alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 106 (Thursday, June 4, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 26866]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12986]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration on Aging


Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB 
Review; Comment Request; Semi-Annual and Final Reporting Requirements 
for the Older Americans Act Title IV Discretionary Grants Program

AGENCY: Administration on Aging, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Administration on Aging (AoA) is announcing that the 
proposed collection of information listed below has been submitted to 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Submit written comments on the collection of information by July 
6, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the collection of information by 
fax 202-395-6974 to the OMB Desk Officer for AoA, Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs, OMB.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lori Stalbaum at (202) 357-3469, or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fc90938e95d28f889d909e9d8991bc9d939dd294948fd29b938a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f4989b869dda8780959896958199b4959b95da9c9c87da939b82">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, AoA has 
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for 
review and clearance.

Describe Collection of Information

    AoA is requesting a continuation of an existing collection for 
Semi-Annual and Final Performance Progress Reports for Older Americans 
Act Title IV grantees. AoA estimates the burden of this collection of 
information as follows: Frequency: Semi-annually with the Final report 
taking the place of the semi-annual report at the end of the final year 
of the grant. Respondents: States, public agencies, private nonprofit 
agencies, institutions of higher education, and organizations including 
tribal organizations. Estimated Number of Responses: 600. Total 
Estimated Burden Hours: 12,000.

    Dated: May 29, 2009.
Edwin L. Walker,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Aging.
[FR Doc. E9-12986 Filed 6-3-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4154-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[944 NE2d 1142, 919 NYS2d 503]

#### In the Matter of the Estate of Seymour Halpern, Deceased. Adrienne Halpern et al., Respondents; Elizabeth Halpern, Appellant.

Decided February 22, 2011

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Duane Morris LLP,*New York City *(Thomas R. Newman*of counsel), for appellant.

*778
      *Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP,*New York City *(Christopher P. Moore*and *Giannina Santo*of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, and certified question not answered upon the ground that it is unnecessary. When viewed in its entirety, the testimony from the attesting witness is insufficient to create a triable issue of fact as to whether decedent’s will was duly executed.

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones.
#### State v. Reed

Case below: 182 N.C. App. 109

No. 141P07

1. AG’s Motion for Temporary Stay (CQA06-400)

2. AG’s Petition for Writ of Supersedeas

3. AG’s NOA Based Upon a Constitutional Question

4. AG’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

1. Allowed 03/23/07 361 N.C. 435 Stay dissolved 10/11/07

2. Denied 10/11/07

3. Dismissed *ex mero motu*

4. Denied 10/11/07
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Reginald K. Watson, Also Known as Reggie, Appellant.

[963 NYS2d 600]

Spain, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Washington County (McKeighan, J.), rendered April 1, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree in satisfaction of a 12-count indictment, and further waived his right to appeal orally and in a written document executed in open court. In accordance with the plea agreement, he was sentenced as a second felony offender to eight years in prison, to be followed by three years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.

*1265We affirm. Defendant contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel, which he is permitted to raise by the terms of his valid appeal waiver. The record does not reflect that defendant moved to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction, however, and his claim is accordingly not preserved for our review *(see People v Williams,*101 AD3d 1174, 1174 [2012]; *People v Haskins,*86 AD3d 794, 796 [2011], *lv denied*17 NY3d 903 [2011]). Within that context, defendant also asserts that a local criminal court that handled a related felony complaint lacked jurisdiction over him but, to the extent that issue survived his guilty plea and appeal waiver, any defects were rendered academic by an indictment having subsequently been handed up against him, which “superceded all prior proceedings” *(People ex rel. Van Steenburg v Wasser,*69 AD3d 1135, 1136 [2010], *lv dismissed and denied*14 NY3d 883 [2010]; *see People ex rel. Rosado v Napoli,*83 AD3d 1347, 1347 [2011], *lv denied*17 NY3d 710 [2011]; *People v Hart,*25 AD3d 815, 816 [2006], *lv denied*6 NY3d 834 [2006]).

