alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

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:*                         Microbiology, Infectious Diseases and AIDS Initial Review Group; Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome Research Review Committee.                    

*Date:*                         July 13, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         DoubleTree Hotel and EMC, 8120 Wisconsin Ave, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Erica L. Brown, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD 20892-7616, 301-451-2639,                         *ebrown@niaid.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

      ( print page 28263)    
Dated: June 8, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-13949 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3443 

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to eliminate the 30- 

day time limit for approving exploration plans. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 27 (legislative day, MAY 26), 2010 

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

referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to eliminate the 30-day time limit for approving exploration 

plans. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXPLORATION PLANS FOR OFFSHORE DRILL4 ING. 

5 Section 11(c)(1) of the Outer Continental Shelf 

6 Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1340(c)(1)) is amended in the 

7 fourth sentence by striking ‘‘within thirty days of its sub8 mission,’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2

      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  Balchem   Corporation  (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Francis
J. Fitzpatrick,  Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer 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 my knowledge:

      (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/ Francis J. Fitzpatrick
                                           Francis J. Fitzpatrick
                                           Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
                                           (Principal Financial and Principal
                                           Accounting Officer)
                                           March 12, 2009

This certification  accompanies the above-described Report on Form 10-K pursuant
to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the
extent  required  by such Act, be deemed  filed by the  Company for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

                                       70
#### In the Matter of Michael Mullamphy, Petitioner, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[976 NYS2d 628]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with using a controlled substance after a sample of his urine twice tested positive for the presence of cannabinoids. He was found guilty of the charge following a tier III disciplinary hearing. The determination was later affirmed on administrative appeal with a modified penalty. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, together with the testimony of the correction officers who collected and tested petitioner’s urine specimen, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Johnson v Fischer,*104 AD3d 1007, 1007 [2013]; *Matter of Hyzer v Fischer,*104 AD3d 983, 983 [2013]). Petitioner seeks to challenge the evidence upon which the determination is based by claiming that he provided two urine specimens, but that only one was used to support the charge. However, this claim was refuted by the collecting officer, who stated that the first specimen had to be discarded because petitioner contaminated it by pouring water in the specimen cup. The conflict in the testimony presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve *(see Matter of Coates v Fischer,*108 AD3d 997, 998 [2013]; *Matter of Turner v Fischer,*93 AD3d 987, 988 [2012], *lv denied*19 NY3d 806 [2012]). Moreover, we find no merit to petitioner’s contention that he was improperly denied a correction officer and a fellow inmate as witnesses, given that their proposed testimony pertained to a collateral matter and was irrelevant to the charge at issue *(see Matter of Blocker v Fischer,*100 AD3d 1118, 1119 [2012], *lv denied*21 NY3d 857 [2013]; *Matter of Mobayed v Fischer,*89 AD3d 1266, 1267 [2011]). Petitioner’s further assertion that he was denied a fair and impartial hearing is unavailing, as there is nothing in the record to indicate that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from any alleged bias *(see Matter of Donahue v Fischer,*98 AD3d 784, 785 [2012]; *1178
      *Matter of Bornstorff v Bezio,*73 AD3d 1397, 1398 [2010]). Petitioner’s remaining arguments have been considered and are either unpreserved for our review or lacking in merit.

Peters, EJ., Stein, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL DATA FROM OUR CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET AT JUNE 30, 2000 AND OUR CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          12,035
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                44,678
<PP&E>                                         109,453
<DEPRECIATION>                                  71,043
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 108,057
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          473,005
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        46,695
<OTHER-SE>                                   (411,643)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   108,057
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               601,551
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,781
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (618,332)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (618,332)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (618,332)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (618,332)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.14)



</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2


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 Applied Minerals, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 1) for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Christopher T. Carney, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1. The Report 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.








Date:   October 7 , 2011
By:
/s/  CHRISTOPHER T. CARNEYChristopher T. CarneyInterim Chief Financial Officer
# The Attorney General ofTexas December 20, 1978 JOHN L. HILL Attorney General Honorable Ron Resech Executive Director Opinion No.H- 1298 Texas Cosmetology Commission llll Rio Grande Austin, Texas 78701 Re: Jurisdiction of the justice of the peace over misdemeanor cases involving violation of the cosmetology law, article 8451a, V.T.C.S. Dear Mr.Resech: Youask: Under the Texas Constitution, and the Code of Criminal Procedure, do the justice of peace courts have jurisdiction over misdemeanor cases involving violations of the Cosmetology Statutes, codified as Article 845la, V.A.C.S.? You indicate that some justices of the peace refuse to accept complaints under this lawclaiming alack ofjurisdiction. Article 5,section 19of the Texas Constitution provides: Justices of the peace shall have jurisdiction in criminal matters of all cases where the penalty or fine to be imposed by law may not be more than for two hundred dollars,
. ... See also Code Crim. Proc. art. 4.11. Section 47(a)ofarticle 845la, V.T.C.S., provides: (a) Any person who violates aprovision of this Act except Section 35 is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is punishable by a fine of not less than $25 nor more than $100. Section 35 provides that a physician who signs a health certificate showing that an applicant isfree from contagious disease when the physician has not

