alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 101 (Thursday, May 28, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 25567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11820]



[[Page 25567]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; 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: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel, Review of Competitive Revisions for Training Grant 
Applications Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 
(ARRA).
    Date: June 10, 2009.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 11 a.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 
Marinelli Road, Bethesda, MD 20852.
    Contact Person: Jeannette F. Korczak, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Resources and Training Review Branch, Division of 
Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 6116 
Executive Blvd., Room 8115, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-9767, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ff94908d9c859e9495bf929e9693d1919697d1989089"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ee85819c8d948f8584ae838f8782c0808786c0898198">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control; 93.701, ARRA Related Biomedical Research and Research 
Support Awards, National Institutes of Health, HHS)


    Dated: May 13, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-11820 Filed 5-27-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY


         KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS,  that the  undersigned  constitutes and
appoints Richard G. Meise and Richard R. Douglas, and each of them, her true and
lawful   attorney-in-fact   and  agent  with  full  power  of  substitution  and
resubstitution,  for  her  and in her  name,  place  and  stead,  in any and all
capacities,  to sign the Annual  Report on Form 10-K for the  fiscal  year ended
December 31, 1996,  for filing with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission by
Microtest, Inc., a Delaware corporation, together with any and all amendments to
such  Form  10-K,  and to file  the  same  with all  exhibits  thereto,  and all
documents in connection therewith,  with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
granting to such  attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power and
authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary
to be done in and about the  premises,  as fully and to all intents and purposes
as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that such
attorneys-in-fact  and agents,  or each of them,  may lawfully do or cause to be
done by virtue hereof.


         DATED:   March 27, 1997


                                                     /s/  Dianne C. Walker
                                                     ---------------------
                                                       Dianne C. Walker


STATE OF ARIZONA                    )
                                    ) ss.
County of Maricopa                  )


         On this 27th day of March,  1997,  before  me, the  undersigned  Notary
Public, personally appeared Dianne C. Walker, known to me to be the person whose
name is subscribed to the within  instrument and acknowledged  that she executed
the same for the purposes therein contained.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal.


                                                     /s/  Betty Peterson
                                                     -------------------
                                                     Notary Public

My commission expires 7-31-97
#### V.A.L. Floors, Inc., Appellant, v Marson Contracting Co., Inc., Defendant, and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, Respondent.

[973 NYS2d 149]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen M. Coin, J.), entered December 7, 2012, dismissing the complaint as against defendant Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America (Travelers), unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about September 4, 2012, which granted Travelers’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it and denied plaintiffs cross motion for partial summary judgment, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Beginning in May 2007 and ending on January 9, 2008, plaintiff subcontractor performed flooring installation work for defendant Marson Contracting Co., Inc., the general contractor on the construction of a 15-story condominium building. On December 14, 2007, 985 Park Avenue Realty LLC (the Developer) conveyed one of the condominium units to a married couple (the Buyers). In the deed, the Developer covenanted that it would “receive the consideration for this conveyance,” “hold the right to receive such consideration as a trust fund for the purpose of paying the cost of the improvement,” and “apply the same first to the payment of the cost of the improvements before *505using any part of the same for any other purpose.” On January 18, 2008, plaintiff filed a mechanic’s lien against the subject unit.

Here, since the deed contains the statutorily required trust fund language *(see*Lien Law § 13 [5]), and the conveyance occurred prior to the filing of plaintiffs lien, the “lien is not valid against the deed” *(Leonard Eng’g v Zephyr Petroleum Corp.,*135 AD2d 795, 797 [2d Dept 1987]).

Moreover, Lien Law § 4 provides that a mechanic’s lien “shall extend to the owner’s right, title or interest in the real property and improvements, existing at the time of filing the notice of lien.” Since ownership of the condominium unit passed to the Buyers at the time of delivery of the deed *(see*Real Property Law § 244), and since the Buyers did not consent to the work performed outside of the unit which constituted the basis of the overwhelming majority of the Lien *(see*Real Property Law § *339-1*[2]), the Lien was also “invalid under Lien Law § 4 (1)” *(Matter of Myrtle Owner LLC [Ro-Sal Plumbing & Heating Inc.],*32 Misc 3d 1221 [A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51376[U], *6 [Sup Ct, Kings County 2011]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Freedman and Gische, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Daniel CASTELO-VALENCIA, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 06-50071.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 11, 2006.*

Filed Oct. 17, 2006.

Randy K. Jones, Esq., Roger W. Haines, Jr., Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff — Appellee.

