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

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 2950]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00813]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; 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 Center for Advancing Translational 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; SBIR Simple and Robust Progress 
Analyzer.
    Date: March 30, 2015.
    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, One Democracy Plaza, 6701 
Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Contact Person: Barbara J. Nelson, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Office of Grants Management & Scientific Review, National 
Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), National 
Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Room 1080, 1 Dem. Plaza, 
Bethesda, MD 20892-4874, 301-435-0806, [email protected].

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.859, 
Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.350, 
B--Cooperative Agreements; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research 
Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 14, 2015.
David Clary,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-00813 Filed 1-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7424

PAUL DAVID GEORGE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GEORGE TRENT, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief

District Judge. (CA-97-328)

Submitted: November 20, 1997 Decided: December 11, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Paul David George, Appellant Pro Se. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Dawn

Ellen Warfield, Molly Margaret McGinley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.

1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

George v. Trent, No. CA-97-328 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 25, 1997). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
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.                  

###### Federal Trade Commission

## An FTC Workshop Analyzing Business Opportunity Disclosure Form and Other Proposed Changes to the Business Opportunity Rule

### Correction

In notice document E9-9440 appearing on page 18712 in the issue of April 24, 2009, make the following correction:

                    On page 18715, in the third column, in the                     **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION**                     section, after the word                     *Secretary*                     in the eighteenth line, the following Appendix A should be added:                
      ( print page 21687)    

## APPENDIX A

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

BILLING CODE 6750-01-S

[FR Doc. E9-10812 Filed 5-7-09: 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750-01-C
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted
Pursuant to Section 906 of the As Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Masaaki (John) Nishibori, 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 CAI International, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of CAI International, Inc.

Date: March 17, 2008



By:

/s/    MASAAKI (JOHN)
NISHIBORIMasaaki (John) Nishibori President and Chief Executive Officer
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 Freshwater Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, D. Brian Robertson, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting 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 position and results of operations of the Company.








Date: April 14, 2011








/s/ D. Brian Robertson


D. Brian Robertson


Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Director


(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
#### State v. Reed

Case below: 182 N.C. App. 109

No. 141P07

AG’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA06-400)

Allowed 03/23/07
Exhibit 34.1.3

 

**REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

To the Board of Directors of Fifth Third Mortgage Company

 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that Fifth Third Mortgage Company (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the residential mortgage loans sold to non-government-sponsored entities for which the Company served as servicer, that were completed on or after January 1, 2006 platform (the “Platform”) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(iv), 1122(d)(3)(i)(c), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii), and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform. Exhibit A to management’s assertion identifies the individualasset-backed transactions defined by management as constituting the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample basis of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria during the specified period, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were limited to selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report and, accordingly, such samples may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transaction included inthe Platform. Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007 for residential mortgage loans sold to non-government-sponsored entities for which the Company served as servicer, that were completed on or after January 1, 2006 platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Cincinnati, Ohio

February 29, 2008
From: The District Court of the 8th Judicial District. County of Cascade.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. YOLANDA STANLEY, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. ADC-08-190B DECISION

*23On November 24,2008, the defendant was sentenced to twenty (20) years in the Montana Women’s Prison, with ten (10) years suspended, for the offense of Count II: Assault with a Weapon, a felony.

On April 3, 2009, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Eric Olson. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that she understood this and stated that she wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 3rd day of April, 2009.

DATED this 21st day of April, 2009.

Chairperson, Hon. Stewart Stadler, Member, Hon. Blair Jones and Member, Hon. Richard Simonton.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

July 12, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 06-11281

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 04-02274-CV-AR-M

DONNIE ARRINGTON, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

CHARLES CLIFTON,

Defendant-Appellant,

CHASE JENKINS, individually and in his

official capacity as an officer of the City of 

Rainbow City Police Department, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

_________________________

(July 12, 2006)

Before BLACK, BARKETT and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

One of the defendants, Charles Clifton, appeals the order of the district court

denying him qualified immunity. The trial judge found that the facts are not, at

this stage, undisputed.

We have reviewed the briefs, record and the order of the district judge. We

agree that questions of fact, hotly disputed, prevent grant of qualified immunity.

AFFIRMED.
From: The District Court of the 4th Judicial District. County of Missoula.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. MARCO TATE, Defendant,

CAUSE NO. DC-08-22 DECISION

On April 10,2009, the defendant was sentenced, for violation of the conditions of a suspended sentence, to five (5) years in the Montana State Prison, for the offense of Aggravated Assault, a felony.

*62On August 6, 2009, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Ethan Lerman. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 6th day of August, 2009.

DATED this 20th day of August, 2009.

