alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

# AGENCY:

National Science Foundation.

# ACTION:

Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation of 1978, Public Law 95-541.

# SUMMARY:

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Li Ling Hamady, ACA Permit Officer, Division of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Or by email:                         *ACApermits@nsf.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On November 19, 2014 the National Science Foundation published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     of a permit application received. The permit was issued on December 30, 2014 to: Dr. Joseph A. Covi, Permit No. 2015-015.                

Nadene G. Kennedy,

Polar Coordination Specialist, Division of Polar Programs.

[FR Doc. 2014-30886 Filed 1-5-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
AMENDMENT
NO. 1 TO THE SERVICES AGREEMENT


 


THIS
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE SERVICES AGREEMENT (this “Amendment No. 1”), is entered into as of June 30, 2015,
by and between NHS Pharma Sales, Inc., a California corporation (“NHS”) and Mesa Pharmacy, Inc., a California
corporation (“Mesa”) to amend Section 7(a) of the Services Agreement dated June 9, 2015 (the “Agreement”).
All defined terms not defined herein shall have the meanings as ascribed to them in Agreement.


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS,
the parties entered into the Agreement in which NHS shall provide certain specified services to the Mesa;


 


WHEREAS,
the Parties desire to amend Section 7(a) of the Agreement, and to leave all other terms and conditions as set forth in the Agreement
in full force and effect;


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and agreements, provisions, covenants, representations and warranties herein
contained, the Parties hereto hereby agree as follows:


 


7.
FLAT FEE FOR SERVICES


 


(a)
Subject to the terms and conditions hereunder, in consideration of the Services to be performed NHS, NHS will receive
a flat fee of $120,000,000 over the Term of the Agreement.


 


12.
TERM


 


This
Agreement shall be effective as of the Effective Date, and the term of this Agreement shall be for one year (the “Term”)
commencing July 1, 2015 and terminating on June 30, 2016 (“Termination Date”).


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed and delivered this Amendment No. 1 on the date first above written.


 





	MESA:	 	 
	 	 	 
		/s/ Edward Kurtz	 
	Name:	Edward Kurtz	 
	Its:	Chief Executive Officer	 
	 	 	 
	NHS:	 	 
	 	 	 
		/s/ Ron Green	 
	Name:	Ron Green	 
	Its:	President
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rafael REYES-MORALES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-11415.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Oct. 23, 2006.

Denise B. Williams, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Sherylynn Ann Kime-Goodwin, Bonita L. Gunden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Rafael Reyes-Morales appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after deportation. For the first time on appeal, he argues that the *581district court erred by assessing separate criminal history points for his prior sentences for sexual assault of a child and possession of a controlled substance. As the Government concedes, those two sentences are related for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2) because they occurred on the same occasion. *See United States v. Moreno-Arredondo, 255*F.3d 198, 205 (5th Cir. 2001); *United States v. Johnson,*961 F.2d 1188, 1189 (5th Cir.1992). Because the correct advisory guideline range is less than the sentence imposed, we vacate Reyes-Morales’s sentence and remand for resentencing consistent with this opinion. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 275 (5th Cir.2005).