Lahtinen, J.E, Stein and Garry, JJ, concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2600 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2600

   To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial flowers of man-made 
  fibers, assembled as a multi-species bush, with or without foliage.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 30, 2009

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial flowers of man-made 
  fibers, assembled as a multi-species bush, with or without foliage.

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

SECTION 1. ARTIFICIAL FLOWERS OF MAN-MADE FIBERS, ASSEMBLED AS A MULTI-
              SPECIES BUSH, WITH OR WITHOUT FOLIAGE.

    (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      Artificial flowers  Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        of man-made                                                        31/2011.......
                        fibers, assembled
                        as a multi-
                        species bush,
                        with or without
                        foliage (provided
                        for in subheading
                        6702.90.35)......

    (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>
```
#### Frost and others *v.*Marcus and another.

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.*

March 11, 1882.)

Patents for Inventions—Infrotsement—Injunction.

Although defendants’ structure contains improvements, yet if it involves the patented invention its use may he enjoined.

*Q. M. Plympton,*for plaintiffs.

*Dickerson é Dickerson,*for defendants.

Blatchford, Justice.

The decision in Massachusetts disposes of all the questions on this motion in favor of the plaintiff, except that of infringement. As to that, the alleged infringing article here clearly comes within the principles of the decision under which the defendants’ article in the Massachusetts case was held to infringe. It adds two'nipping places to the one the patent has, thus making three. It distributes the strain as to the material of the plate, and it bites more of the fabric by nipping it at three places. Thereby the sides *89of the structure before reaching the frrst nip may be made more •rapidly converging, because that nip is not required to hold so firmly, or so much of the fabric. Yet the first nip holds more or less according to the thickness of the fabric in it as compared with the convergence of the sides, and although when the fabric is drawn through the first nip it is held by the other two nips, and is packed in the wider end portions, it still, as to part of it, continues to be held by the first nip. The defendants’ structure doubtless contains improvements, but it involves the patented invention. The motion for an injunction is granted.
The District Court of the 20th Judicial District. County of Lake.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. WILLIAM FRITSCH, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-09-28 DECISION

On October 1, 2009, the defendant was sentenced to five (5) years in the Montana State Prison for the offense of Failure to Register, a felony.

On February 4, 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 and was represented by Eric Olson. The state was represented by Mark Russell.

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 did not wish to proceed.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the application for review of sentence shall be waived.

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.
-  Home 
        -  News 
        -  Media Library 
        -  Media Asset Details 

Return to Media Library Search Results

# Eye Exam

View full-sized image
                Download Media **Please credit each image as: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health.

## Description

                    An older adult getting an eye exam.                

## Alternate Text

An older adult receiving an eye exam.

## Diseases or Conditions

Diabetes

## File Size

69 KB | 1200 x 675

## File Type

JPG

## Related Keywords

Older AdultsDoctor's officeFemaleWhite

Share this page
FacebookXEmailWhatsAppLinkedInRedditPinterest
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6028** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. ANDRE SHAWN GREEN, a/k/a Andre Greene, a/k/a Dre , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Orangeburg
. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. ( 5:08

- cr - 00944

- MBS

- 10 )

Submitted : February 26, 2013 Decided: March 1, 2013

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Andre Shawn Green, Appellant Pro Se. Stanley D. Ragsdale, John David Rowell, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Andre Shawn Green appeals the district court ’ s order denying Green’s 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a sentence reduction
. On appeal, Green asserts that the Fair Sentencing Act (“FSA”) should apply to lowe r the statutory mandatory minimum term to which he was originally sentenced because his direct appeal was pending at the time the FSA became effective. However, as Green was sentenced prior to August 3, 2010, the effective date of the FSA, he is not entit led to application of the reduced penalties. See United States v. Bullard , 645 F.3d 237, 248

- 49 (4th Cir.), cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 356 (2011) (FSA does not apply retroactively to cases pending on direct appeal where defendant was sentenced prior to effec tive date of the Act). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
