alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
-  Home 
        -  Research & Funding 
        -  Current Funding Opportunities 
        -  Impact of Comorbidities and Co-Infections on HIV Reservoirs (R01 Clinical Trial Not Allowed) 

View Current Funding Opportunities

# Impact of Comorbidities and Co-Infections on HIV Reservoirs (R01 Clinical Trial Not Allowed)

This Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) seeks to foster new multi-disciplinary teams to address how HIV Comorbidities and co-infections within the missions of NIDDK and NIAID interact with viral reservoirs, potentially confounding cure strategies aimed at either sustained viral suppression or elimination from the body. These teams will mechanistically interrogate the impact of inflammation, metabolic perturbations, or other pathophysiological processes associated with these comorbidities or co-infections on reservoir dynamics, and/or the interplay of these conditions and co-infections on HIV reservoir biology in ways that are likely to interact with potential cure strategies.

### Funding Opportunity Details

Full Announcement:RFA-DK-25-013Related Notices or Announcements:                None            

Program Contacts:Peter J. Perrin, Ph.D.; Deepak Nihalani, Ph.D.; Saul Malozowski, M.D, Ph.D., M.B.A.

R01 - Research Project Grant

### Key Dates

Open Date:            6/30/2024        

Letter of Intent Due Date:            May 30, 2024
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Jun-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jul-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-1999
<CASH>                                              35,985
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      139,567
<ALLOWANCES>                                         3,701
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   182,685
<PP&E>                                             123,165
<DEPRECIATION>                                      80,368
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     313,960
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              170,993
<BONDS>                                            109,018
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            16,112
<OTHER-SE>                                          17,168
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       313,960
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   556,860
<CGS>                                              462,056
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      533,882
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   2,646
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     23,800
<INCOME-TAX>                                        11,448
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 12,352
<DISCONTINUED>                                       8,678
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        20,813
<EPS-BASIC>                                         1.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0



</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Ted I. Kaminer, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Bio-Imaging Technologies,Inc., certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Bio-Imaging Technologies, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions contained inSEC Release 34-47986]  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the
 

 
  equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.        Dated: August 9, 2007 /s/Ted I. Kaminer   Ted I. Kaminer   Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-3417

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Northern District of Iowa.

*

Julio Gonzalez-Lopez, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 18, 2011

 Filed: March 28, 2011

___________

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Julio Gonzalez-Lopez pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States

after having been deported following his prior conviction for an aggravated felony,

in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a), (b)(2). The district court sentenced Gonzalez- 1

Lopez to 50 months in prison and two years of supervised release, and he appeals. 

Counsel seeks to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967), in which he argues that the sentence is unreasonable because the court

improperly weighed the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

The HONORABLE LINDA R. READE, Chief Judge, United States District

1

Court for the Northern District of Iowa.
Reviewing the sentence for abuse of discretion, see Gall v. United States, 552

U.S. 38, 51 (2007), we conclude that Gonzalez-Lopez has not rebutted the

presumption ofreasonablenessthat attachesto his within-Guidelines-range sentence,

and we find nothing suggesting any misapplication of the section 3553(a) factors, see

United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-2 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); United

States v. Garcia, 512 F.3d 1004, 1006 (8th Cir. 2008). Further, having reviewed the

record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment, and we grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Gonzalez-Lopez about procedures

for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari.

______________________________

-2-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0260 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DANIELLE WOOD,

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 April 7 , 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

January 27 2023

01/27/2023

Case Number: DA 21-0260
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 104 (Tuesday, June 2, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 26482]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12739]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Area 5 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (Including the 
States of Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and 
Texas)

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Area 5 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be 
conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, 
ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal 
Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Tuesday, July 14, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Robb at 1-888-912-1227 or 
414-231-2360.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that a meeting of the Area 5 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held 
Tuesday, July 14, 2009, at 9:30 a.m. Central Time via telephone 
conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit 
written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, 
notification of intent to participate must be made with Patricia Robb. 
For more information please contact Ms. Robb at 1-888-912-1227 or 414-
231-2360, or write TAP Office Stop 1006MIL, 211 West Wisconsin Avenue, 
Milwaukee, WI 53203-2221, or post comments to the Web site: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include various IRS issues.

