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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage                     *de novo*, or to acquire or control voting securities or                           ( print page 24854)                        assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.                

                    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at                     *www.ffiec.gov/​nic/​*.                

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 9, 2009.

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago**                     (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:                

*1. West Suburban Bancorp, Inc.*, Lombard, Illinois; to engage                     *de novo*                     in extending credit and servicing loans, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(1) of Regulation Y.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 20, 2009.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. E9-12110 Filed 5-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
Exhibit 32

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 Quarterly Report of Telos Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the report), we, John B. Wood and Michele Nakazawa, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:

(1) The report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

November 20, 2006



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ John B. Wood       
|John B. Wood           
|Chief Executive Officer
|                       
|/s/ Michele Nakazawa   
|Michele Nakazawa       
|Chief Financial Officer
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 Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

North Central Idaho Resource Advisory Committee, Grangeville, Idaho, USDA, Forest Service.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

                        Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 110-343) the Nez Perce and Clearwater National Forests' North Central Idaho Resource Advisory Committee will meet                               ( print page 24782)                            Thursday, June 25th, 2009 in Orofino, Idaho for a business meeting. The meeting is open to the public.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The business meeting on June 25th will be held at the Clearwater National Forest Supervisor's Office in Orofino, Idaho, beginning at 10 a.m. (PST). Agenda topic will be discussion and approval of potential projects. A public forum will begin at 3:15 p.m. (PST).

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laura A. Smith, Public Affairs Officer and Designated Federal Officer, at (208) 983-5143.

Dated: May 18, 2008.

Thomas K. Reilly,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. E9-12038 Filed 5-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SS. 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of World Waste Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, John Pimentel, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



(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 condition and results of operations of the Company.





|               |  |                                 | 
|-------------- |  | ------------------------------- | 
|March 30, 2009 |  | /s/ Adam Shore                  | 
|               |  | Adam Shore                      | 
|               |  | Interim Chief Financial Officer |
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 904 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

1560 Union Valley Road in West Milford, New Jersey, as the ‘‘Brian 

P. Parrello Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 26, 2005 

Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. CORZINE) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1560 Union Valley Road in West Milford, 

New Jersey, as the ‘‘Brian P. Parrello Post Office Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. BRIAN P. PARRELLO POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 1560 Union Valley Road in West 

6 Milford, New Jersey, shall be known and designated as 

7 the ‘‘Brian P. Parrello Post Office Building’’. 
2

•S 904 IS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Brian P. Parrello Post 

5 Office Building’’.

Æ
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 33-66450, 33-93938, No. 333-09169 and No. 333-30365) pertaining to
the 1992 Stock Option Plan of Shaman Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our report dated
January 29, 1998, with respect to the financial statements of Shaman
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) for the year
ended December 31, 1997.
 
                                          ERNST & YOUNG LLP
 
Palo Alto, California
May 6, 1998
```

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference into Registration Statement No.
333-90890 of Allied Healthcare International Inc. on Form S-3, Registration
Statement No. 333-49387 of Allied Healthcare International Inc. on Form S-8 and
Registration Statement No. 333-112628 of Allied Healthcare International Inc. on
Form S-8 of our report dated November 8, 2002, included in this Form 10-K of
Allied Healthcare International Inc. for the year ended September 30, 2002.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

New York, New York
December 21, 2004
```
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  News & Events 
-  Grantee News 

