alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. flag
				Un sitio oficial del Gobierno de Estados Unidos
					Así es como usted puede verificarlo
        Así es como usted puede verificarlo
		Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos de los EE. UU.
			|

			Institutos Nacionales de la SaludDot gov**Los sitios web oficiales usan .gov**
						
						Un sitio web **.gov** pertenece a una organización oficial del Gobierno de Estados Unidos.
			Https**Los sitios web seguros .gov usan HTTPS**
						
            Un **candado** (A locked padlock)
            o **https://** significa que usted se conectó de forma segura a un sitio web .gov. Comparta información sensible sólo en sitios web oficiales y seguros.  **
Menu
NIDCD Employee Intranet | A–Z Index | In English


    close

        
        
                      Página principal
      
    
              Información de salud
      
                
  
          **Información de salud**
          
    
              Audición, infecciones del oído y sordera
      
    
              Equilibrio
      
    
              Gusto y olfato
      
    
              Voz, habla y lenguaje
      
    
              Cuidados de salud auditiva en adultos
      
    
              Acerca del NIDCD
      
                
  
          **Acerca del NIDCD**
          
    
              Mensajes de la directora del NIDCD
      
    
              Misión
      
    
              Comuníquese con nosotros
      
    
              Multimedia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)


The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552) provides individuals with a right to access to records in the possession of the federal government. The government may withhold information pursuant to the nine exemptions and three exclusions contained in the Act.

If you have questions regarding FOIA requests pending with NIDCD or questions specific to NIDCD records, please contact Amy Yang, NIDCD FOIA coordinator, by phone (301-347-8566) or email. To read about the types of information you can request through FOIA or submit a FOIA request with NIH, visit the National Institutes of Health FOIA page.
    Última actualización:
      27 de julio de 2023 COVID-19
                              Accesibilidad
                              Comuníquese con nosotros
                              Publicaciones gratis
                              Ley de Libertad de Información
                              Política de privacidad
                              Mapa del sitio
                              Sindicación de contenidos
                              Divulgación de vulnerabilidades
                              Políticas del sitio
                              Subscribe to NIDCD Email Updates 


    Follow Us:
                                                Facebook
                
                                                X

              31 Center Drive, MSC 2320, Bethesda, MD USA 20892-2320

              800-241-1044

                nidcdinfo@nidcd.nih.gov

          U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
                Institutos Nacionales de la Salud
                USA.gov—Government Made Easy
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 652 

To provide financial assistance for the rehabilitation of the Benjamin Franklin 

National Memorial in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the development 

of an exhibit to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the birth of 

Benjamin Franklin. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 17, 2005 

Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. SANTORUM) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To provide financial assistance for the rehabilitation of the 

Benjamin Franklin National Memorial in Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania, and the development of an exhibit to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the birth of Benjamin Franklin. 

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 ‘‘Benjamin Franklin 

5 National Memorial Commemoration Act of 2005’’. 
2 

•S 652 IS

1 SEC. 2. BENJAMIN FRANKLIN NATIONAL MEMORIAL. 

2 The Secretary of the Interior may provide a grant 

3 to the Franklin Institute to— 

4 (1) rehabilitate the Benjamin Franklin National 

5 Memorial (including the Franklin statue) in Phila6 delphia, Pennsylvania; and 

7 (2) develop an interpretive exhibit relating to 

8 Benjamin Franklin, to be displayed at a museum ad9 jacent to the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial. 

10 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

11 (a) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appro12 priated to carry out this Act $10,000,000. 

13 (b) REQUIRED MATCH.—The Secretary of the Inte14 rior shall require the Franklin Institute to match any 

15 amounts provided to the Franklin Institute under this Act. 

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andy R. Mattison, Appellant.

