alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 3, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 26714]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12879]



[[Page 26714]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; 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 Cancer Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel; Cancer Prevention Research Small Grant Program.
    Date: June 15-16, 2009.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Renaissance M Street Hotel, 1143 New Hampshire Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC 20037.
    Contact Person: Irina Gordienko, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review and Logistics Branch, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 6116 Executive Blvd., 
Rm. 7073, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-1566, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#42252d30262b272c292d2b34022f232b2e6c2c2b2a6c252d34"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="84e3ebf6e0ede1eaefebedf2c4e9e5ede8aaeaedecaae3ebf2">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control; 93.701, ARRA Related Biomedical Research and Research 
Support Awards, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 26, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-12879 Filed 6-2-09; 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
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION**




Certification
      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a)
      and
      (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, UNITED STATES Code)




Pursuant
      to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
      undersigned officers of Zoom Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
      “Company”), does hereby certify that:




The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the
      “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




The
      information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materials
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.




Dated:
      November 13, 2007





**/s/
                Robert Crist**Robert
                A. CristChief
                Financial Officer




1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          13,437
<SECURITIES>                                   106,685
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,793
<ALLOWANCES>                                       386
<INVENTORY>                                      2,637
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               149,569
<PP&E>                                          44,945
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,279
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 176,490
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,535
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            43
<OTHER-SE>                                     154,547
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   176,490
<SALES>                                         21,717
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,717
<CGS>                                           11,682
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,682
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                53,583
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   3
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (30,478)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (30,478)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (30,478)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.74)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.74)


</TABLE>
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 15

- 00240

- CR

Harold Schatz

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From County Criminal Court No. 10

of Tarrant County (G850948

- A2584680)

August 13, 2015

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

(p)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordere d that the appeal is dismissed for

want of jurisdiction

.

SECOND D ISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

Justice Lee Gabriel
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 6314

STEVEN LAMONTE STANLEY , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. MR. R. HUDGINS, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Clarksburg

. John Preston Bailey , District Judge. ( 1:19

- cv - 00152

- JPB

- JPM )

Submitted : October 21 , 2022 Decided: October 27, 2022

Before WYNN and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Steven Lamonte Stanley , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6314 Doc: 13 Filed: 10/27/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Steven Lamonte Stanley , a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he sought to challenge his conviction and sentence by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Pursuant to § 2255(e), a prisoner may cha llenge his conviction and sentence in a traditional writ of habeas corpus under § 2241 if a § 2255 motion would be inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. Here, the district court correctly determined that Stanley may not challeng e the validity of his conviction and sentence through a § 2241 petition, as the conduct for which he was convicted remains criminal, 1 In re Jones , 226 F.3d 328, 333

- 34 (4th Cir. 2000), and he failed to identify a retroactive change in the substantive law affecting his sentence, 2 United States v. Wheeler , 886 F.3d 415, 429 (4th Cir. 2018). Accordingly, while we grant Stanley’s motion to amend his informal brief, we affirm the district court ’s order

. Stanley v. Hudgins , No. 1:19

- cv - 00152

- JPB

- JPM (N.D.W

. Va

. Feb. 22, 2022). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

1 See United States v. Runyon , 994 F.3d 192, 201 (4th Cir. 2021).

2 See Jones v. Zych , 812 F. App’x 115, 124 (4th Cir. 2020) (No. 15

- 7399) (argued but unpublished); United States v. Morris , 429 F.3d 65, 72 (4th Cir. 2005). USCA4 Appeal: 22-6314 Doc: 13 Filed: 10/27/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
**Identify gaming facility(ies):**

**Identify tribal, gaming commission, and/or gaming operation personnel contacted:**

Page 1 of 5

Page 9 of 9
97-174.

