alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 2951]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00821]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; 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 material, 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: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel; Member Conflict: Mycobacterial genetics, biochemistry and 
drug discovery and development.
    Date: January 22, 2015.
    Time: 1:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Tera Bounds, DVM, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3214, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 
20892, 301-435-2306, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dab8b5afb4bea9ae9ab9a9a8f4b4b3b2f4bdb5ac"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5b39342e353f282f1b38282975353233753c342d">[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. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 14, 2015.
Michelle Trout,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-00821 Filed 1-20-15; 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>
EXHIBIT 21.1




Subsidiaries of the Registrant




Roadships Acquisitions US, Inc. is domestic corporation incorporated in the State of Florida. The Company owns 100% of the issued and outstanding common stock.




Roadships America, Inc. is domestic corporation incorporated in the State of Florida. The Company owns 100% of the issued and outstanding common stock.




Roadships Acquisition Pty, Ltd is a corporation formed under the laws of Australia. The Company owns 100% of the issued and outstanding common stock.




Endeavour Logistics Pty, Ltd is a corporation formed under the laws of Australia. The Company owns 100% of the issued and outstanding common stock.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 2934]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00864]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged 
in Permissible Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company, including the 
companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a 
subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 
Sec.  225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has 
determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible 
for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than February 13, 2015.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Yvonne Sparks, Community 
Development Officer) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:
    1. Renasant Corporation, Tupelo, Mississippi; to acquire through 
merger, 100 percent of the voting shares of Heritage Financial Group, 
Inc., and indirectly acquire HeritageBank of the South, both in Albany, 
Georgia, and thereby indirectly engage in operating a savings 
association, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(4)(ii).

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 15, 
2015.
Michael J. Lewandowski,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2015-00864 Filed 1-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
<PAGE>
                                    FORM 6-K
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                        Report of Foreign Private Issuer

                        PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-16 OR 15d-16
                     OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

                                 April 20, 2005

                         Commission File Number: 0-22346

                                 HOLLINGER INC.
                 (Translation of registrant's name into English)

                                10 TORONTO STREET
                            TORONTO, ONTARIO M5C 2B7
                                     CANADA
                    (Address of principal executive offices)

        Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file
               annual reports under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.

                           Form 20-F [X] Form 40-F [ ]

  Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper
              as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): ____

  Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper
              as permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): ____

     Indicate by check mark whether by furnishing the information contained
           in this Form, the registrant is also thereby furnishing the
         information to the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under
                      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                                 Yes [ ] No [X]

 If "Yes" is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant
                in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82- ________

<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT LIST
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Exhibit        Description
-------        -----------
<S>            <C>
99.1           Press Release, dated April 19, 2005, regarding Hollinger Inc.
               Retraction Price of Retractable Common Shares.

</TABLE>


<PAGE>


                                   SIGNATURES

     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

Date: April 20, 2005

                                        HOLLINGER INC.

                                        By /s/ Peter G. White
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Name:  Peter G. White
                                           Title: Vice President, Operations
                                                  and Secretary
[913 NE2d 409, 885 NYS2d 23]

#### In the Matter of Manuel Gomez, Respondent, v Raymond W. Kelly, as Police Commissioner of the State of New York, et al., Appellants.

Decided June 24, 2009

*884APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel,*New York City *(Scott Shorr*of counsel), for appellants.

*Worth, Longworth & London, LLP,*New York City *(Howard B. Sterinbach*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, with costs, and petition dismissed in its entirety. We cannot say that “the penalty . . . imposed by the Commissioner shocks the judicial conscience” *(Matter of Kelly v Safir,*96 NY2d 32, 40 [2001]).

Concur: Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones. Taking no part: Chief Judge Lippman.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-30588.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 16, 2006.*

Filed Oct. 23, 2006.