Reyes-Morales’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Reyes-Morales contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *AlmendarezTorres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garzar-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Reyes-Morales properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *AlmendarezTorres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM Reyes-Morales’s conviction, but we VACATE his sentence and REMAND for resentencing.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Brenda Hyde et al., Appellants, v Transcontinent Record Sales, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[974 NYS2d 727]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Patrick H. NeMoyer, J.), entered June 15, 2012. The order granted the motion of defendants Transcontinent Record Sales, Inc., Leonard Silver and Leon Tringali, doing business as Leon Studio One School of Hair Design and Career Training Center, for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint against them.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs, individually and as husband and wife, commenced this action to recover damages for injuries sustained by Brenda Hyde (plaintiff) after she slipped and fell on snow or ice in the parking lot of the building of defendants-respondents (defendants). Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, *1340Supreme Court properly granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint against them. Defendants “established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue whether plaintiffs fall occurred while a storm was in progress or within a reasonable time thereafter” *(Santerre v Golub Corp.,*11 AD3d 945, 947 [2004]; *see Baia v Allright Parking Buffalo, Inc.,*27 AD3d 1153, 1153-1154 [2006]; *Camacho v Garcia,*273 AD2d 835, 835 [2000]), and plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition *(see Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). Plaintiffs’ claim that defendants created or exacerbated the hazard by shoveling but not salting the area in question was supported by only hearsay statements of defendants’ employee and thus was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Candela v City of New York,*8 AD3d 45, 47 [2004]; *see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, they did not establish that defendants’ employee, who allegedly stated that he had shoveled but not salted the area in which the accident occurred, had the authority to speak on behalf of defendants. Plaintiffs therefore failed to establish that the employee’s statements fell within an exception to the hearsay rule as “an admission binding on [defendants]” *(Tyrrell v Wal-Mart Stores,*97 NY2d 650, 652 [2001]; *see generally Reed v McCord,*160 NY 330, 341 [1899]). Present — Scudder, PJ., Peradotto, Garni, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.
EXHIBIT
      32.1


CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO
 18
        U.S.C.
        SECTION 1350
 AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
        connection with the Annual Report of Manakoa Services Corporation (the
        "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed
        with
        the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
        each
        of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
        certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
        906
        of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 results of operation of the Company.
  
  Date:
                  April 13, 2007
              
              
              Date:
                  April 13, 2007/s/ James
                  C. Katzaroff
              
              
              /s/ Debra
                  KasparekJames
                  C. Katzaroff
                C.E.O.
                (Principal
                  Executive Officer)
              
              
              Debra
                  Kasparek
                Interim-Chief
                  Financial Officer
                (Principal
                  Financial Officer)
  A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
        authentications, 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 Manakoa Services Corporation and will
        be
        retained by Manakoa Services Corporation, and furnished to the Securities
        and
        Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JULIE SCHMIDT; LEON E. GERHARD,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

TACOMA POLICE DEPARTMENT; et

al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-35010

D.C. No. 3:09-cv-05135-RBL

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 10, 2012** 

Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Julie Schmidt and Leon E. Gerhard appeal pro se from the district court’s

summary judgment in their action alleging constitutional, disability discrimination,

and defamation claims arising from their eviction from their residence due to

FILED

SEP 25 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-35010

unsafe conditions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo. Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir. 2004). We

affirm in part and dismiss in part.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for the reasons stated

in its order filed on December 6, 2010.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiffs’ motion

to appoint counsel because plaintiffs failed to show exceptional circumstances. See

Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of

review and requirement of “exceptional circumstances” for appointment of

counsel).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

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

(per curiam).

We lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s order striking the default

entered against defendant Galvan and dismissing plaintiffs’ claims against him

because plaintiffs failed to file an appeal or amended notice of appeal from that

post-judgment order. See Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 585 (9th Cir. 2007)

(appellant generally must file a notice of appeal or amend a previously filed notice

of appeal to secure review of a post-judgment order). Accordingly, we dismiss that
3 11-35010

portion of the appeal.

Plaintiffs’ request that defendant Tacoma Power cease “harassing” them

until this case is decided, received on August 13, 2012, is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,

AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002


In connection with the quarterly report on
Form 10-Q of Hub International Limited (the
Company) dated August 5, 2004 containing the
financial statements of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended
June 30, 2004 (the Report) filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,
Dennis J. Pauls, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted,
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:



| |    |                                                                                                                                                             
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements
    of Section 13(a) 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.

A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





| |     |                      
| | --- | ---------------------
| | By: | /s/   DENNIS J. PAULS

| |                        
| | -----------------------
| |                        
| | Dennis J. Pauls        
| | Chief Financial Officer

August 5, 2004
[960 NYS2d 639]

#### In the Matter of Brian H. Reis (Admitted as Brian Howard Reis), a Suspended Attorney, Respondent. Departmental-Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner.