Leila W. Morgan, Esq., Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant — Appellant.

Before: TASHIMA, W. FLETCHER and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

We have reviewed the record and the opening brief and conclude that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. *See United, States v. Hooton,*693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). The United States Supreme Court’s decision in *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 247, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), remains binding on this court until the Court overrules it. *See United States v. Beng-Salazar,*452 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir.2006) (rejecting claim that *Shepard v. United States,*544 U.S. 13, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005), and *Dretke v. Haley,*541 U.S. 386, 124 S.Ct. 1847, 158 L.Ed.2d 659 (2004), require this court to apply *Almendarez-Torres*only to cases where the defendant admitted prior convictions); *United States v. Weiland,*420 F.3d 1062, 1079 n. 16 (9th Cir.2005) (noting that this court remains bound by the Supreme Court’s holding in *AlmendarezTorres*that a district court judge may enhance a sentence on the basis of prior convictions, even if the fact of those convictions was not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt).

Accordingly, the government’s motion for summary affirmance of the district court’s judgment is granted.

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.
#### Sonja L. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sergeant SHEPPHARD, at Rappahannock Regional Jail; D. Theisen, Sergeant at Rappahannock Regional Jail; Mr. Sullivan, Officer at Rappahannock Regional Jail; Mr. Alexander, Officer at Rappahannock Regional Jail, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-7173.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 28, 2006.

Decided: Oct. 11, 2006.

*248Sonja L. Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

PER CURIAM:

Sonja L. Williams seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to deny relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. The report contained language advising Williams that she must file written objections to the report within ten days of the order’s entry. The magistrate judge’s report was entered on June 22, 2006, and within ten days of its entry, Williams filed in the district court an “appeal” of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The document does not specifically express an intent to appeal to this court, but takes issue with various aspects of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R.Civ.P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The magistrate judge’s report is not such an order. However, according Williams’ document a liberal construction, *see Gordon v. Leeke,*574 F.2d 1147 (4th Cir.1978), we construe the “appeal” letter as objections to the magistrate judge’s report.* We therefore deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, dismiss the appeal, and remand to the district court with instructions to construe Williams’ filing as timely objections to the magistrate judge’s report. 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 AND REMANDED.*

*

 Such a construction is further warranted by the fact that, although the magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (2000), the report states that the magistrate judge was conferred jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).
##### 



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM
8-K/A
 AMENDMENT NO. 2
 CURRENT REPORT
 Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported)
    
    June 21, 2006
 NORTEL NETWORKS CORPORATION
 
 CANADA
    
    001-07260
    
    NOT APPLICABLE(State or other jurisdiction
of incorporation)
    
    (Commission
File Number)
    
    (IRS Employer
Identification No.)
 8200 DIXIE ROAD, SUITE 100, BRAMPTON, ONTARIO, CANADA
    
    L6T 5P6(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    (Zip Code)
 Registrants telephone number, including area code
    
    905-863-0000
 
  £
    
    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)£
    
    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)£
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
240.14d-2(b))£
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR
240.13e-4(c))




---



##### 



EXPLANATORY NOTE
  Item 1.01     Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement
       Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits.
 (d)
    
    Exhibits
 99.1
    
    Press release issued by the registrant on June 21, 2006.
 2




---



##### 



SIGNATURES
   NORTEL NETWORKS CORPORATIONBy:
    /s/  Gordon A. DaviesGordon A. DaviesGeneral Counsel  Corporate and
Corporate SecretaryBy:
    /s/  Anna VentrescaAnna VentrescaAssistant Secretary  3




---



##### 



EXHIBIT INDEX
 Exhibit No.
    
    Description99.1
    
    Press release issued by the registrant on June 21, 2006.
 4
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<HTML>
<head>
   <TITLE>To the Shareholders and Board of Directors</TITLE>
</head>
<body>

