alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
    <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width" />
    <meta name="robots" content="noindex">
    <title>Diversity Programs - NIDDK</title>
    
<meta name="VIcurrentDateTime" content="638490784683808608" />
<meta name="VirtualFolder" content="/" />
<script type="text/javascript" src="/layouts/system/VisitorIdentification.js"></script>

</head>
<body>
    <div></div>
</body>
</html>
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# How We Work

###### Share

Print FriendlyEmailTwitterFacebook

NIFA’s programs rely upon a three-pronged strategy that integrates research, education, and extension to ensure that groundbreaking scientific discoveries are brought out of the laboratory and into the hands of those who can put them to work. Partnerships have an essential role in this strategy.

Partnerships play a fundamental role in carrying out this integrated approach. NIFA provides program leadership and funding, enabling our partners to discover and apply innovative solutions to critical issues related to agriculture, food, the environment, and communities. Key partners are the institutions of higher learning, making up the Land-Grant University System, which include historically black and tribal land-grant universities as well as Hispanic-serving institutions.

Figure 1. NIFA’s Integrated Approach to Science (figure taken from the NIFA Strategic Plan)

### **Putting scientific knowledge into practice**

NIFA programs enable the scientific community to make discoveries that improve the food and agricultural sectors, the environment, and the quality of people’s lives. Collaboration with 1890 historically black and 1994 tribal land-grant institutions, as well as Hispanic-serving institutions, ensures the benefits of NIFA’s resources extend to all Americans.

To ensure science is put into use, NIFA’s integrated approach consists of three components:
                  - Research to provide answers to the complex issues facing the nation and world
                  - Education to strengthen schools and universities to train the next generations of scientists, educators, producers, and citizens
                  - Extension to provide the knowledge gained through research and education to the agricultural workforce and enable them to put theory into practice

*This content available in Spanish.**Esta información disponible en Espanol**. * 

## Latest Updates

            - Latest Funding Opportunities
            - Latest Blogs
            - Latest Impacts

funding opportunityNew Beginning for Tribal Students Program

funding opportunityResearch Facilities Act Program

funding opportunityAgriculture and Food Research Initiative - Education and Workforce Development

## Latest Updates

            - Latest Funding Opportunities
            - Latest Blogs
            - Latest Impacts

postProtecting Our Water

postNumber of AFRI FY 2024 Commodity Board Co-Funding Topics Breaks Record; Expands Focus on Nutrition 

postTropical Birds Could Tolerate Warming Better Than Expected 

## Latest Updates

            - Latest Funding Opportunities
            - Latest Blogs
            - Latest Impacts

postTropical Birds Could Tolerate Warming Better Than Expected 

postCultivating the Future: Agricultural Innovations for Climate Resilience

postNevada Researcher Aims to Improve Sorghum Hybrids for Dairy Cattle Feed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND ON PAGES 3 AND 4 OF
THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER AND YEAR-TO-DATE ENDED JUNE 30, 1997,
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       5,808,063
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,447,516
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,075,026
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,367,815
<PP&E>                                       1,017,407
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,432,242
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,061,242
<BONDS>                                        634,501
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       216,684
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,519,815
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,432,242
<SALES>                                      5,361,764
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,645,982
<CGS>                                        2,445,113
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,839,233
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,089,458)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,089,458)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,089,458)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
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 Cistera Networks, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30,
      2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the “Report”), I, Derek Downs, President  of the Company, 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 result
      of
      operations of the Company.








/s/    Derek
      P. Downs


Derek
      P. Downs


President


(Principal
      Executive Officer)








January
      25, 2008








A
      signed original of this written
      statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
      acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
      within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to
      the
      Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 13 

Congratulating ASME on their 125th anniversary, celebrating the achievements of ASME members, and expressing the gratitude of the American 

people for ASME’s contributions. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 15, 2005 

Mr. SUNUNU submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 

considered and agreed to 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Congratulating ASME on their 125th anniversary, celebrating the achievements of ASME members, and expressing the gratitude of the American people for 

ASME’s contributions.

