alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 54056]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-25287]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities; 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 Center on Minority Health and Health 
Disparities Special Emphasis Panel; Conference Grant Review.
    Date: November 10, 2009.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 
Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Prabha L. Atreya, Ph.D, Chief, Office of 
Scientific Review, National Center on Minority Health and Health 
Disparities, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 800, Bethesda, MD 
20892, (301) 594-8696, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8decf9ffe8f4ecfdffcde0ece4e1a3e3e4e5a3eae2fb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="99f8edebfce0f8e9ebd9f4f8f0f5b7f7f0f1b7fef6ef">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: October 14, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-25287 Filed 10-20-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 31.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

    SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934: RULES 13a-14, 13a-15, 15d-14, and 15d-15
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I , Thomas P. Raabe, certify that:
         1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Arete
         Industries, Inc.

         2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any
         untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
         necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
         under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
         the period covered by this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge,
         the financial statements, and other financial information included in
         this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the
         financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
         registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly
         report; 4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
         controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and
         15d-14) for the registrant and have:

               a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure
               that material information relating to the registrant, including
               its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
               within those entities, particularly during the period in which
               this quarterly report is being prepared;
               b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
               controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the
               filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
               c) presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the
               effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on
               my evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

         5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the
         registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of
         directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

               a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
               internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's
               ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data
               and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material
               weaknesses in internal controls; and
               b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
               or other employees who have a significant role in the
               registrant's internal controls; and

Dated: August 19, 2003                  By: /s/ Thomas P. Raabe
                                            -------------------
                                             Chief Executive Officer and
                                             Interim Chief Financial Officer


<PAGE>
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

Arcenio C., 

### FILED Petitioner Below, Petitioner January 14, 2013
RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK vs.) No. 11-1111 (Boone County 10-D-338) SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA

Mollie C., Respondent Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Arcenio C., by counsel Peter A. Hendricks, appeals the June 27, 2011 order of the Circuit Court of Boone County denying his petition for appeal from the final order of the family court. Respondent Mollie C., by counsel Steven M. Thorne, has filed a response and a supplemental appendix.

The Court has considered the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Upon consideration of the standard of review, the briefs, and the record presented, the Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these reasons, a memorandum decision is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Revised Rules of Appellate

Procedure.

On June 3, 2011, the family court entered its “Final Order of Divorce,” which petitioner appealed to the Circuit Court of Boone County. By order entered on June 27, 2011, petitioner’s appeal to the circuit court was denied. On appeal, petitioner alleges that the family court erred in denying him parenting time with his child until such time as he could prove he was legally in the country, and also that the family court erred in calculating child support payments in an amount that attributed his wages as an electrician because he was forced to resign from that position. Respondent argues that because petitioner used various forms of false identification to obtain employment during the course of their marriage, the family court properly attributed his prior wages in calculating child support because he could have continued in his employment. Further, respondent argues that the circuit court’s requirement as to petitioner providing identification in order to obtain parenting time was based upon the fact he posed a significant flight risk due to his

numerous aliases.

“In reviewing a final order entered by a circuit court judge upon a review of, or upon a refusal to review, a final order of a family court judge, we review the findings of fact made by the family court judge under the clearly erroneous standard, and the application of law to the facts under an abuse of discretion standard. We review questions of law de novo .” Syl., Carr v.

Hancock , 216 W.Va. 474, 607 S.E.2d 803 (2004). After careful consideration of the parties’ arguments, this Court concludes that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s appeal.

1
­For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the decision of the circuit court and its June 27, 2011 order denying petitioner’s appeal is affirmed.

Affirmed.

ISSUED: January 14, 2013

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Justice Brent D. Benjamin

Justice Robin Jean Davis Justice Margaret L. Workman

Justice Menis E. Ketchum Justice Allen H. Loughry II

2
­
Appendix: How to Create the Appearance of a 

Certificate-Based Signature 

IMPORTANT: You must create your graphic to be imported prior to following the steps 

below, which were taken from the Adobe Acrobat Web site; in addition, please ensure your 

graphic has alternate text in order to be compliant with the Section 508 of the Rehabilitation 

Act, as amended.

You determine the look of your certificate-based signature by selecting options in the 

Signatures panel of the Preferences dialog box. For example, you can include an image of 

your handwritten signature, a company logo, or a photograph. You can also create different 

signatures for different purposes. For some, you can provide a greater level of detail.

A signature can also include information that helps others verify your signature, such as 

the reason for signing, contact information, and more.

Signature formats

A. Text signature B. Graphic signature 

1. (Optional) If you want to include an image of your handwritten signature in the 

certificate-based signature, scan your signature, and save it as an image file. Place 

the image in a document by itself, and convert the document to PDF.

2. Right-click the signature field, and select Sign Document or Certify With Visible

Signature. 

Note: You can also create an appearance using the Signature preferences: 

Edit > Preferences > Signatures (Windows) 

or 

Acrobat > Preferences > Signatures (Mac OS).
3. From the Appearance menu in the Sign dialog box, select Create New Appearance. 

4. In the Configure Signature Appearance dialog box, type a name for the signature 

you’re creating. When you sign, you select the signature by this name. Therefore, 

use a short, descriptive title.

5. For Configure Graphic, choose an option:

No Graphic

Displays only the default icon and other information specified in the Configure Text 

section.