U.S. Attorney, Pocatello, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Steven V. Richert, Esq., Federal Defenders Eastern Washington and Idaho, Pocatello, ID, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, appellant's request for oral argument is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Luis Castillo appeals from his 96-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Castillo contends that the district court erred in denying him a two-level downward adjustment pursuant to § 3B 1.2(b) of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines because *775he was a “minor participant” in his offense. We review for clear error. *See United States v. Cantrell,*433 F.3d 1269, 1282 (9th Cir.2006). Upon review, we conclude that the district court did not err because Castillo, the sole participant in the offense of his conviction, has failed to produce evidence of his participation in a larger conspiracy. *See id.*at 1286.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit
            35.1
 Servicer
            Compliance Statement of Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation







**NISSAN
      MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION**




**OFFICER'S
      CERTIFICATE**




The
      undersigned, Steven R. Lambert, President and Chief Executive Officer of NISSAN
      MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, a California corporation (the “Company”), does
      hereby certify, in his capacity as such corporate officer, as
      follows:




(1)           The
      undersigned has caused a review of the activities of the Company, in its
      capacity as Servicer, during the period February 22, 2007 through March 31,
      2007
      (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance pursuant to that certain Sale
      and Servicing Agreement, dated as of February 22, 2007 (the “Agreement”), by and
      among the Company, Nissan Auto Receivables Corporation II, as Seller, and Nissan
      Auto Receivables 2007-A Owner Trust, as Issuer, to be conducted under his
      supervision; and




(2)           To
      the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, based upon such review, the Company has
      fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
      throughout the Reporting Period.




This
      Officer’s Certificate is being furnished pursuant to Item 1123 of the Securities
      and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for publicly-issued asset-backed
      securities.  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have
      the meanings assigned to such terms in the Agreement.




IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand effective as of the 29th day of
      June,
      2007.






/s/
      Steven R.
      Lambert


Steven
      R. Lambert


President
      and Chief Executive
      Officer



























33
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Edwards, Appellant.

Submitted May 11, 2009;

decided June 4, 2009

*867Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Timothy P Donaher, Esq., Monroe County Public Defender, 10 N. Fitzhugh Street, Rochester, New York 14614 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-2000             DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                               734027                       0
<SECURITIES>                              0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                             0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                              0                       0
<INVENTORY>                               0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          0                       0
<PP&E>                             10287266                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                      7215784                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      3865890                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     0                       0
<BONDS>                                   0                       0
<COMMON>                                  0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0                       0
<PREFERRED>                               0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        3865890                       0
<SALES>                              753692                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     756157                       0
<CGS>                                     0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      326017                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                              0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  326017                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                            0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0                       0
<CHANGES>                                 0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                         326017                       0
<EPS-BASIC>                             0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                             0                       0


</TABLE>
#### Fred PAPPAS, Plaintiff, v. Joseph H. BLISS, trading and doing business as Artcraft Mantel Company, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 64-483.

United States District Court W. D. Pennsylvania.

Feb. 12, 1965.

*692J. Cris Soich, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.

Allen N. Brunwasser, Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant.

WILLSON, District Judge.

This civil action comes before the Court on defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Counsel have been heard and the briefs considered. It is noticed that plaintiff in his complaint demands judgment against the defendant in the total sum of $2,132.80 due him, he says, for unpaid overtime compensation pui’suant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. ■ § 201 et seq. Jurisdiction is averred as being under 16(b) of the statute and 28 U.S.C.A. § 1337. A responsive answer has been filed. In the answer defendant, Joseph H. Bliss, says that he is a sole proprietorship registered and doing business as Artcx*aft Mantel Company. It is averred in the answer that not only is the defendant not subject to jurisdiction under the Fair Labor Standards Act, but also it is further averred that he is specifically exempted under Section 13 of the statute.

It is noticed that Section 13 is found in Title 29 U.S.C.A. under Section 213. In 13(a) (2) an exemption is provided where “any employee employed by any retail or service establishment, more than 50 per centum of which establishment’s annual dollar volume of sales of goods or services is made within the State in which the establishment is located.”