#### McLaren v. E. Galbraith Health Care Ctr.

Franklin App. No. 96APD03-298. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County. It appears from the records of this court that appellant has not filed a merit brief, due March 24,1997, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed *sua sponte.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited Balance Sheet as of February 29, 2000 and the unaudited Statement
of Operations for the six months then ended and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                          FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                    534,815
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0
<INVENTORY>                               116,858
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          664,366
<PP&E>                                     40,712
<DEPRECIATION>                             26,349
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            875,254
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   2,505,968
<BONDS>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                3,319,030
<OTHER-SE>                             (4,961,971)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              875,525
<SALES>                                    63,726
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           63,726
<CGS>                                      31,388
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             961,294
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         56,636
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (985,592)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (985,592)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                             (985,592)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (0.07)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                         <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>           MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>               9-MOS
<CASH>                            3,190
<SECURITIES>                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                    65,513
<ALLOWANCES>                      1,326
<INVENTORY>                     132,019
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                207,635
<PP&E>                           86,113
<DEPRECIATION>                   30,543
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  310,444
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           176,213
<BONDS>                          94,473
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                       3,878
<COMMON>                          2,444
<OTHER-SE>                       23,888
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    310,444
<SALES>                         303,641
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                303,641
<CGS>                           273,479
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   273,479
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    206
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               19,293
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (17,705)
<INCOME-TAX>                     (6,852)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (10,853)
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                    (10,853)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                    (6.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                    (6.26)
        

</TABLE>
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Sakhorn Khamsiry, Appellant

No. 06-23-00217-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 451st Judicial District 

Court of Kendall County, Texas (Tr. Ct. 

No. 9134). Memorandum Opinion 

delivered by Justice van Cleef, Chief 

Justice Stevens and Justice Rambin

participating. 

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appeal should be dismissed 

for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We further order that the appellant, Sakhorn Khamsiry, pay all costs incurred by reason 

of this appeal.

RENDERED NOVEMBER 16, 2023

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

SCOTT E. STEVENS

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Order entered February 16 , 2023

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 22
- 00681
- CR
APRIL SHARON GREEN , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 363r d Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F 17
- 33765
- W

O RDER Appellant’s third motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief is GRANTED , and we ORDER appellant’s brief filed on or before MARCH 13, 2023. If appellant’s brief is not filed by March 13, 2023, the Court may abate the appeal for the trial court to conduct a hearing and determine why appellant’s brief
has not been filed.

/s/ NANCY KENNEDY JUSTICE
##### 



Exhibit 12.1
 PINNACLE WEST CAPITAL CORPORATION
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
(dollars in thousands)
 Twelve Months Ended December 31,2005
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2003
    
    
    2002
    
    
    2001Earnings:Income from continuing
operations
    
    $
    223,163
    
    
    $
    246,590
    
    
    $
    225,384
    
    
    $
    236,563
    
    
    $
    327,367Income taxes
    
    
    126,892
    
    
    
    136,142
    
    
    
    102,202
    
    
    
    152,145
    
    
    
    213,535Fixed charges
    
    
    214,430
    
    
    
    214,803
    
    
    
    225,041
    
    
    
    219,178
    
    
    
    211,958Total
earnings
    
    $
    564,485
    
    
    $
    597,535
    
    
    $
    552,627
    
    
    $
    607,886
    
    
    $
    752,860Fixed Charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    185,087
    
    
    $
    183,527
    
    
    $
    193,973
    
    
    $
    187,039
    
    
    $
    175,822Estimated interest
portion
of annual rents
    
    
    29,343
    
    
    
    31,276
    
    
    
    31,068
    
    
    
    32,139
    
    
    
    36,136Total fixed charges
    
    $
    214,430
    
    
    $
    214,803
    
    
    $
    225,041
    
    
    $
    219,178
    
    
    $
    211,958Ratio of Earnings to Fixed
Charges (rounded down)
    
    
    2.63
    
    
    
    2.78
    
    
    
    2.45
    
    
    
    2.77
    
    
    
    3.55
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

KIM A. THOMAS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.  No. 02-1066

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.

Peter J. Messitte, District Judge.