Submitted October 4, 2010;

decided October 14, 2010

Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.
MB Software Corporation - Exhibit 10.3



 


  










2






3






4






5






6






7






8






9






10






11






12






A-1






B-1






C-1
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS – DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-97063, 333-51382, 333-06419, 333-06415, 333-28259, 333-46393, 333-41321, 333-67841, 333-70855, 333-85105, and 333-91505 of EpicorSoftware Corporation on Form S-8 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-38105 and 333-46395 of Epicor Software Corporation on Form S-3 of our report dated February 13, 2003, except for Note 12, as to which the date is March 18, 2003, appearing in thisAnnual Report on Form 10-K of Epicor Software Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2002.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Costa Mesa, California March 25, 2003
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 7067

ERIC JOSEPH DEPAOLA , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. HAROLD CLARKE; A. DAVID ROBINSON; EARL BARKSDALE; AMEE DUNCAN ; LT. CHRISTOPHER GILBERT; LT. KISER; B. WALLACE, Safety Officer; CRABTREE, Recreational Supervisor; SGT. LARGE; SGT. J. MESSER; SGT. J. HALL; SGT. J. DICKENSON; SGT. JASON SHEPHERD; D. TURNER, Unit Manager (C Building); HENRY PONTON; STEAVENS, Guard; R. STANLEY, Guard; J. T. FLEMING, Guard; LOVELL, Guard ; HILL, Guard; VAUGHN, Guard; B. DODSON, Guard; GENTRY, Guard; L. MULLINS, Institutional Hearings Officer , Defendants

- Appellees

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke

. James P. Jones , Distri ct Judge. ( 7:17

- cv - 00028

- JPJ

- RSB )

Submitted : December 21, 2017 Decided: January 11, 2018

Before GREGORY , Chief Judge, and KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by un published per curiam opinion

. Eric Joseph DePaola , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Eric DePaola seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint without prejudice. Before addressing the merits o f DePaola’s appeal, we first must be assured that we have jurisdiction. Porter v. Zook , 803 F.3d 694, 696 (4th Cir. 2015). We may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U .S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 47 (1949). The district court identified deficiencies in two of DePaola’s claims that DePaola may be able to remedy by filing an amended complaint. In ru ling on DePaola’s Eighth Amendment recreation claim, the district court noted that DePaola failed to allege how often he was denied recreation entirely or if he was harmed by the conditions in the recreation cages. Additionally, the district court noted i n ruling on the procedural due process claim alleged in Count 3 of the complaint that DePaola failed to allege that the hearing officer was biased or that the evidence the officer failed to consider would have been exculpatory. Because DePaola might be ab le to cure these defects by filing an amendment to the complaint, we conclude that the order DePaola seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory order. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc. , 807 F.3d 619, 623

- 24 (4th Ci r. 2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066

- 67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow DePaola to amend his com plaint. Goode , 807 F.3d at 630. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED AND REMANDED
**EXHIBIT      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 **

| (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 result of operations of the              Company. |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                                                                                                |                                                 |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                | /s/ David              L.              Weinberg |
|   | David                L. WeinbergChief                Financial OfficerAugust                9, 2006 |
|   |                                                                                                |

----
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 20 

Expressing the need for enhanced public awareness of traumatic brain injury 

and support for the designation of a National Brain Injury Awareness Month. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 17, 2005 

Mr. COCHRAN (for himself and Mr. LAUTENBERG) submitted the following 

concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Health, 

Education, Labor, and Pensions 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the need for enhanced public awareness of traumatic brain injury and support for the designation of 

a National Brain Injury Awareness Month. 

Whereas traumatic brain injury is a leading cause of death 

and disability among children and young adults in the 

United States; 

Whereas at least 1,400,000 people in the United States sustain a traumatic brain injury each year; 

Whereas each year, more than 80,000 people in the United 

States sustain permanent life-long disabilities from a 

traumatic brain injury, that can include the serious physical, cognitive, and emotional impairments; 

Whereas every 21 seconds, a person in the United States sustains a traumatic brain injury; 
2 

•SCON 20 IS

Whereas at least 5,300,000 people in the United States currently live with permanent disabilities resulting from a 

traumatic brain injury; 

Whereas most cases of traumatic brain injury are preventable; 

Whereas traumatic brain injuries cost the Nation 

$56,300,000,000 annually; 

