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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

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, PAR13-259 Program Project: Behavioral and Neurobiological Effects of Drug Use.                    

*Date:*                         January 21, 2015.                    

*Time:*                         12:30 p.m. to 4:00 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:*                         Boris P Sokolov, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5217A, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-408-9115,                         *bsokolov@csr.nih.gov*.                    

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 9, 2015.

Anna Snouffer,

Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2015-00494 Filed 1-14-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### Randal HAWLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA, d.b.a. The Georgia Institute of Technology, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 05-16723

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Nov. 1, 2006.

Randal Hawley, Lithia Springs, GA, pro se.

Steffanie Walke Morrison, Bryan Eeith Webb, Office of the Attorney General, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before DUBINA, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Randal Hawley appeals the dismissal for frivolity of his employment discrimination claims, on the basis that those claims were barred by the doctrine of res *judicata,*pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)®. Hawley argues that there was no res *judi-cata*bar to his complaint because he lacked a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues in his previous employment discrimination suit, and thus, there had been no “final judgment on the merits” of that case. We have reviewed the record and are satisfied that Hawley’s complaint merely restated claims that already had been adjudicated in a previous action and did not properly raise any new causes of action. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing his action.

AFFIRMED.
Order entered April 3, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 12
- 01699
- CR DONALD RAY ATKINS, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F10
- 31661
- J 

### O RDER Appellant’s March 28, 2013 motion to supplement the reporter’s record and to hold the briefing schedule in abeyance is GRANTED IN PART

. We ORDER Official Court Reporter Kimberly R. Xavier to file, within THIRTY days of the date of this order, a supplemental reporter’s record of the plea hearing in this case conducted on April 7, 2011. Appellant’s brief shall be due thirty days after the supplemental reporter’s record is filed.
WE DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a cop y of this order by electronic transmission to Kimberly R. Xavier.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
**EXHIBIT 33.1**

**REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA**

St.George Bank Limited (the “**Asserting Party”**) is responsible for assessing compliance as of September 30, 2007 and for the period from March 15, 2007 (the date of issuance of the Crusade Global Trust No. 1 of 2007 transaction subject to the requirements of Regulation AB) through September 30, 2007 (the “**Reporting Period”**) with the servicing criteria set forth in Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the “**CFR”**), except for criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii)-(iv), 1122(d)(2)(i)-(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i)-(iv), 1122(d)(4)(i)-(iii), 1122(d)(4)(x)-(xii) and 1122(d)(4)(xv) in the CFR, which the Asserting Party has concluded are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the asset-backed securities transactions covered by thisreport (the “**Applicable Servicing Criteria”**).

The transactions covered by this report include asset-backed securities transactions for which the Asserting Party acted as servicer that are backed by the same asset type backing the class of asset-backed securities of the Crusade Global Trust No. 1 of 2007 (including the Crusade Global Trust No. 1 of 2007 asset-backed securities transaction), that were completed on or after January 1, 2006 and that were registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “**SEC**”) pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the “**Platform**”).

The Asserting Party used the criteria set forth in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB to assess the compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.  The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of September 30, 2007 and for the Reporting Period and has concluded that the Asserting Party has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria with respect to the Platform taken as a whole.

KPMG, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the Asserting Party’s assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of September 30, 2007 and for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assessment.

St.George Bank Limited

|  /s/ Peter Clare |   |
|-----------------------|--------|

Name:  Peter Clare

Title:  Group Executive

Date:  4 December 2007
#### Robbins v. Ingham

Case below: 179 N.C. App. 764

No. 603P06

1. Pit’s NOA Based Upon a Constitutional Question (COA05-1567)

2. Def’s (Gamble) Motion to Dismiss Appeal

3. Pits’ PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

1. _

2. Allowed 01/25/07

3. Denied 01/25/07
**CONSENT OF BEAR, STEARNS & CO. INC.**
     We hereby consent to: (i) the inclusion of our opinion letter, dated April 14, 2005, to theBoard of Directors of The Keith Companies, Inc. (or “Keith”) as Appendix B to the proxystatement/prospectus included in the registration statement on Form F-4 (or the “RegistrationStatement”) of Stantec, Inc. (or “Stantec”) relating to the acquisition of Keith by Stantec; and(ii) all references to Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. in the sections captioned “Summary—Recommendationof Keith’s Financial Advisor”, “Risk Factors—Risk Factors Relating to the Merger”, “TheMerger—Background of the Merger”, “The Merger—Reasons for Keith’s Board Recommendation” and “TheMerger—Opinion of Keith’s Financial Advisor” of the proxy statement/prospectus included in theRegistration Statement. In giving such consent, we do not admit that we come within the category ofpersons whose consent is required under, and we do not admit that we are “experts” for purposes of,the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.         By:             /s/ Neil B. Morganbesser    Senior Managing Director       
Los Angeles, California
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           2,630
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,397
<ALLOWANCES>                                       313
<INVENTORY>                                     10,452
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,646
<PP&E>                                          52,852
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,371
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  54,969
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           35,720
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            40
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,376
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    54,969
<SALES>                                         20,667
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,667
<CGS>                                           16,787
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,787
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,577
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    37
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 590
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    303
<INCOME-TAX>                                       113
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                190
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       190
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                               2
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       53
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    55
<PP&E>                                             945
<DEPRECIATION>                                      52
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,378
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              515
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            35
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,150
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,378
<SALES>                                            102
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   102
<CGS>                                               72
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      392
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  12
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (290)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (290)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.094)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.081)
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, David C. Warren, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of eMerge Interactive, Inc. (the “Registrant”), certify that: 