Chairperson, Hon. Stewart Stadler, Member, Hon. Blair Jones and Member, Richard Simonton.
** **

UNITEDSTATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGECOMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20549

 

**FORM10-Q**

 

(Mark One)

[X]   QUARTERLYREPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF1934

 

For thequarterly period ended June 30, 2010

 

or

 

[ ]   TRANSITIONREPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF1934

 

For thetransition period from _________to _________

 

Commission file number0-10256

 

**SHELTER PROPERTIESII**

(Exactname of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

55Beattie Place, PO Box 1089

Greenville, South Carolina 29602

(Addressof principal executive offices)

 

(864)239-1000

(Registrant’s telephonenumber, including area code)

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file suchreports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90days.  

[X] Yes  [ ]No

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporateWeb site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted andposted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (232.405 of this chapter) duringthe preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant wasrequired to submit and post such files). [ ] Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, anon-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company.  See the definitionsof “large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer” and “smaller reportingcompany” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of theExchange Act). [ ] Yes  [X] No
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Orville P. Wynter, Appellant.

[870 NYS2d 924]

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 October 12, 1999 *(People v Wynter,*265 AD2d 435 [1999], *affd*95 NY2d 504 [2000]), affirming a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered August 23, 1996.

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, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.
## 1995 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

8-3-1995 

# B l a ck wel l H e alth C e n t e r v Knol l

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : D ock e t 94-1954

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_1995

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 1995 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. 

## R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" B l a ck w e l l H e alth C e n t e r v Kno l l " (1995). 1995 D e cisio n s . P ape r 194. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_1995/194

## 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 94-1954

ELIZABETH BLACKWELL HEALTH CENTER FOR WOMEN; GREATER PHILADELPHIA WOMEN'S MEDICAL FUND; CHOICE, on behalf of themselves and the Medicaid-eligible women of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to whom they provide financial, health care and counseling services

v. CATHERINE BAKER KNOLL, Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in her official capacity; KAREN F. SNIDER, Secretary of Public Welfare of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in her official capacity; SHERRY KNOWLTON, Deputy Secretary of the Office of Medical Assistance of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in her official capacity; ROBERT P. CASEY, Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in his official capacity, and their successors Catherine Baker Knoll, Karen F. Snider, Sherry Knowlton and Robert P. Casey, Appellants

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 94-cv-00169)

Argued January 13, 1995 Before: COWEN, NYGAARD and ALITO,

Circuit Judges (Opinion Filed July 25, 1995)
ORDER AMENDING DISSENTING OPINION

## 2

It is hereby ordered that the dissenting opinion of Judge Nygaard be amended as follows: On page 48 of the slip opinion, line 9 (typescript at 25, line 6), between the phrases "a conclusion." and "I therefore", insert the following citation:

See Neely v. Club Med Management Servs., Inc. , Nos. 93-2069, 93-2102, __ F.3d ____, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 19904, *26, 1995 WL 442169, *9 (3d Cir. July 26, 1995) (in banc) (mere ambiguity in Supreme Court opinion insufficient to change existing decisional law).

/s/ Richard L. Nygaard U.S. Circuit Judge

Dated: August 3, 1995
#### County of Nassau, Appellant, v John P. Gallagher, Respondent.

[828 NYS2d 445]

In a civil forfeiture action pursuant to the Administrative Code of the County of Nassau § 8-7.0 (g) (4) (L 1939, chs 272, 701-709, as amended), the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Martin, J.), entered October 31, 2005, as, upon reargument, adhered to its prior determination in an order dated June 20, 2005 granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In opposition to the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff submitted a document labeled “Amended Affidavit of Service,” which was sworn to and filed more than three months after the alleged mailing of the summons and complaint to the defendant. In granting the defendant’s motion, the Supreme Court noted that the plaintiff failed to file the proof of service with the office of the clerk of the court within 20 days after the mailing of the summons and complaint, as required under CPLR 308 (2). Subsequently, in connection with its motion for leave to reargue the defendant’s motion, the plaintiff submitted a copy of a prior, timely filed affidavit of service, and explained that the amended affidavit of service was filed to correct the original affidavit’s recitals of the dates of the delivery and the mailing of the sum*787mons and complaint, which were obviously incorrect. In opposing the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, however, the plaintiff had not requested that the original affidavit of service be amended, and had not even submitted that document to the court *(see*CPLR 3211 [e]). Moreover, the plaintiff never sought an order permitting a late filing of proof of service *(see Bank of New York v Schwab,*97 AD2d 450 [1983]; *Marazita v Nelbach,*91 AD2d 604 [1982]).

Under these circumstances, although the Supreme Court was authorized, in its discretion, to allow an amendment of the original affidavit of service *(see*CPLR 305 [c]), and to permit a late filing of proof of service *(see*CPLR 2004; *Koslowski v Koslowski,*251 AD2d 294, 295 [1998]), the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in declining to take either of these actions sua sponte. Accordingly, upon reargument, the Supreme Court properly adhered to its original determination granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Miller, J.R, Crane, Lifson and Dillon, JJ., concur.