Whereas the lack of public awareness is so vast that traumatic brain injury is known in the disability community 

as the Nation’s ‘‘silent epidemic’’; 

Whereas the designation of a National Brain Injury Awareness Month will work toward enhancing public awareness 

of traumatic brain injury; and 

Whereas the Brain Injury Association of America has recognized March as Brain Injury Awareness Month: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That Congress— 

3 (1) recognizes the life-altering impact traumatic 

4 brain injury may have both on people living with the 

5 resultant disabilities and on their families; 

6 (2) recognizes the need for enhanced public 

7 awareness of traumatic brain injury; 

8 (3) supports the designation of an appropriate 

9 month as National Brain Injury Awareness Month; 

10 and 
3 

•SCON 20 IS

1 (4) encourages the people of the United States 

2 to observe National Brain Injury Awareness Month 

3 with appropriate programs and activities. 

Æ
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-09-00714-CV

In re George Garza

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM HAYS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The parties to this petition for writ of mandamus have filed an agreed motion to

dismiss. We grant the motion and dismiss the petition.

 

G. Alan Waldrop, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop

Filed: January 8, 2010
#### Cannon & Co., LLP v. Estate of Alexander

Case below: 184 N.C. App.-(19 June 2007)

No. 333P07

Defs PDR Under N.C.G.S. 7A-31 (COA06-1019)

Denied 11/08/07
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R.

47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 00-40794

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MELVIN WAYNE ORR, also known as Jim,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:99-CR-91-3

August 7, 2001

Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counselfor MelvinWayne Orr hasmoved forleave to withdraw and hasfiled

a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Orr has filed a response to
-2-

counsel’s motion to withdraw, raising, among other things, various claims of ineffective assistance

of counsel. The reco rd has not been adequately developed for us to consider Orr’s ineffective

assistance claims on direct appeal. See United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 313-14 (5th Cir.

1987). Our independent review of counsel’s brief, Orr’s response, and the record discloses no

nonfrivolous appellate issues. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th

Cir. R. 42.2.
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
    <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width" />
    <meta name="robots" content="noindex">
    <title>National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)</title>
    
<meta name="VIcurrentDateTime" content="638490739323560454" />
<meta name="VirtualFolder" content="/" />
<script type="text/javascript" src="/layouts/system/VisitorIdentification.js"></script>

</head>
<body>
    <div></div>
</body>
</html>
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                                                                                

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement 
No. 333-46346 of Sterling Bancshares, Inc. on Form S-4 and in Registration
Statements Nos. 33-75444, 33-75442, 333-16719 and 333-57171 of Sterling
Bancshares, Inc. on Forms S-8 of our report dated March 12, 1999, appearing in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Sterling Bancshares, Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 1998.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Houston, Texas
March 24, 1999
English Translation of Memorandum of Understanding dated March 31, 2003



 Exhibit 10.38 
 Memorandum Of Understanding 
 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 
 Party A: Online Education College of Renmin University of China 
 Party B: CMR Web Learning Co., Ltd. 
 Party C: Renda Century Technology Development Co., Ltd. 
 Party D: Modern Distance Education Company Limited 
 Whereas Party A
and Party B signed the Service Agreement and its appendixes as of March 31, 2003, and Party C and Party D signed the Joint Venture Contract as of October 22, 2002, the parties reach the following understanding in accordance with the
principles of the aforementioned agreements: 
  

	1.	Party A and Party B shall adjust the total amount of the service fees in the last month of each year, i.e. in the event there is any shortage in the revenue and expenditure of Party
A, Party B shall deduct the corresponding amount from the service fees for the year; in the event there is any surplus in the revenue and expenditure of Party A, Party A shall increase the corresponding amount in the service fees for the year so as
to promote the expansion of Party A’s online education and the technological development and construction of its online education, and ensure its position as one of the international first-class online universities. 

  

	2.	The anticipated cost to be borne by Party A shall be defined as the bonus to the service stations, the administration fee submitted to Renmin University of China accounting for 10%
of the gross revenue of the tuition, and part of the fees for teaching management. 