<center>EXHIBIT 15</center>

<p><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<p>To the Shareholders and Board of Directors
<p>of Sears, Roebuck and Co.
<p>We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim
financial information of Sears, Roebuck and Co. for the 13-week periods
ended April 1, 2000 and April 3, 1999, as indicated in our report dated
April 27, 2000; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion
on that information.
<p>We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in
your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the 13-week period ended April 1,
2000, is incorporated by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 2-64879,
2-80037, 33-18081, 33-23793, 33-41485, 33-43459, 33-45479, 33-55825, 33-58851,
33-64345, 333-8141, and 333-38131 of Sears, Roebuck and Co.; Registration
Statement Nos. 33-58139, 333-9817, 33-64215, 333-30879, and 333-62847 of
Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Sears Roebuck Acceptance Corp.; Registration
Statement Nos. 33-64775, 333-18591, and 333-43309 of Sears, Roebuck and
Co. and Sears, Roebuck and Co. Deferred Compensation Plan; Registration
Statement Nos. 33-57205, 333-11973, 333-53149, and 333-92501 of Sears,
Roebuck and Co. for the Sears 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan (formerly, The
Savings and Profit Sharing Fund of Sears Employees); and Registration Statement
No. 33-44671 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Sears DC Corp.
<p>We are also aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c)
under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that
Act.
<br> 
<br> 
<br> 
<br> 
<br> 
<p>Deloitte & Touche LLP
<br>Chicago, Illinois
<p><font size=+0>May 9, 2000</font>
</body>
</HTML>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7204

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY QUINN EDGERTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, 

District Judge. (1:05-cr-00026-MR-1; 1:12-cv-00225-MR)

Submitted: January 22, 2015 Decided: January 26, 2015

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Quinn Edgerton, Appellant Pro Se. Melissa Louise 

Rikard, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Quinn Edgerton seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 

motion.* The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

 * Although Edgerton filed a supplement to his § 2255 motion 

in which he raised alternative grounds for relief, Edgerton 

forfeited review of the district court’s denial of these 

alternative grounds by failing to address the denial in his 

informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also United States 

v. Al-Hamdi, 356 F.3d 564, 571 n.8 (4th Cir. 2004) (“It is a 

well settled rule that contentions not raised in the argument 

section of the opening brief are abandoned.”).
3

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Edgerton 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 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

 

**WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK**

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATEANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

            I, H. John Berens, an authorized officer of Washington Mutual Bank (the “Servicer”), do hereby certify to WaMu AssetAcceptance Corp. (the “Depositor”), pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of March 1, 2007 (as amended, the “Servicing Agreement”) by and between the Depositor, the Servicer, LaSalle Bank National Association,as Trustee, and Christiana Bank & Trust Company, as Delaware Trustee,  the following with respect to Washington Mutual Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates WMALT Series 2007-HY2 Trustfor the 2007 fiscal year  (the“Relevant Year”):

1.  A review of the activities of the Servicer during the Relevant Year and of performance under the Servicing Agreement has been made under mysupervision.

2.  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in allmaterial respects throughout the Relevant Year.

Dated as of March 1, 2008.

 

| /s/ H. John Berens Name:  H. John Berens Title:    Senior Vice President |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   1-MO
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         249,669
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   87,715
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    820,855
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,307,083
<PP&E>                                         129,129
<DEPRECIATION>                                  58,980
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,887,788
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          799,339
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,660
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,083,789
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,887,788
<SALES>                                      6,792,177
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,792,177
<CGS>                                        3,948,084
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,793,612
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              54,334
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,114
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,144
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,970
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,970
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .001
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .001
        

</TABLE>
[942 NE2d 305, 917 NYS2d 95]

#### Erica Y. Darrisaw, as Administratrix of the Estate of Dolores N. Schuyler, Deceased, Appellant, v Strong Memorial Hospital, a Division of University of Rochester, et al., Respondents.

Decided January 11, 2011

*730APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Hite & Beaumont, P.C.,*Albany *(John H. Beaumont*of counsel), for appellant.

*Osborn, Reed & Burke, LLP,*Rochester *(Christian C. Casini*of counsel), for respondents.

*731OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs. We conclude defendants demonstrated their entitlement to summary judgment on the negligence cause of action. In opposition, plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact on the allegations that Nurse Baldwin grabbed decedent’s arm or caused her to fall to the ground.

Additionally, we agree with the Appellate Division majority that plaintiffs negligent supervision claim is not before the court because neither the cause of action nor its underlying facts were raised in the complaint.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
#### Kareemah BELL-BOSTON, Appellant v. LaMia WEBSTER-CHAPMAN, Mrs., Central Manager for the Naylor Road One-Stop Career Center, also known as Quackenboss, Appellee.

No. 09-7018.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

May 6, 2009.

Kareemah Bell-Boston, Landover Hills, MD, pro se.

BEFORE: SENTELLE, Chief Judge; and HENDERSON and BROWN, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by the appellant. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed February 10, 2009, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it is not a civil action arising under federal law, *see*28 U.S.C. § 1331, or between citizens of different states with an amount in controversy of more than $75,000, *see*28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. RApp. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.