alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Funding For Research 
-  Understanding Types of Grants And Funding 

# Small Business Grants

The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs are structured in three phases, as described below. Note that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) SEED (Small business Education and Entrepreneurial Development) website is the best resource for guidance, FAQs, and pointers to current funding opportunities. A brief outline of this unique grant program is provided below.

## Phase I

The objective of Phase I is to establish the technical merit and feasibility of the proposed R/R&D efforts and to determine the quality of performance of the small business awardee organization prior to providing further federal support in Phase II.

## Phase II

The objective of Phase II is to continue the R/R&D efforts initiated in Phase I. Typically, only Phase I awardees are eligible for a Phase II award. Potential applicants are strongly encouraged to discuss project plans with the NIH program staff listed in a funding opportunity before submitting an application.

## Phase IIb Competing Continuation Awards

NIDCD does not accept competing continuation Phase IIb SBIR/STTR grant applications.

## Phase III

The objective of Phase III, where appropriate, is for the small business concern to pursue with non-SBIR/STTR funds the commercialization objectives resulting from the Phase I/II R/R&D activities.

The SBIR/STTR solicitations and the grant application package are available on the NIH's SEED website.

Examples of areas in which small businesses can contribute to the mission of NIDCD include:
                    - Hearing, e.g., new hearing aid and auditory implant technologies, research tools and models for studying the auditory system, viral vectors for gene transfer to the inner ear.
                    - Balance, e.g., drug delivery systems, new assessment and rehabilitative technologies.
                    - Voice, speech, and language, e.g., new assessment and rehabilitative strategies, animal models.
                    - Taste and smell, e.g., drug delivery systems, new diagnostic tools, improved techniques for research.

## Staff Contacts

For additional information on the relevance of research topics to NIDCD mission areas, contact:Roger L. Miller, Ph.D.301-402-3458For administrative and business management questions, contact:Christopher P. MyersGrants Management Officer301-435-0713For more information, visit NIH’s SEED website.

February 13, 2024

## SBIR/STTR Programs: Informational Video

            - SBIR and STTR programs at the NIDCD . Video featuring NIDCD’s Shiguang Yang, D.V.M., Ph.D., and Roger Miller, Ph.D., from the 2021 Association for Research in Otolaryngology Midwinter Meeting.  

## NIDCD Strategic Plan

            - NIDCD Strategic Plan  

## SBIR/STTR Administrative Supplement Funding

            - Administrative Supplements to Promote Diversity in Research and Development: Small Businesses-SBIR/STTR
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1996
<CASH>                                           2,320
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,474
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     24,096
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,450
<PP&E>                                           5,152
<DEPRECIATION>                                     932
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  33,048
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,228
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            75
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,360
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    33,048
<SALES>                                         13,665
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,665
<CGS>                                           11,125
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,125
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 388
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     14
<INCOME-TAX>                                         6
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  8
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         8
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Hamid NASIRI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-74261.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 6, 2006.*

Filed Nov. 14, 2006.

*664Hamid Nasri, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.

NVL-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Las Vegas, NV, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Esq., Eric W. Marsteller, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: LEAVY, McKEOWN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Hamid Nasiri, a native and citizen of Iran, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision, which summarily affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

Where, as here, the BIA affirms without an opinion, we review the IJ’s decision directly. *See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft,*350 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir.2003). We review for substantial evidence and will uphold the IJ’s decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We deny the petition for review.

Nasiri’s due process challenge to the streamlining process is foreclosed by *Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft,*350 F.3d 845, 850-51 (9th Cir.2003).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Nasiri did not establish past persecution because the interrogations and the problems he experienced did not rise to the level of persecution. *See Nagoulko v. INS,*333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir.2003) (concluding that petitioner who was “teased, bothered, discriminated against and harassed” did not suffer past persecution).

Substantial evidence also supports the conclusion that Nasiri did not have a well-founded fear of persecution because he remained in Iran for three years after the incidents that occurred in 1998. *See Castillo v. INS,*951 F.2d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 1991) (concluding that there was no well-founded fear when petitioner remained in country for five years after interrogations without incident).

*665Because Nasiri failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Alvarez-Santos v. INS,*332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir.2003).

Finally, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of CAT relief because Nasiri failed to show that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured if he returned to Iran. *See Malhi v. INS,*336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                                CERTIFICATION (1)

     Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), Emile
Loria, M.D., the Chief Executive Officer of Epimmune Inc. (the "Company"), and
Robert De Vaere, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby
certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

1.   The Company's  Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September
30, 2004, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the "Periodic
Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d)
of the Exchange  Act; and

2.   The information  contained in the Periodic Report fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  of the Company at the end of the
period  covered by the Periodic  Report and results of operations of the Company
for the period covered by the Periodic Report.

Dated: November 10, 2004

/s/ Emile Loria                               /s/ Robert De Vaere
--------------------------------------        ---------------------------
Emile Loria, M.D.                             Robert De Vaere
President and Chief Executive Officer         Vice President, Finance and
                                              Administration and Chief Financial
                                              Officer

----------------
(1) This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not
deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of Epimmune Inc. under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any
general incorporation language contained in such filing.

                                       1
#### In the Matter of A. Central Insurance Company, Appellant, v Lashon Williams, Respondent.

[963 NYS2d 379]

In a proceeding pursuant to CFLR 7503 to permanently stay arbitration of a claim for supplementary uninsured/ underinsured motorist benefits or, in the alternative, to temporarily stay arbitration pending prearbitration discovery and to add certain third parties as additional respondents in the proceeding, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Onofry, J.), dated April 23, 2012, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the petition which was to permanently stay arbitration of the claim for supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Orange County, for a hearing on the issue of whether the respondent is an insured, as that term is defined in the supplementary uninsured/ underinsured motorist’s endorsement of the subject automobile insurance policy and a new determination thereafter of the branch of the petition which was to permanently stay arbitration, and arbitration is temporarily stayed pending the hearing and the new determination.