 

1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K ofeMerge Interactive, Inc.; 

 

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

 

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report; 

 

4.  The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controlsand procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have: 

 

a.  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

 

b.  (paragraph omitted pursuant toSEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986); 

 

c.  evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and 

 

d.  disclosed in this annual report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5.  The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a.  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b.  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 384 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.384

                       One Hundred Ninth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
            the fourth day of January, two thousand and five

                                 An Act

 
  To extend the existence of the Nazi War Crimes and Japanese Imperial 
        Government Records Interagency Working Group for 2 years.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TWO-YEAR EXTENSION OF WORKING GROUP.

    Section 802(b)(1) of the Japanese Imperial Government Disclosure 
Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-567; 114 Stat. 2865) is amended by striking 
``4 years'' and inserting ``6 years''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 09 -766V (Not to be published)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* ANNE M. SCOTT, * * Filed: July 20, 2015 Petitioner, * * Decision by Stipulation; Attorney’s

v. * Fees & Costs
*
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * HUMAN SERVICES, *
* Respondent. *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Diana L. Stadelnikas Sedar, Maglio Christopher and Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL, for Petitioner

Debra Begley, U.S. Dep ’ t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent

ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS DECISION 1

On November 9, 2009, Anne Scott filed a petition seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program ( the “ Vaccine Program @ ). On March 15, 2015 , the parties filed a stipulation detailing an amount to be awarded to Petitioner. I subsequently issued a decision finding the parties’ stipulation to be reasonable and granting Petitioner the award out lined by the stipulation.

On July 20, 2015 , counsel for both parties filed another joint stipulation, this time in regards to attorney’s fees and costs. The parties have stipulated that Petitioner’s counsel should receive a lump sum of $135

, 000

. 00 , in the form of a check payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel.

1 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my actions in this case, I will post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 2002) (current version at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2014)). As provided by 42 U.S.C. § 300aa12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the published decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has fourteen days within which to request redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unw arranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole decision will be available to the public. Id

.This amount represents a sum to which Respondent does not object. In addition, and in compliance

wi th General Order No. 9, Petitioner has represented that she did incur any reimbursable costs in proceeding on this petition.

I approve the requested amount for attorney’s fees and costs as reasonable. Accordingly, an award should be made in the form of a check in the amount of $135, 000.00 payable jointly to
Petitioner and Petitioner’s co unsel, Diana L. Stadelnikas Sedar, Esq. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court SHALL ENTER
JUDGME NT in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation. 2



### IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran Special Master

2 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing the ir right to seek review.
Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , th e court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 07- 40857 Su m m ar y Cal endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. J O R G E L O P E Z -M A R T IN E Z , D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e S ou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 5: 07- C R

- 829- 1
B ef ore B E N AV ID E S , P R A D O an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * T h e F ederalP u b li c D e fen d e ra p p o in te d to r e p re se n t J o rg e L opez-M art i n ez has m o ve d f

o rl e av e t o w i t hdr aw and has f i l e d a b r i e f

i n a c c o r da nc e w i t h A n d ers v . Ca lif o rn ia , 3 86 U
. S. 7 38 ( 19 67 )
. Lop e z - M ar t i ne z ha s no tf i l e d a r e s po ns e . Our i nde pe nde ntr e vi e w o f t he r e c o r d a nd c o uns e l ’ s b r i e f di s c l o s e s no no nf

r i vo l o us is s u e fo ra p p e a l. A c c o r d i n g ly , co u n s e l’ s m o tio n fo rle a v e to w ith d r a w is GRANTED, c o u n s e l i s e x c u s e d f r o m f u r t h e r r e s p o n s ib i l i t i e s h e r e i n , a nd t he A P P E A L IS D IS M IS S E D
. S ee5 T H C IR . R. 42. 2. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Aug ust25, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

ARIANNA ROSALES, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-30228

D.C. No. 

2:13-cr-02092-LRS-11

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Lonny R. Suko, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted August 30, 2016

Seattle, Washington

Before: GOODWIN, SCHROEDER, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Arianna Rosales appeals her jury conviction for conspiracy to steal casino

funds in excess of $1000, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1167(b); theft from

a gaming establishment in excess of $1000, in violation of § 1167(b); and theft

from a gaming establishment in an amount less than $1000, in violation of

FILED

SEP 12 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
§ 1167(a). The convictions arose out of a fraudulent scheme in which Rosales

kicked back winning proceeds of casino drawings in which she never participated. 

The scheme was orchestrated by two casino employees.

Rosales contends that the district court should have granted her motion for

acquittal or new trial because the evidence was insufficient to establish a single

conspiracy. She contends there were multiple conspiracies. Her theory is flawed. 

Multiple conspiracies require multiple agreements and purposes. United States v.

Taren-Palma, 997 F.2d 525, 530 (9th Cir. 1993) (per curiam). Here, the same coconspirators were involved in the entire scheme and there was one overall

agreement. See United States v. Patterson, 819 F.2d 1495, 1502 (9th Cir. 1987). 

The evidence of the prior “Hot Seats” promotion was admissible under Fed.

R. Evid. 404(b).

AFFIRMED.

2