First Department,

February 21, 2013

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Jorge Dopico, Chief Counsel, Departmental Disciplinary Committee,*New York City *{Kathy Wu*of counsel), for petitioner.

*Bachner & Associates, EC. {Michael Bachner*of counsel), for respondent.

*63OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on March 2, 1992, under the name Brian Howard Reis. At the times relevant to this proceeding, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.

The Departmental Disciplinary Committee seeks an order pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (g) disbarring respondent from the practice of law because he was suspended under 22 NYCRR 603.4 (e) (1) (i) and (iii) and did not appear or apply in writing to the Committee or this Court for a hearing or reinstatement for six months from date of the order of suspension, which was April 17, 2012 *(see*96 AD3d 53 [1st Dept 2012]).

Respondent was suspended because, among other things, he failed to comply with the Committee’s lawful request for documentation, respond to its subpoenas and answer multiple complaints alleging, among other things, that he converted client funds, and there was uncontested evidence of the threat to the public interest posed by respondent’s professional misconduct regarding the misuse of his attorney trust account *(see id.).*

On April 18, 2012, the Committee served respondent, via his attorney, with a notice of entry of this Court’s April 17, 2012 suspension order by mailing same by first-class mail. Respondent has not applied to the Committee or this Court for a hearing or reinstatement, although he was served with this motion and more than six months have elapsed since April 17, 2012 *(see Matter of*Claffey, 99 AD3d 201 [1st Dept 2012]; *Matter of Bambury,*91 AD3d 141 [1st Dept 2011]; *Matter of Jones,*89 AD3d 227 [1st Dept 2011]).

Accordingly, the Committee’s motion to disbar respondent, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (g), should be granted and respondent’s name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.

Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, And rías, Acosta and Freedman, JJ., concur.

Respondent disbarred, and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective the date hereof.
Exhibit 32.1



                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                         AND PRINCIPAL 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  Annual  Report  of  NewMarket  Technology,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the year ending  December  31, 2004 as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Periodic
Report"), I, Philip M. Verges,  Chairman,  Chief Executive Officer and Principal
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 Periodic  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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.



Date: January 3, 2006            /s/ Philip M. Verges
                                ---------------------------
                                Chief Executive Officer and
                                Principal Financial Officer



--------------------------
This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and  shall not be deemed  filed by the  Company  for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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 the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE  
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                    0000318716     
<NAME>                   NUMEX CORPORATION  
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U. S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                   OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                     DEC-31-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                            0
<CASH>                                                22,990
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          1,981
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                           63,222
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      89,494
<PP&E>                                               225,170
<DEPRECIATION>                                       218,927
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       515,111
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              2,943,324
<BONDS>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                             627,060
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                        (3,055,273)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         515,111 
<SALES>                                              936,499
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     936,499
<CGS>                                                513,996
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      1,253,437
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   136,039
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (299,194)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (299,994)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       936,484
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (1,236,478)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           (.20)
        


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ricky Brewer, Appellant.

[871 NYS2d 672]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County *749Court, Westchester County (Walker, J.), rendered June 23, 2004, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree, assault in the second degree, menacing in the second degree, and unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]; *People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor *(see People v Mateo, 2*NY3d 383, 410 [2004], *cert denied*542 US 946 [2004]; *People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

However, as the People correctly concede, the defendant is entitled to a new trial based upon the denial of his application to recall the complainant, since the defendant sought to impeach the complainant’s credibility on a material issue in the case, rather than on a purely collateral matter *(see People v Perez,*40 AD3d 1131 [2007]; *cf. People v Israel,*161 AD2d 730 [1990]). Under the circumstances of this case, the error cannot be deemed harmless *(see People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]; *People v Perez,*40 AD3d 1131 [2007]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination. Prudenti, EJ., Spolzino, McCarthy and Leventhal, JJ., concur.