Whereas in 2005, ASME, incorporated in 1880 as the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, celebrates its 

125th anniversary as one of the premier professional organizations focused on technical, educational, and research issues of the engineering community; 

Whereas ASME plays a key role in protecting the welfare and 

safety of the public through the development and promulgation of over 600 codes and standards, including codes 

governing the manufacture of boilers, pressure vessels, 

elevators, escalators, petroleum and hazardous liquid 
2

•SCON 13 ATS

pipelines, cranes, forklifts, power tools, screw threads and 

fasteners, and many other products routinely used by industry and people in the United States and around the 

world; 

Whereas ASME, through its 120,000 members, works diligently to ensure the provision of quality science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education for 

young people as a way to foster and encourage the advancement of technology; 

Whereas industrial pioneers and ASME members such as 

Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, and George Westinghouse 

helped to build ASME’s engineering society even as 

ASME was helping to build the economy of the United 

States; 

Whereas ASME members help to ensure the development and 

operation of quality and technologically advanced transportation systems, including automobile, rail, and air 

travel; 

Whereas ASME members contribute to research and development that identifies emerging and future technical needs 

in evolving and multidisciplinary areas; 

Whereas ASME continues to provide quality continuing education programs designed to keep engineers at the cutting edge of technology; and 

Whereas in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the 

United States of September 11, 2001, ASME members 

have intensified efforts to develop technologies for homeland security and the protection of the critical assets of 

this Nation: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That the Congress— 
3

•SCON 13 ATS

1 (1) congratulates ASME on its 125th anniver2 sary; 

3 (2) recognizes and celebrates the achievements 

4 of all ASME members; 

5 (3) expresses the gratitude of the people of the 

6 United States for ASME’s contributions to the 

7 health, safety, and economic well-being of the citi8 zenry; and 

9 (4) directs the Secretary of the Senate to trans10 mit an enrolled copy of this resolution to the presi11 dent of ASME.

Æ
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH 

	NO. 2-05-004-CV

JOHANNA BELL AND								APPELLANT

ALL OCCUPANTS

						   V. 

MARK GREER									  APPELLEE	

	----------

	FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	On April 21, 2005, we notified appellant that the trial court clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal informed the court that payment arrangements had not been made to pay for the record as required by TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(a)(2).  We stated we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless appellant, within fifteen days, made arrangements to pay for the record and provided this court with proof of payment.  

	Because appellant has not made payment arrangements for the record, it is the opinion of the court that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution.   Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b).

	Appellant shall pay all costs of the appeal, for which let execution issue.

								PER CURIAM 		 	

PANEL D:	LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and HOLMAN, JJ.

DELIVERED: May 19, 2005
No. 929.

#### Williams *v.*Lawrence, Superintendent.

March 16, 1942.

*Mr. William S. Shelfer*entered an appearance for petitioner. *Mr. Ellis Arnall*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Georgia, and motion for leave to proceed further *in forma pauperis,*denied.
##### 



Exhibit 32.3 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 annual report of Centrue Financial Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John A.
Betts, Corporate Controller of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (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/ John A. Betts

John A. BettsCorporate ControllerMarch 29, 2004
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements on Forms S-8 (No. 333-102627, No. 333-107990, No. 333-115628, No. 333-117425 and No. 333-145004) and on Forms S-3 (No. 333-121452 and No. 333-141110) of Plains Exploration & ProductionCompany of our report dated February 27, 2008 relating to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appear in this Form 10-K. 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

Houston, Texas 

February 27, 2008
No. 325.

#### Rodiek, Ancillary Executor, *v.*United States et al.

Argued February 12, 13, 1942.

Decided March 2, 1942.

*Mr. Sherwood E. Silliman,*with whom *Messrs. Reuben D. Silliman, Russell C. Gay,*and *Charles H. Lawson*were on the brief, for petitioner. As*sistant Attorney General Shea,*with whom *Solicitor Gem eral Fahy*and *Messrs. Melvin H. Siegel, Harry LeRoy Jones, Frederick L. Smith, Oscar H. Davis,*and *Archibald Cox*were on the brief, for respondents.

*Per Curiam:*

The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court. The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Murphy, and Mr. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
#### ARNOLD v. GORDON BAKING CO.

Civil Action No. 8661.

District Court, E. D. New York.

Jan. 12, 1948.

William J. Rapp, of New York City (Robgrt A. Siebert, of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Battle, Levy, Fowler & Neaman of New York City (Morris E. Lasker, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant.

BYERS, District Judge.