p. 5115Honorable Ron Resech - Page 2 (H-12 98)

conducted a physical examination of the applicant is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable byafine ofnot less than $50nor more than $200. Since the punishment for aviolation ofarticle 845la, V.T.C.S., can not exceed @iOi,tf ” justice courts have jurisdiction over misdemeanor charges brought under
SUMMARY The justice courts have jurisdiction over misdemeanor violatiorq ofthe-Cosmetology Act, article 8451a,V.T.C.S.

APPROVED:

DAVIDM.KENDALL, First Assistant

C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman Opinion Committee jsn

P. 5116
**Exhibit 32.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Michael R. Kramer, Acting Chief Financial Officer of ATS Medical, Inc. (the “Company”), certify,pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities and Exchange Actof 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); andThe information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.Date: August 9, 2007                    /s/  Michael R. Kramer   Name:  Michael R. Kramer   Title:  Chief Financial Officer
- 2939-2
- 2939-1
0738_001
0739_001
#### In the Matter of Allen C. Marra, an Attorney, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner.

[822 NYS2d 808]

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court in 1981. He had practiced in New Jersey where he was admitted in 1967.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey, by order dated April 29, 2005 *(In re Marra,*183 NJ 260, 872 A2d 1050 [2005]), suspended respondent for a period of three years for practicing law while suspended, engaging in deceit or misrepresentation, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Petitioner moves for an order imposing reciprocal discipline *1118
      *(see*22 NYCRR 806.19). Respondent has filed an affidavit setting forth mitigating factors and has appeared before the Court. The facts of the petition are not in dispute and we therefore grant the motion by petitioner for the imposition of reciprocal discipline and suspend respondent for three years, retroactive to April 29, 2005, the date of the suspension in New Jersey.

Cardona, EJ., Spain, Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that petitioner’s motion for reciprocal discipline is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years, effective immediately, retroactive to April 29, 2005, and until further order of this Court; and it is further ordered that, for the period of suspension, respondent is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another; and he is forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission or other public authority, or to give to another an opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice with relation thereto; and it is further ordered that respondent shall comply with the provisions of this Court’s rules regulating the conduct of suspended attorneys *(see*22 NYCRR 806.9).
FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J uly 23, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 10 53 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 5- 00 10 8- CR-J -3 2- MM H UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us LOVARNSO A. WALKER, a.k .a. Sco ot , Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Jul y 23 , 20 09 ) Befo re BARKETT, MARCUS an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s, PER CURI AM: Sy lv iaA. Irvi n, ap po in te d c ou ns el forLov arn so A. W al ke r in th is ap pe al , ha s m ov edto withd raw fro m furth er rep res en ta ti onof t he ap pe ll an t an d fi le d abr ie f pu rs ua ntto And ers v. Ca li fo rn ia , 38 6 U.S. 7 38 , 87 S.Ct . 13 96 , 18 L.Ed.2d

49 3 (1 96 7) . Our i nd ep en de ntrev ie w of t he en ti re re co rdrev eal s tha t co un se l’s as se ss m en t o f th e rel at iv e m eri t o f th e ap pe al is co rrec t. Bec au se in de pe nd en t ex am in at io n o f th e en ti re re co rdrev eal s n o arg uabl e is su es of m eri t, co un se l’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw is GRANTED , andth e d is tri ctco urt's de ci si on reg ard in g t he ex te ntof t he reduc ti on of Walk er’s s en te nc e, pu rs uantto 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 2( c)(2 ), is AFFIRMED .

2
----

----

| a.    | Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures 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 which this report is being prepared; |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| b.    | Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over 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 accepted accounting principles; |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| c. | Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented 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 the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                         |   |
|------------------------------|--------|
|                         |   |   |
| Date:   October 7, 2011 | By:    | /s/   ANDRE ZEITOUN |
|                         |   | Andre Zeitoun |
|                         |   | Chief Executive Officer |

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kevin Coley, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 457]

Judgment Supreme Court, New York County (James A. Yates, J.), rendered on or about January 27, 2005, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice. Concur— Andrias, J.E, Marlow, Nardelli, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.