  

 1 








 (No Text in This Page) 
  

			
	Party A:	 	Online Education College of Renmin University of China
		 	(Seal of Online Education College of Renmin University of China)

  

			
	By:	 	 /s/ Lin Gang

	Name:	 	Shawn Ding
	
	Date: March 31, 2003

  

			
	Party B:	 	CMR Web Learning Co., Ltd.
		 	(Seal of CMR Web Learning Co., Ltd.)

  

			
	By:	 	 /s/ Wang Gongquan

	Name:	 	Wang Gongquan
	
	Date: March 31, 2003

  

			
	Party C:	 	Renda Century Technology Development Co., Ltd.
		 	(Seal of Renda Century Technology Development Co., Ltd.)

  

			
	By:	 	 /s/ Li Jiugao

	Name:	 	Li Jiugao
	
	Date: March 31, 2003

 Party D: Modern Distance Education Company Limited 
  

			
	By:	 	 /s/ Huang Bo

	Name:	 	Huang Bo
	
	Date: March 31, 2003

  

 2
#### Denise L. WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 04-36059.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*640Submitted Oet. 24, 2006.*

Filed Nov. 8, 2006.

John E. Seidlitz, Jr., Esq., Seidlitz Law Office, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

George F. Darragh, Jr., Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, William T. Dawson, Esq, Social Security Administration General Counsel’s Office, Region VIII, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: KOZINSKI and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges, and CARNEY,** District Judge.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Cormac J. Carney, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

We AFFIRM for substantially the same reasons as the district court.

***

 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.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19 - 0569 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. BRYCE COX,

Defendant and Appellant
.

ORDER Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including May 8 , 2020 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 1 2020

04/01/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0569
.T Pickering judgment of conviction. But, as no final appealable judgment has been entered below at this point, we lack jurisdiction and we

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED. 1

Saitta Gibboffs cc: Hon. Stefany Miley, District Judge Law Office of Kristina Wildeveld Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

'In light of this order, we will take no action on the motion submitted on April 10, 2015. The clerk of this court shall reject the motion received on April 10, 2015, and the addendum received on April 14, 2015. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A
#### LIAN XIN WANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., United States Attorney General,* Respondent.

No. 07-4608-ag.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 6, 2009.

*38Gary J. Yerman, New York, NY, for Petitioner.

Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney General; Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director; Paul Fiorino, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

PRESENT: Hon. DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, Hon. JON 0. NEWMAN and Hon. PIERRE N. LEVAL, Circuit Judges.

*

 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is automatically substituted for former Acting Attorney General Peter D. Keisler as respondent in this case.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

Petitioner Lian Xin Wang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an October 15, 2007 order of the BIA denying his motion to reopen. *In re Lian Xin Wang,*No. [ AXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Oct. 15, 2007). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. *Ali v. Gonzales,*448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d Cir.2006). Where the BIA considers relevant evidence of country conditions in evaluating a motion to reopen, we review the BIA’s factual findings under the substantial evidence standard. *See Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey,*546 F.3d 138, 169 (2d Cir.2008). We find that the BIA did not err in denying Wang’s untimely motion to reopen.

Wang argues that the BIA erred in concluding that he failed to demonstrate material changed country conditions sufficient to excuse the time limitation for filing his motion to reopen or his *prima facie*eligibility for relief. However, these arguments fail where we have previously reviewed the BIA’s consideration of similar evidence in the context of an untimely motion to reopen and have found no error in its conclusion that such evidence was insufficient to establish material changed country conditions or an objectively reasonable fear of persecution. *See id.*at 169-72 (noting that “[w]e do not ourselves attempt to resolve conflicts in record evidence, a task largely within the discretion of the agency”); *see also Wei Guang Wang v. BIA,*437 F.3d 270, 275 (2d Cir.2006) (noting that while the BIA must consider evidence such as “the oft-cited Aird affidavit, which [it] is asked to consider time and again[,] ... it may do so in summary fashion without a reviewing court presuming that it has abused its discretion”).

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED. As we have completed our review, any stay of removal that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and Second Circuit Local Rule 34(b).