant did not file a motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal. While an extension may be implied, appellant is still obligated to com e forward with a reasonable explanation to support the late filing. See Miller v. Greenpark Surgery Center Assocs., Ltd. , 974 S.W.2d 805, 808 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.).
Accordingly, we ORDER appellant to file a proper motion to exten d time to file the notice of appeal on or before January 27, 2015

. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3;12.5(b). If appellant does not comply with this order, we will dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

PER CURIAM
3 min read

# NASA Talks Equity, Artemis, More at Annual Black Caucus Conference

### Brian Dunbar

Oct 18, 2022

Article

            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   

**Credits: NASA/GRC/Jordan Salkin**

NASA participated in the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s 51st legislative conference in Washington Sept. 28-Oct. 2. The theme for the annual policy conference was “Advancing Our Purpose. Elevating Our Power.”

For the agency, the conference was an opportunity to engage with members of Congress and reinforce why diversity in STEM matters. It also was an occasion to reiterate how the agency intends to create more opportunities for untapped audiences and people of color to participate in the space industry through its Mission Equity initiative and Equity Action Plan.

This year’s hybrid event, which focused on Black civic engagement, public policy, and STEM education, included in-person panels, vendors, and workshops as well as virtual programming. The in-person setting allowed for candid conversation with some of the nation’s most influential leaders, businesses, organizations, and federal agencies.

With an interactive, 360-degree display as its backdrop, NASA hosted a series of dialogues with agency leaders and other subject matter experts on topics ranging from its Equity Action Plan to the Artemis Generation. During these “fireside chats,” NASA shared how inclusivity and accessibility play an important role in expanding opportunities for individuals with various backgrounds, skillsets, and experience to work with and learn from NASA.

“The NASA Equity Action Plan is the agency’s drive to include all of America in everything we do. We understand that to continue to do this amazing work – return to the Moon and on to Mars, study the universe, understand Earth, and prepare the next generation of explorers, the Artemis Generation – we will need every willing brain to join us,” said NASA’s Langley Research Center Director Clayton Turner.  “We need to remove barriers and create opportunities that will make it easier to build relationships and to work together.” 

In addition to the agency’s Equity Action Plan, Turner and other speakers shared insights on what expanding opportunities could mean for the future generation of space explorers. Speakers expressed the critical need to cultivate talent in young scholars early on, through STEM education and by providing opportunities for exposure so that they will know that there is a need and desire for their unique talents, skills, and experiences in the aerospace industry – and certainly at NASA.

Photo above: Dr. Antoine Moss, NASA’s lead for diversity, inclusion, equity and accessibility, and NASA Langley Research Center Director Clayton Turner talk at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s 51st Annual Legislative Conference on Wednesday, Sept. 28, 2022 at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center in Washington. Credit: NASA/GRC/Jordan Salkin

To watch the full conversation with Turner and other NASA leaders during the Congressional Black Caucus conference, and for more information on the NASA Equity Action plan, visit NASA’s Mission Equity page:
H. Res. 241 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

April 4, 2017. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1304) to 

amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 

1974, the Public Health Service Act, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from the definition of health 

insurance coverage certain medical stop-loss insurance obtained by certain plan sponsors of group health plans. All 

points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 

The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended 

by the Committee on Education and the Workforce now 

printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, 

as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 

against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 

as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 

passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 

debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the 
2 

•HRES 241 EH 

Workforce; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without 

instructions. 

Attest: 

Clerk.