This is a defendant’s motion before answer, to require plaintiff to furnish a more definite statement or bill of particulars in 62 specified respects.

The complaint alleges a contract of employment by the defendant and performance; also “other valuable services for the defendant at its special instance and request” ; that the reasonable and agreed value of all of said services was $302,400; also that the defendant agreed to reimburse plaintiff for the expenses incurred by him in connection with the performance “of said services” amounting to $54^200.

Nearly all of the items listed in the defendant’s demand are matters of evidence, and such as are relevant to the issues can be the subject-matter of discovery under the applicable provisions of the Rules.

Having in mind, however, the provisions of Rule 8(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, touching affirmative defenses, and to enable the defendant to overcame its professed inability to prepare and file its Answer, the plaintiff is directed to file, within five days from the entry of an order hereon, a bill of particulars setting forth:

1. (a) The date of the engagement alleged in paragraph Fourth of the complaint.

*649(b) The name and title of the officer or agent of the defendant purporting to act for it in that connection.

(c) If the engagement was by written instrument,' a copy thereof; or if it was oral, a statement of its essential terms.

2. Like information concerning the “other valuable services” alleged in paragraph Sixth of the complaint.

3. Whether the agreement for reimbursement of expenses alleged in paragraph Eighth of the complaint was a separate undertaking, and if so the like information as in 1 and 2 hereof. If it was part of either of those hirings, the facts may be averred in connection therewith.

In all other respects the motion is denied.

Settle order, and embody a provision that the Answer must be filed and served in not more than 10 days after filing and service of the bill of particulars.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 102 (Friday, May 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 25749]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12543]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    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 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 
Sec. [thinsp]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 25, 2009.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia (Michael E. Collins, Senior 
Vice President) 100 North 6th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19105-
1521:
    1. The Bancorp, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware; to acquire American 
Home Bank, Chicago, Illinois, and thereby engage in operating a savings 
association, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(4)(ii) of Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 26, 2009.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E9-12543 Filed 5-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
#### In the Matter of Robert Shapiro, Petitioner, v Commissioner of Labor et al., Respondents.

[976 NYS2d 64]

Determination of respondent State of New York Industrial Board of Appeals (IBA), dated May 30, 2012, which, after a hearing, determined that respondent New York State Department of Labor (DOL) acted reasonably in concluding that the New York City Board of Education (BOE) did not terminate petitioner’s employment in retaliation for his complaints about health and safety pursuant to the Public Employee Safety and Health Act, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of Supreme Court, New York County [Eileen A. Rakower, J.], entered on or about Sept. 21, 2012), dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence in the record supports IBA’s determination that DOL acted reasonably in concluding that petitioner’s complaints regarding health and safety were not a motivating factor in petitioner’s dismissal from his position as a teacher in *413the Homebound Program *(see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176, 180-181 [1978]). This is so whether the matter is analyzed pursuant to the traditional framework set forth in *McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green*(411 US 792 [1973]), or under a “mixed motive” analysis *(see e.g. Melman v Montefiore Med. Ctr.,*98 AD3d 107, 127-128 [1st Dept 2012]). There exists no basis to disturb the credibility determinations made by the Hearing Officer *(see Matter of Nelke v Department of Motor Vehs. of the State of N.Y.,*79 AD3d 433 [1st Dept 2010]).

Although there is evidence that petitioner’s supervisor purportedly told a DOL investigator in 1993 that petitioner was terminated from his position because he made health and safety complaints, the evidence underlying DOL’s conclusion included extensive evidence of deficient performance by petitioner. Moreover, the supervisor who allegedly indicated a discriminatory motive was not the ultimate decision-maker, and the record shows that BOE immediately offered petitioner another tenured track position after terminating his employment in the Home-bound Program. Concur — Tom, J.P, Saxe, DeGrasse, Richter and Clark, JJ.
The District Court of the 18th Judicial District. County of Gallatin.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. TIMOTHY WRIGHT, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-09-164CX DECISION

On November 16, 2009, the defendant was sentenced as follows: Count I: Twenty (20) years in the Montana State Prison for the offense of Assault with a Weapon, a felony. This sentence shall run concurrently with the sentence imposed in DC-08-20AX.

On February 4, 2010, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme *23Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Kara Docherty. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 4th day of February, 2010.

DATED this 23rd day of February, 2010.

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