In the instant matter defendant’s counsel also calls the Court’s attention to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, effective July 1, 1963, because defendant has filed an affidavit in which the exemption is claimed; and considering the affidavit, the Court agrees a prima facie defense is made out in the affidavit. He has complied with the rule. In substance, he has indicated a defense based on facts in his affidavit which would be admissible in evidence; and from the face of the affidavit it appears that the facts alleged are based on his personal knowledge and that he is competent to testify as to the matters set forth therein. Such being the case defendant as the advex'se pax'ty may not rest upon the mere allegations of the complaint, but he must come forward and set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine trial issue as required by the rule. Otherwise defendant’s motion should be granted. Defendant’s counsel at the argument seemed confident that the matter set forth in defendant’s affidavit cannot be controverted. The Court is not aware of whether plaintiff’s counsel is familiar with the amended rule or not, but in any event the motion for summary judgment being opposed, plaintiff will be given a chance to respond to the position taken by defendant. The order of the Court is that plaintiff comply with Rule 56(c) within 10 days, and on his failure to so respond, defendant may submit an order for summary judgment.

It is so ordered.
#### Amy L. Roberts et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Respondents, v Tishman Speyer Properties, L.P., et al., Appellants.

Submitted August 3, 2009;

decided August 27, 2009

Reported below, 62 AD3d 71.

Motion by Real Estate Board of New York for leave to appear amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-2186
RICHARD A. PATTERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE CITY OF COLUMBIA, a municipality of the State of South Carolina; J. P. SMITH; W. A. EVANS; DEIDRE PRIESTER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-95-1522-3-23) Submitted: April 16, 1998 Decided: April 28, 1998 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard A. Patterson, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Gordon Cooper, Columbia, South Carolina; Danny Ca lvert Crowe, TURNER, PADGET, GRAHAM & LANEY, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirmon the reasoning of the district court. Patterson v. City of Columbia , No. CA-95-1522-3-23 (D.S.C. Aug. 5, 1997). We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### In the Matter of William Kyle et al., Appellants, v Gerald Lebovits et al., Respondents.

Submitted June 29, 2009;

decided September 8, 2009

Reported below, 58 AD3d 521.

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that portion of the Appellate Division order that dismissed the appeal from that portion of Supreme Court’s order that imposed sanctions upon appellants’ counsel, dismissed upon the ground that as to said part of the order appellants are not parties aggrieved within the meaning of CPLR 5511; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

February 2, 2004

Before

Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

Hon. KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge

No. 02-2450

In the matter of:

JAMES E. HOVIS and JAMES E. HOVIS

TRUST NO. 90,

Debtors-Appellants.

Appeal from the United

States District Court

for the Northern

District of Illinois,

Western Division.

No. 01 C 50475

Philip G. Reinhard,

Judge.

Order

The opinion of this court issued on February 2, 2004, is

amended as follows:

Page 3, line 8, change “treat” to “treats”;

Page 4, line 6, change “it” to “he”;

Page 5, line 18, change “liquidated” to “sold.”
EXHIBIT 32





CERTIFICATIONS 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









I, Ori Rosenbaum, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Auri, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report of Wellstone Filter Sciences, Inc. on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Wellstone Filter Sciences, Inc.







By:
/s/ORI ROSENBAUMName:
Ori RosenbaumTitle:
President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerDate:
April __, 2011







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





This Certification is being furnished pursuant to Rule 15(d) and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78r), or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This Certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
|   | Exhibit                32.1 |
|--------|-----------------------------|

|  August 13,              2007             |   |   |  August 13,              2007         |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------|--------|
| /s/                J. Collier                Sparks |   |   | /s/                Michael                Sweet |   |
| J.                Collier                Sparks     |   |   | Michael                Sweet                    |   |
| Chief                Executive Officer              |   |   | Chief                Financial Officer          |   |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Johnathan Johnson, Also Known as Jonathan Johnson, Appellant.

[869 NYS2d 911]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated March 30, 1992 *(People v Johnson,*181 AD2d 914 [1992]), affirming a-judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered October 20, 1988.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Prudenti, PJ., Mastro, Rivera and Skelos, JJ., concur.