# 2016 Grantee News Items

                - The dyslexia paradox: Differences in how the brain adapts to sights and sounds could be at the root of reading disorder Boston University  (12/21/2016)
                - Pop-outs: How the brain extracts meaning from noise University of California Berkeley  (12/20/2016)
                - Cutting through the clamor: How the brain helps us understand spoken words in noisy settings University of California San Francisco  (12/19/2016)
                - Research unlocks clues to language-based learning in children University of Missouri  (12/12/2016)
                - Researchers’ discovery of new verbal working memory architecture has implications for artificial intelligence New York University  (12/12/2016)
                - Rhythm of breathing affects memory and fear: Breathing is not just for oxygen; it's now linked to brain function and behavior Northwestern Medicine via EurekAlert!  (12/06/2016)
                - Volunteers use new technology to donate voices to those with speech disorders Washington Post  (12/05/2016)
                - Vestibular function declines starting at age 40 Massachusetts Eye and Ear   (11/28/2016)
                - From Lenexa to Harvard, how ‘Little Eddie’ is helping the deaf to hear Kansas City Star  (11/05/2016)
                - Overcoming language loss long after a stroke Medical Xpress  (11/02/2016)
                - What’s that? Exercise is also good for hearing? University of Florida  (11/02/2016)
                - Scientists battling deafness uncover new clues inside inner ears of chickens Stanford Medicine  (10/31/2016)
                - Making sense of the senses: ‘Context’ matters when the brain interprets sounds New York University Langone Medical Center  (10/31/2016)
                - The brain wiring behind a frustrating speech disorder: Neurologists are searching for new ways to crack the riddle of spasmodic dysphonia Wall Street Journal  (10/31/2016)
                - Helping dementia patients recall grandchildren's names: New telemedicine program offers specialized speech therapy for language problems Northwestern University  (10/24/2016)

#### Pagination

-                Current page            1 
-                Page            2 
-  Next page›› 
-  Last pageLast » 

## Media Inquiries

Contact the NIDCD press office at news@nidcd.nih.gov.

## Grantee News Archive

              - 2024 
              - 2023 
              - 2022 
              - 2021 
              - 2020 
              - 2019 
              - 2018 
              - 2017 
              - 2016 
              - 2015 
              - 2014 
              - 2013
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 849 

To make the moratorium on Internet access taxes and multiple and 

discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce permanent. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 19, 2005 

Mr. ALLEN (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. SUNUNU, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. LEAHY, 

Mr. BURNS, Mr. SMITH, Mr. WARNER, and Mr. MCCAIN) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL

To make the moratorium on Internet access taxes and multiple and discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce 

permanent.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Internet Tax Non5 discrimination Act’’. 
2

•S 849 IS

1 SEC. 2. PERMANENT MORATORIUM ON INTERNET ACCESS 

2 TAXES AND MULTIPLE AND DISCRIMINATORY 

3 TAXES ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE. 

4 Section 1101(a) of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 

5 U.S.C. 151 note) is amended by striking ‘‘taxes during 

6 the period beginning November 1, 2003, and ending No7 vember 1, 2007:’’ and inserting ‘‘taxes:’’

Æ
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed May

30 , 2019.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 19 -00417- CR

IN RE DEANDRE DEBOEST, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 232nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1604855



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

On May 17, 2019, relator DeAndre DeBoest filed a petition for writ of

m andamus in this c ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 ( Supp. ); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator , who has been charged with the offense of delivery of a controlled substance, asks this c ourt to compel the Honorable Josh Hill ,2

presiding judge of the 232nd District Court of Harris County, to dismi ss the indictment against him for lack of a speedy trial

. In the petition, relator alleges that Judge Hill has denied his repeated requests to bring the case to trial and that Judge Hill told relator that his pro se motions mean nothing because they were not filed by his court-appointed lawyer. Thus, it appears that relator is represented by counsel.

A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) ; Landers v. State , 550 S.W.2d 272, 280 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (op. on reh’g) . The absence of a right to hybrid representation means that a relator’s pro se mandamus petition should be treated as presenting nothing for this court’s review. See Gray v. Shipley , 877 S.W.2d 80 6, 806 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st D ist.] 1994, orig. proceeding). Because relator’s petition indicates that he is represented by counsel, he is not entit l ed to mandamus relief.
Additionally, relator has not provided this court with a record showing that he
is entitled to mandamus relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(1) ; In re Foster , 503 S.W.3d 606, 607 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (per curiam).
For these reasons, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Fros t and Justices Spain and Poissant

. Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 12

- 00106

- CV

FREDRICK

- MARSHAL : VAN HORN , Appellant

v.

C. PAUL KEEFER , THE ESTATE OF JEWEL KEEFER , DECEASED, SAMUEL P. CAMPO, AND MICHA J. CAMPO, Appellee s

From the 40th District Court Ellis County, Texas Trial Court No. 83617

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Fredrick

- Marshal : Van Horn appeals the trial court’s order granting summary

judgment in favor of C. Paul Keefer, the Estate of Jewel Keefer, Samuel P. Campo, and

Micha J. Campo (collectively referred to as the K eefers). We affirm.