(CA-00-3335-PJM)

Submitted: August 29, 2002

Decided: October 3, 2002

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Lisa Alexis Jones, JONES & TOWNS, P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C.,

for Appellant. Patricia McHugh Lambert, Steven B. Schwartzman,

HODES, ULMAN, PESSIN & KATZ, P.A., Towson, Maryland, for

Appellee. 
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Kim A. Thomas appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. ("Nationwide") in this

employment discrimination case under Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, as amended, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (2000). On appeal,

Thomas maintains that the district court erred in finding that she

failed to make out a prima facie case of race and gender discrimination and that, in any event, she could not show that Nationwide’s

legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the challenged actions were

pretextual. 

This court reviews a district court’s order granting summary judgment de novo and views the facts in the light most favorable to the

nonmoving party. Scheduled Airlines Traffic Offices, Inc. v. Objective, Inc., 180 F.3d 583, 590-91 (4th Cir. 1999). Summary judgment

is appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 56(c). Once the moving party discharges its burden by showing

there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s

case, Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986), the nonmoving party must come forward with specific facts showing there is a

genuine issue for trial. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio

Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). Summary judgment will be granted

unless a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving

party on the evidence presented. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,

477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). 

In light of the arguments raised on appeal, we have reviewed the

transcript of the court’s hearing on the motion for summary judgment

and the other materials submitted in the joint appendix, and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Thomas v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., No. CA-00-

2 THOMAS v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE
3335-PJM (D. Md. Dec. 12, 2001) (granting Nationwide’s motion for

summary judgment for the reasons stated from the bench). (J.A. at

916-33). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

THOMAS v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE 3
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 Transition Report of
EnerJex Resources, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the nine-month period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert G. Watson, Chief
Executive Officer 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:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 21, 2011



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/  Robert G. Watson        
|Robert G. Watson,            
|Chief Executive Officer      
|(Principal Executive Officer)
#### Dave CORBIN; Esther Corbin, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 06-1419.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 31, 2006.

Decided: Nov. 2, 2006.

Dave Corbin, Esther Corbin, Appellants Pro se. Kenneth L. Greene, Regina Sherry Moriarty, United States Department of Justice, Tax Division, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

PER CURIAM:

Dave Corbin and Esther Corbin appeal the tax court’s orders dismissing their petition for lack of jurisdiction and denying their motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the tax court. *Corbin v. Comm’r, IRS,*Tax Ct. No. 15414-05 (U.S. Tax Ct. Nov. 28, 2005; Jan. 23, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the *183facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeffrey Aubrey, Appellant.

Submitted March 14, 2011;

decided March 24, 2011

Motion for an extension of the time within which to apply for permission to appeal pursuant to CPL 460.20 granted and motion papers treated as a timely CPL 460.20 application.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3058 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the special diabetes 

programs for Type I diabetes and Indians under that Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 2, 2010 

Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. INOUYE, Mrs. LINCOLN, Mr. HATCH, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. 

BUNNING, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. JOHANNS, Ms. 

MURKOWSKI, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. WARNER, Mr. BARRASSO, and Mr. 

BINGAMAN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the 

special diabetes programs for Type I diabetes and Indians under that Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF SPECIAL DIABETES 

4 PROGRAMS FOR TYPE I DIABETES AND INDI5 ANS. 

6 (a) SPECIAL DIABETES PROGRAMS FOR TYPE I DIA7 BETES.—Section 330B(b)(2) of the Public Health Service 

8 Act (42 U.S.C. 254c–2(b)(2)) is amended— 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3058 IS

1 (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

2 the end; 

3 (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period 

4 at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

5 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(D) $200,000,000 for each of fiscal years 

7 2012 through 2016.’’. 

8 (b) SPECIAL DIABETES PROGRAMS FOR INDIANS.— 

9 Section 330C(c)(2) of the Public Health Service Act (42 

10 U.S.C. 254c–3(c)(2)) is amended— 

11 (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

12 the end; 

13 (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period 

14 at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

15 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

16 ‘‘(D) $200,000,000 for each of fiscal years 

17 2012 through 2016.’’. 

Æ 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS