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:*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Initial Review Group. Population Sciences Subcommittee.                    

*Date:*                         June 18-19, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         The Madison, 1177 15th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Carla T. Walls, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health, and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892. (301) 435-6898.                         *wallsc@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: May 15, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-12207 Filed 5-26-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### State v. Anderson

Case below: 181 N.C. App. 655

No. 151P07

Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA05-1520)

Denied 06/27/07
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 120 

Expressing the support of Congress for the creation of a National Hurricane 

Museum and Science Center in southwest Louisiana. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 

Mr. VITTER submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the support of Congress for the creation of a 

National Hurricane Museum and Science Center in 

southwest Louisiana. 

Whereas the Creole Nature Trail All-American Road District 

Board of Commissioners has begun to create and develop 

a National Hurricane Museum and Science Center in the 

southwest Louisiana area; 

Whereas protecting, preserving, and showcasing the intrinsic 

qualities that make Louisiana a one-of-a-kind experience 

is the mission of the Creole Nature Trail All-American 

Road; 

Whereas the horrific experience and the devastating longterm effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita will play a 

major role in the history of the United States; 


CColeman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•SCON 120 IS 

Whereas a science center of this caliber will educate and motivate young and old in the fields of meteorology, environmental science, sociology, conservation, economics, history, communications, and engineering; 

Whereas it is only appropriate that the effects of hurricanes 

and the rebuilding efforts be captured in a comprehensive 

center such as a National Hurricane Museum and 

Science Center to interpret the effects of hurricanes in 

and outside of Louisiana; and 

Whereas it is critical that the history of past hurricanes be 

preserved so that all people in the United States can 

learn from this history: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That Congress supports and encourages the 

3 creation of a National Hurricane Museum and Science 

4 Center in southwest Louisiana. 

Æ 


CColeman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
(April 30, 2013)

#### Cleopatra Lovelace, Appellant, v Marc C. Hendler et al., Respondents.

[963 NYS2d 861]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from an order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danzinger, J.), entered on or about June 20, 2012, and said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties; and due deliberation having been had thereon, and upon the stipulation of the parties hereto dated January 17, 2013, it is unanimously ordered that said appeal be and the same is hereby withdrawn in accordance with the terms of the aforesaid stipulation.

Concur— Tom, J.E, Andrias, Freedman, Román and Gische, JJ.
#### Wood *against*Bulkley.

a promissory leged,inthede* have- Leen drawn by the defendant, by *« Christopher ■*ceninCTidence *%cirta.vmb*provéa thatthlf rnt^s usuafmpde ■name, it8 was was no vari ’

a defendant cannot allege at the trial, that there is a vananee between 3ervedatami the cord-^thejudí edhy the8record tiiere’is a^n'ate^ rial variance, the party must cburl to set adipt. ‘ ver

This was an action of *assumpsit*upon a promissory note¿ made fey the defendant, and payable to. the plaintiff; The cause was tríed-béfore Mr. Justice *Yates,*at the *Onondaga*circuit,’in, ■ . - ° ' I81-6*- ‘ ' <’ . -* ;

The declaration contained but one count, which was on á Promissory note, drawn by the -'defendant,. “ -by-the -name and description of *Christ. But-ktey?1*- The-defendant’s counsel-objected to -the admission of the note,'on- the ground of a-Vari- , aneé between the- Signature of the note, and; the name stated in-the declaration ; but'the judge overruled1 the objection, and'the plaintiff proved that the defendant usually signed his name in the same maimer as in the; note in question. The defendant’s coun- .. . , , *A '*. , , s«l;ofreBed to prove á variance between the copy of the declara- . ’ * _ . . , ’ -\{j - J V ’ tion served, and, *thénisivnus*record, as to the; name of the defend®nt'' • e judge refused to receive the testimony, and a Verdict whs-found for the Amount of the note, • - . .