The trial court rendered judgment against Van Horn on the Keefers’ affirmative

defenses of limitations, laches, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. On appeal, Van

Horn raises three numbered statements called “point of interest,” el even numberedVan Horn v. Keefer Page 2

statements called “issue,” and one numbered statement called “issue s regarding the

below,” none of which address why the trial court’s summary judgment was erroneous

on each of the grounds upon which it was granted. 1 When a separate and inde pendent

ground that supports a judgment is not challenged on appeal, the appellate court must

affirm the lower court's judgment. In the Interest of D.B. , 153 S.W.3d 575, 576

- 577 (Tex.

App.

— Amarillo 2004, no writ); San Antonio Press v. Custom Bilt Mach ., 8 52 S.W.2d 64, 65

(Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1993, no writ); Herndon v. First Nat'l Bank of Tulia , 802 S.W.2d

396, 400 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 1991, writ denied). See State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins.

Co. v. Cowley , 468 S.W.2d 353, 354 (Tex. 1971). Accordingly, V an Horn’s issues are

overruled.

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed November 1, 2012 [CV06]

1 We have not attempt ed to categorize the statement s in Van Horn’s “Supplemental Brief” filed after submission of the case. It contains additional “Issues Present for Review” and “Issues” some of which are a bit more focused on the summary judgment grounds but not in a manner that constitutes a proper challenge to the ground. At least not a proper challenge based upon proper citation to authority and the record and argument as to why Texas law would provide the relief he has requested. At least not an argument that we can un derstand.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 27, 2015

NO. 03-13-00716-CV

Roy Blizzard and Donna Blizzard, Appellants

v.

Select Portfolio Servicing f/k/a Fairbanks Capital and 

Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company, Appellees

APPEAL FROM 277TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PEMBERTON, AND FIELD

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on August 21, 2013. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. Appellant shall pay all 

costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
#### State v. McPhaul

Case below: 177 N.C. App. 287

No. 275P06

1. Def’s (McPhaul) NOA Based Upon a Constitutional Question (COA05-1053)

2. AG’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal

3. Def’s (McPhaul) PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-3I

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

5. AG’s Motion to Deny Def’s (McMillian) PDR

1.—

2. Allowed 12/14/06

3. Denied 12/14/06

4. Denied 12/14/06

5. Dismissed as Moot 12/14/06
#### KENNEDY v. MISSISSIPPI VALLEY BARGE LINE CO.

Civ. No. 5887.

District Gourt, W. D. Pennsylvania.

Oct. 18, 1946.

*79Schlesinger & Schlesinger and Hymen Schlesinger, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., and Harvey Parker, Jr., of Vanceburg, Ky., for plaintiff.

Dalzell, McFall, Pringle & Bredin and John R. Bredin, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant.

GIBSON, District Judge.

The plaintiff has served written interrogatories upon the defendant, “Mississippi Valley Barge Line Co.”, relying apparently upon Rule 33 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.

The defendant is alleged to be a corporation and a corporation cannot testify. Rule 33 provides: “Any party may serve upon any adverse party written interrogatories to be answered by the party served or, if the party served is a public or private corporation or a partnership or association, by any officer thereof competent to testify in its behalf.”

Counsel for defendant has objected to certain of the 38 interrogatories, but has not based his objection upon the fact that an officer of defendant, not the defendant, is required to answer under oath, therefore the court passes by the failure of the interrogatories to designate an officer competent to testify.

The rules relating to discovery, under Rules 26, 33 and 34, as they exist at this time in the Third Circuit, are set forth in Hickman v. Taylor, 153 F.2d 212.

Many of the interrogatories would seem to be under Rule 26 rather than Rule 33, but as Rule 26 requires that leave of court be obtained prior to the answer, and the interrogatories were filed without leave of court prior to the answer, we must assume that plaintiff’s counsel is proceeding under Rule 33.

The objections of the defendant to Interrogatories Nos. 7, 16 and 17 are sustained. If material they should be made the subject of a petition under Rule 34. Also the 36th interrogatory really should be made under Rule 34, but the plaintiff is entitled to the information, and in the interest of speed objection to it will be overruled.

Many of the interrogatories are vague, and some demand information that must be known by defendant and which are probably unknown by an officer of the defendant. Nevertheless we overrule all objections except as to those, supra, as to which the objections have been sustained.