Imported Graphic

Displays an image with your certificate-based signature. Select this option to include 

an image of your handwritten signature. To import the image file, click File, click 

Browse, and then select the image file.

Name

Displays only the default signature icon and your name as it appears in your digital 

ID file.

6. For Configure Text, select the options that you want to appear in the signature. 

Distinguished Name shows the user attributes defined in your digital ID, including 

your name, organization, and country.

7. For Text Properties, specify the writing direction and type of digits used, and then 

click OK. 

8. (Optional) If the dialog box includes the Additional Signature Information section, 

specify the reason for signing the document, the location, and your contact 

information. These options are available only if you set them as your preferences in 

the Creation and Appearance Preferences dialog box (Edit > Preferences > 

Signatures > Creation & Appearance > More).
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 International Packaging and Logistics
Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10Q for the period ending September 30, 2009
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Steve Westlund, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of the undersigned’s 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/  Steve
Westlund


Steve
Westlund


Chief
Executive Officer, President


and
Director





November
12, 2009
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2827 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the military housing 

allowance exclusion for purposes of determining area gross income in 

determining whether a residential rental property is a qualified residential 

rental property for purposes of the exempt facility bond rules. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 3, 2009 

Mr. SCHUMER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 

the military housing allowance exclusion for purposes 

of determining area gross income in determining whether 

a residential rental property is a qualified residential 

rental property for purposes of the exempt facility bond 

rules. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Military Families Af5 fordable Homes Act’’. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2827 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF MILITARY HOUSING ALLOWANCE 

2 EXCLUSION FOR DETERMINING AREA ME3 DIAN GROSS INCOME FOR QUALIFIED RESI4 DENTIAL RENTAL PROJECT EXEMPT FACIL5 ITY BONDS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (B) of section 

7 142(d)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amend8 ed— 

9 (1) by striking ‘‘qualified military installation to 

10 which’’ and all that follows through ‘‘December 31, 

11 2005’’ in clause (iii)(I) and inserting ‘‘military in12 stallation or facility’’, and 

13 (2) by striking clause (iv). 

14 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

15 this section shall apply to determinations of the status of 

16 qualified residential rental projects for periods beginning 

17 after the date of the enactment of this Act, with respect 

18 to bonds issued before, on, or after such date. 

Æ 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. David ELLISON, Appellant.

No. 05-3648.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 2, 2006.

Filed: Nov. 3, 2006.

David M. Rosen, Asst. U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, argued, St. Louis, MO, for Appellee.

Grant J. Shostak, Moline *&*Shostak, argued, St. Louis, MO, David Ellison, argued, Alton, IL, for Appellant.

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

David Ellison appeals the 33-month prison sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the court erred in sentencing Ellison to imprisonment instead of placing him on home confinement so that he would be able to continue working to pay restitution and support his family.

We conclude that the sentence is not unreasonable: the district court properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in sentencing Ellison at the bottom of the Guidelines range, and nothing in the record rebuts the presumption that the sentence is reasonable. *See United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 260-64, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005) (appellate courts should review *post-Booker*sentences for unreasonableness; district courts must consult Guidelines and take them into account when sentencing, along with other § 3553(a) factors); *United States v. Lincoln,*413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.) (sentence within applicable Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable and burden is on defendant to rebut that presumption), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 840, 163 L.Ed.2d 715 (2005); *United States v. Tobacco,*428 F.3d 1148, 1151 (8th Cir.2005) (presumption of reasonableness can be rebutted if district court failed to consider relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or considered only appropriate factors but committed clear error of judgment in weighing them).

Having reviewed the record under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Michele Nakazawa, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Telos Corporation; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) forthe registrant and we have: 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared; 

b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal controlover financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles; 

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors: 

a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: November 20, 2007
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daniel J. Boyden, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[976 NYS2d 920]

Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Thomas G. Leone, J.), rendered March 20, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, assault in the second degree, burglary in the second degree (two counts), unlawfully fleeing a police officer in a motor vehicle in the third degree and reckless driving.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Same memorandum as in *People v Boyden*(112 AD3d 1372 [2013]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Fahey, Peradotto, Garni and Valentino, JJ.
# WH&B Operations

&P	&"-,Bold" 

# Risk Assessment Matrix

# Sheet1
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 204 (Friday, October 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54820-54821]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-25520]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or 
Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec. [thinsp]225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the office of the Board of Governors.

[[Page 54821]]

Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve 
Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of 
Governors. Comments must be received not later than November 9, 2009.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Todd Offenbacker, Assistant 
Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. Philip Eugene Jossi, and Marian Joanne Hardin, both of Kearney, 
Nebraska; James Andrew Bodyfield, Ericson, Nebraska; and Keith Weldon 
Carlson, Lincoln, Nebraska; to acquire voting shares of Riverdale 
Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of State 
Bank of Riverdale, both in Riverdale, Nebraska.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 20, 
2009.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E9-25520 Filed 10-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
S. 775

One Hundred Ninth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the fourth day of January, two thousand and five

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 123 W.

7th Street in Holdenville, Oklahoma, as the ‘‘Boone Pickens Post Office’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. BOONE PICKENS POST OFFICE.

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal

Service located at 123 W. 7th Street in Holdenville, Oklahoma,

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Boone Pickens Post Office’’.

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation,

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference

to the ‘‘Boone Pickens Post Office’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.