    Dated: May 27, 2009.
Shawn F. Collins,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. E9-12739 Filed 6-1-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
summarized below, of our report dated February 22, 2001, except for Note 11, as
to which the date is March 13, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of NaPro BioTherapeutics, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form
10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2000.

o    Form S-8 (No. 333-05561) pertaining to the 1993 Stock Option Plan and the
     1994 Long-Term Performance Incentive Plan of NaPro BioTherapeutics, Inc.;

o    Form S-8 (No. 333-75551) pertaining to the 1994 Long-Term Performance
     Incentive Plan and the 1998 Stock Incentive Plan of NaPro BioTherapeutics,
     Inc.;

o    Form S-8 (No. 333-52008) pertaining to the 1994 Long-Term Performance
     Incentive Plan and the 1998 Stock Incentive Plan of NaPro BioTherapeutics,
     Inc.;

o    Form S-3 (No. 33-95522) and related Prospectus pertaining to 1,375,000
     shares of common stock of NaPro BioTherapeutics, Inc.;

o    Form S-3 (No. 333-29477) and related Prospectus pertaining to 1,600,000
     shares of common stock of NaPro BioTherapeutics, Inc.;

o    Form S-3 (No. 333-42419) and related Prospectus pertaining to 1,000,000
     shares of common stock of NaPro BioTherapeutics, Inc.;

o    Form S-3 (No. 33-78016) and related Prospectus pertaining to 360,000 shares
     of common stock, 180,000 warrants, and 1,005,000 other shares of common
     stock by selling stockholders of NaPro BioTherapeutics, Inc.; and

o    Form S-3 (No. 333-51070) and related Prospectus pertaining to the
     registration of 2,213,334 shares of common stock of NaPro BioTherapeutics,
     Inc.


Denver, Colorado
March 30, 2001
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lamont Beasley, Appellant.

Submitted July 19, 2010;

decided August 26, 2010

Motion for assignment of counsel granted only to the extent that Jeremy Gutman, Esq., 233 Broadway, Suite 2707, New York, NY 10279 is assigned without fee to represent appellant on the appeal herein. Counsel may, however, apply for reimbursement of necessary disbursements incurred in connection with the assignment.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David MARTINEZ-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50719.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Oct. 19, 2006.

Filed Nov. 21, 2006.

Stephen D. Demik, Esq., Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

*676Before: PREGERSON, GOULD, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

David Martinez-Rodriguez appeals his conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.1

Martinez-Rodriguez argues that the district court erred in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing regarding the voluntariness of his admission to a United States Border Patrol Agent that he was a Mexican citizen illegally in the United States. Martinez-Rodriguez also claims that the district court should have held an evidentiary hearing to determine whether he was in custody when he made the admission, entitling him to *Miranda*warnings. However, “[a]n evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress need be held only when the moving papers allege facts with sufficient definiteness, clarity, and specificity to enable the trial court to conclude that contested issues of fact exist.” *United States v. Howell,*231 F.3d 615, 620 (9th Cir.2000). Because there were no contested issues of fact concerning the circumstances under which Martinez-Rodriguez made his admission, the district court did not err in declining to hold an evidentiary hearing.

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.

1

. We address other issues Martinez raised on appeal in a separately-filed opinion. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history, we recount it here only to the extent necessary to understand our decision.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                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 Wolverine Tube, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 3, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Dennis J. Horowitz, Chief Executive
Officer of Wolverine Tube, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
best of my knowledge and belief:

      (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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Wolverine Tube, Inc. and will be retained by Wolverine Tube, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

/s/ Dennis J. Horowitz
--------------------------
Dennis J. Horowitz
Chief Executive Officer
May 13, 2005
#### STEIGER v. MULLANEY.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Nov. 1, 1948.

Bleakley, Platt, Gilchrist & Walker, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Leo F. Potts, of New York City, for defendant.

KNOX, Chief Judge.

From the standpoint of personal inclination, I should be glad to relieve plaintiff from the consequences of the failure of her attorneys seasonably to demand that her cause of action be tried to a jury. Nevertheless, since defendant opposes the motion here made, I seriously doubt my right, except for reasons far more persuasive than those here advanced, to exercise my discretion in favor of the plaintiff. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., have now been in force for a period of about ten years, and if a default thereunder is believed by an adversary to be of advantage to himself, I entertain the view that I cannot properly take it away from him. For this reason, the motion to transfer this case to the jury calendar is denied.

See MacDonald et al. v. Central Vermont Ry., D.C., 31 F.Supp. 298; Irvine v. Luckenbach S. S. Co. Inc., D.C., 7 F.R.D. 127; Arnold v. Chicago, B. *& Q.*R. Co., D.C., 7 F.R.D. 678; State of Delaware v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co., D.C., 3 F.R.D. 165; McNabb v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co., 8 Cir., 139 F.2d 591.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Terrance D. Robinson, Appellant.

Submitted July 26, 2010;

decided August 26, 2010

*792Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Bruce E. Knoll, Esq., PO Box 2072, Empire State Plaza Station, Albany, New York 12220 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1836-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Alabama (FEMA-1836-DR), dated May 8, 2009, and related determinations.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         May 26, 2009.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Alabama is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 8, 2009.

Lamar County for Public Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. E9-12850 Filed 6-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-23-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Herbert COUNCIL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-6804.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 31, 2006.

Decided: Nov. 3, 2006.

Herbert Council, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

PER CURIAM:

Herbert Council seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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 Council 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.*