The' defendant mow moved for a new trial, and. -the cause was-submitted; to; the court without argument. ■ -r

*Per Curiam.*

jThemotion foranew trial must bedenied. There was no material Variance between the note set out in the declaration, and the one produced in evidence. The signature of the defendant, by the abbreviation of *Christ,*for- *Christopher,*was proved to be the usual and ordinary way in which he signed hisnaine. According to the case, there is, in point of fact, no variance between *the nisi prius*record, and the copy of the deelation, as served off th'e defendant, even if such proof could have been admissible,: But this was 'not matter that could be inquired into Upon the trial The' judge at the circuit must be governed by the *nisi prius*record, and any variance,' if material, must be made the subject of an application to the court, and the verdict would, no doubt, be set aside, if the defendant was pee-' judiced by such variance. But no such variance appears to-exist in this case, according to the defendant’s own allegation.

New trial denied.'
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-30194 Conference Calendar

L.C. CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT RICHLAND PARISH; ET AL., Defendants, SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT RICHLAND PARISH; X INSURANCE COMPANY; WILLIE ROBINSON; LORELL GRAHAM, Individually and as Sheriff of Richland Parish, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CV-2237

- - - - - - - - - - October 21, 1997 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * L.C. Carter appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the appellees. Carter argues that the district court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing to determineNo. 97-30194 -2- when his cause of action accrued on his claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1988. Since Carter did not raise this argument before the district court, we review for plain error. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Assn. , 79 F.3d 1415, 1428 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc). Because Carter failed to adduce any evidence concerning his knowledge, despite being put on notice by the defendants that his claims might have prescribed, the court did not commit plain error in its determination that there was no material fact question on this issue. We have reviewed the record and the parties briefs and AFFIRM the district court’s judgment for essentially the same reasons set forth by the district court. Carter v. Richland Parish Sherriff’s Dept. , 95- CV-2237 (W.D. La. Jan. 29, 1997).
AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ANDCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Carlton H.Baab, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Reportof Raining Data Corporation on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information containedin such Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financialcondition and results of operations of Raining Data Corporation.

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Carlton  H. Baab                   |   |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name:  | Carlton H.  Baab                       |
|   | Title: | President  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

I, Brian C.Bezdek, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the QuarterlyReport of Raining Data Corporation on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly periodended September 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and thatinformation contained in such Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all materialrespects the financial condition and results of operations of Raining DataCorporation.

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Brian C.  Bezdek     |   |
|--------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Name:  | Brian C.  Bezdek         |
|   | Title: | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
#### Royale Lee STEWART, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 06-7105.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 31, 2006.

Decided: Nov. 7, 2006.

Royale Lee Stewart, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

*245Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Royale Lee Stewart seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stewart has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.*
#### Village of Lowville, Appellant, v County of Lewis, Respondent.

[975 NYS2d 275]

Appeal from a judgment (denominated memorandum decision and order) of the Supreme Court, Jefferson County (Hugh A. Gilbert, J.), entered August 10, 2012. The judgment, among other things, dismissed the complaint-petition.

*1367It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: As limited by its notice of appeal, plaintiff-petitioner (plaintiff) appeals from that part of a judgment denying plaintiffs request for specific performance of a tax exemption agreement, as asserted in the second cause of action, and dismissing the complaint-petition. We note at the outset that, although plaintiff also sought a declaration, Supreme Court properly did not grant such relief where, as here, plaintiff “has an adequate, alternative remedy in another form of action, such as breach of contract” *(Apple Records v Capitol Records,*137 AD2d 50, 54 [1988]).

In 1998 the parties executed a written agreement (exemption agreement) in which defendant-respondent (defendant) agreed to grant plaintiff a tax exemption for its water treatment facility property pursuant to RPTL 406 (3). The exemption agreement provided that plaintiff would receive a tax exemption for “so long as the [water treatment facility property] is used for a public purpose satisfying the requirements of [RPTL 406].” The exemption agreement further provided that an amendment to RPTL 406 (3), some “other legislative change,” or a final court order subjecting the property to taxation shall modify the obligations of the parties to comply with such amendment, legislative change or court order. In 2011, after conducting a study of its tax exemption policies, defendant’s Board of Legislators (County Board) passed a resolution (2011 resolution) to phase out all tax exemptions for municipal water and sewage treatment facilities, including the tax exemption with respect to plaintiffs facility under the exemption agreement. In 2012, the County Board voted on a resolution that would grant an exemption solely to plaintiff while continuing to phase out the exemptions for all other municipalities, but the resolution did not pass.