The Supreme Court erred in failing to hold a hearing on the issue of whether the respondent is an insured, as that term is defined in the supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorist’s endorsement of her brother’s automobile insurance policy. The endorsement defines an insured as, inter alia, any relative of the named insured while a resident of the same household as the named insured. While “[a] person can have more than one *1043residence for insurance coverage purposes” *(Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. [Rapp],*7 AD3d 302, 303 [2004]; *see Matter of Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. [Galioto],*266 AD2d 926 [1999]), residency in this context generally entails something more than mere temporary or physical presence, and requires some degree of permanence and intention to remain *(see Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Nicoletti,*11 AD3d 702 [2004]; *New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Kowalski,*195 AD2d 940, 941 [1993]). The petitioner submitted sufficient evidence with regard to the residence addresses of the respondent to raise a genuine issue regarding whether the respondent was a resident of her brother’s household at the time of the subject accident *(see Matter of American Natl. Prop. & Cas. Co. v Chulack,*265 AD2d 550 [1999]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court must conduct a framed-issue hearing on that question, during which the arbitration shall be temporarily stayed.

The petitioner’s remaining contentions regarding prearbitration discovery and the joinder of additional parties are without merit.

Mastro, J.E, Chambers, Hall and Lott, JJ., concur.
The District Court of the 13th Judicial District. County of Yellowstone.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. SUSAN YOUNG, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-95-408 DECISION

On April 28, 2008, the defendant was sentenced to a commitment to the Department of Corrections for a term of ten (10) years, all suspended, for violation of the conditions of a suspended sentence, for the offense of Forgery, Common Scheme, a felony. This sentence shall run concurrently with the sentence imposed in Criminal Cause No. DC-96-223.

On October 8,2010, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present. Kris Copenhaver, counsel for the defendant was not present. The state was not represented.

Prior to the hearing, Ms. Copenhaver informed the Division that the defendant’s case is still pending before the District Court for determination of an appropriate credit for time served and requested that the application for review of sentence be continued pending the outcome of the decision of the District Court.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Division that the Application for Review of Sentence shall be held in abeyance pending the outcome of the District Court’s decision. The Defendant will give notice to the Sentence Review Division within 60 days of the determination of the District Court’s Order if she wishes to proceed with a review of her sentence.

Done in open Court this 8th day of October, 2010.

DATED this 21st day of October, 2010.

Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Member, Hon. Richard Simonton and Member, Hon. Ray Dayton.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2526 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2526

   To extend and modify the temporary suspension of duty on certain 
   women's footwear, valued over $23/pair, covering the ankle, whose 
 height from the bottom of the outer sole to the top of the upper does 
    not exceed 8 inches, with a coated or laminated textile fabric.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 30, 2009

 Ms. Cantwell introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend and modify the temporary suspension of duty on certain 
   women's footwear, valued over $23/pair, covering the ankle, whose 
 height from the bottom of the outer sole to the top of the upper does 
    not exceed 8 inches, with a coated or laminated textile fabric.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN WOMEN'S FOOTWEAR, VALUED OVER $23/PAIR, COVERING THE 
              ANKLE, WHOSE HEIGHT FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE OUTER SOLE TO 
              THE TOP OF THE UPPER DOES NOT EXCEED 8 INCHES, WITH A 
              COATED OR LAMINATED TEXTILE FABRIC.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.23.82 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to certain women's footwear, 
valued over $23/pair, covering the ankle, whose height from the bottom 
of the outer sole to the top of the upper does not exceed 8 inches, 
with a coated or laminated textile fabric) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``$20/pair'' and inserting ``$23/pair''; 
        and
            (2) by striking the date in the effective column period and 
        inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 99.2


                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                         PURSUANT TO U.S.C. SECTION 1350
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, John E. Yetter, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Derma
Sciences, Inc., hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the
period ending December 31, 2002 of Derma Sciences, Inc. (the "Form 10-KSB") upon
my best knowledge and belief fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Derma Sciences, Inc.



Dated:  March 31, 2003         /s/ John E. Yetter
                               -----------------------------------------------
                               John E. Yetter, CPA
                               Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
                               (Principal Financial Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2645 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2645

  To suspend temporarily the duty on hybrid electric vehicle inverter.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 2, 2009

  Mr. Bunning introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on hybrid electric vehicle inverter.

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

SECTION 1. HYBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLE INVERTER.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Inverters for       1.0%         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        converting DC                                                      31/2011.......
                        battery output to
                        three phase AC
                        output used to
                        power an electric
                        drive motor,
                        certified by the
                        importer for use
                        in hybrid
                        electric vehicles
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        8504.40.95)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME OF WOLVERINE TUBE INC. FOR THE SIX
MONTHS ENDED JUNE 28, 1997, AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET OF
WOLVERINE INC. DUE AT JUNE 28, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-28-1997
<CASH>                                           7,240
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   96,659<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     71,834
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               176,507
<PP&E>                                         151,797<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 420,237
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,936
<BONDS>                                        113,675
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              140
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     219,667
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   420,237
<SALES>                                        351,658
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               351,658
<CGS>                                          306,741
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  306,741
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,628
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,382
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 24,907
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,007
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,900
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  4,738
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,162
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .78
<FN>
<F1>THE VALUES FOR THE TAGS RECEIVABLES AND PP&E ARE SHOWN NET OF THEIR 
RESPECTIVE ALLOWANCE ACCOUNTS.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>