----

Exhibit 31.1 

CERTIFICATION

I, John L. Threshie Jr., certify that: 

(1) 

I have reviewedthis Form 10-QSB of The Tirex Corporation; 

(2) 

Based on myknowledge, 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 lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report; 

(3) 

Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report; 

(4) 

The smallbusiness issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer and have: 

(a) 

Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) 

Evaluated theeffectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and 

(c) 

Disclosed inthis report any change in the small business issuer's internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recentfiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case ofan annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financialreporting; and 

(5) 

The smallbusiness issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to thesmall business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small businessissuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) 

All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and 

(b) 

Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financialreporting. 

*/s/ John L. Threshie Jr.,               * John L. Threshie Jr.,CEO 

Date: November 11, 2008 

----
# Drill #5

&"Times New Roman,Bold"Stationary Attack/Hose Lay		&"Times New Roman,Bold"Drill #5

&P	

&P	

# Code Page

# image1.png
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 204 (Friday, October 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 54837]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-25586]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel; National Research Service Award (NRSA) Institutional 
Research Training Grants.
    Date: November 16, 2009.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: The Mandarin Oriental, 1330 Maryland Avenue, SW., 
Washnigton, DC 20024.
    Contact Person: Vinod Charles, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental 
Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6151, 
MSC 9606, Bethesda, MD 20892-9606, 301-443-1606.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.242, 
Mental Health Research Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development Award, 
Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, and Research Scientist 
Award; 93.282, Mental Health National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 19, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-25586 Filed 10-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 20 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

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;
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
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That Congress--
            (1) recognizes the life-altering impact traumatic brain 
        injury may have both on people living with the resultant 
        disabilities and on their families;
            (2) recognizes the need for enhanced public awareness of 
        traumatic brain injury;
            (3) supports the designation of an appropriate month as 
        National Brain Injury Awareness Month; and
            (4) encourages the people of the United States to observe 
        National Brain Injury Awareness Month with appropriate programs 
        and activities.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 Nos.
333-123940, 333-135038, 333-138303 and 333-128332 and Form S-8 No. 127527 of our report
dated March 31, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Derma
Sciences, Inc. included in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the years ended December
31, 2007 and 2006.

| |                      
| | ---------------------
| | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaMarch 31, 2008
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edward Ballard, Appellant.

[976 NYS2d 404]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), rendered June 5, 2012, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw his plea on this ground prior to the imposition of sentence *(see People v*
      *732
      *Phillip B.,*111 AD3d 649 [2d Dept 2013]; *People v Gaines,*110 AD3d 1099 [2013]; *People v Antoine,*59 AD3d 560 [2009]; *People v Castillo-Cordero,*54 AD3d 1054 [2008]; *People v Bevins,*27 AD3d 572 [2006]; *People v Martin,*7 AD3d 640 [2004]). In any event, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the record establishes that the defendant’s plea of guilty was voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly entered *(see People v Fiumefreddo,*82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]; *People v Callahan,*80 NY2d 273, 283 [1992]; *People v Moissett,*76 NY2d 909, 910-911 [1990]; *People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9, 16 [1983]; *People v Nixon,*21 NY2d 338 [1967]).

In addition, by failing to challenge the sufficiency of his factual allocution before the County Court, the defendant has not preserved this issue for appellate review *(see People v Crespo,*153 AD2d 573 [1989]; *People v Caban,*131 AD2d 863 [1987]). In any event, “because the defendant pleaded guilty to a lesser crime than the crimes charged in the indictment and since the allocution establishes that the defendant understood the charges against him, a factual basis for the plea was unnecessary” *(People v McKenzie,*98 AD3d 749, 750 [2012]; *see People v Martin,*239 AD2d 436 [1997]). Mastro, J.E, Balkin, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.