With respect to plaintiffs cause of action for specific performance of the exemption agreement, we agree with the court that the County Board’s adoption of the 2011 resolution phasing out all tax exemptions for municipal water and sewage treatment facilities constituted a “legislative change” within the meaning of the exemption agreement. The County Board is a legislative body that exercises defendant’s power “through a local law or resolution duly adopted by the board” (County Law §§ 153 [1]; *see*150-a [1]), and the exemption agreement specifically provides that a legislative change shall modify the obligations of the parties to comply with such legislative change. We therefore affirm the judgment insofar as appealed from. Present — Smith, J.E, Garni, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                            5
<LEGEND>


THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999,
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                             6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                        DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                                  519,000
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            11,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                             220,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        762,000
<PP&E>                                                  760,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                          157,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        1,607,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   356,000
<BONDS>                                                   7,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                 15,000
<OTHER-SE>                                            1,229,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          1,607,000
<SALES>                                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        741,000
<CGS>                                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         3,401,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (2,660,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (2,660,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (2,660,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                             (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             (0.17)


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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                 <C>             <C>               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       YEAR             YEAR             YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1995      DEC-31-1996      DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1995      JAN-01-1996      JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-1995      DEC-31-1996      DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                   64,479          125,141          123,494
<SECURITIES>                            106,475          134,029          123,882
<RECEIVABLES>                            54,935           77,391          125,284
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0                0                0
<INVENTORY>                                   0                0                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        256,491          367,981          430,272
<PP&E>                                   47,000           64,973           89,551
<DEPRECIATION>                         (26,425)         (36,610)         (60,981)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          327,350          457,756          601,931
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    75,818          121,310          228,986
<BONDS>                                       0                0                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       653              666              699
<PREFERRED>                                   0                0                0
<COMMON>                                      0                0                0
<OTHER-SE>                              243,006          328,257          359,060
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            327,350          457,756          601,931
<SALES>                                 278,910          421,794          612,193
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        278,910          421,794          612,193
<CGS>                                    48,722           76,913          108,216
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           170,492          239,035          485,756
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0                0                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0                0                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            0                0                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          68,495          115,394           32,964
<INCOME-TAX>                             26,154           51,284           61,320
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      42,341           64,110         (28,356)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0                0                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0                0                0
<CHANGES>                                     0                0                0
<NET-INCOME>                             42,341           64,110         (28,356)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              0.67             0.97           (0.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0.62             0.89           (0.41)
        

</TABLE>
## Contact Information

Bethesda MD20892

spriggla@mail.nih.gov

July 2022

Back to Top
#### Laurel Caprio et al., Respondents, v 1025 Manhattan Avenue Corp., Doing Business as Mark Bar, et al., Appellants.

Submitted November 9, 2009;

decided December 17, 2009

Reported below, 63 AD3d 656.

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         Independent Auditors' Consent
                         -----------------------------



Board of Directors
DATA RACE, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No.
33-55616, No. 33-75800, No. 333-24303, and No. 333-24305) on Form S-8 and in the
Registration Statement (No. 333-22605) on Form S-3 of DATA RACE, Inc. of our
report dated September 30, 1997, relating to the balance sheets of DATA RACE,
Inc. as of June 30, 1997 and 1996, and the related statements of operations,
shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended June 30, 1997, which report appears in the June 30, 1997 annual
report on Form 10-K of DATA RACE, Inc.

Our report dated September 30, 1997, contains an explanatory paragraph that
states that the Company has suffered recurring losses and during fiscal 1997,
incurred negative cash flows from operations. These conditions along with other
matters discussed in Note 1 to the financial statements, raise substantial
doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern. The financial
statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of
that uncertainty.


San Antonio, Texas
October 13, 1997