alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 118 (Monday, June 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 29499]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14507]


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

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; Grand Opportunities (GO) Grants in Human Cancer Proteomics.
    Date: July 21-22, 2009.
    Time: 12 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hilton at Old Town Alexandria, 1767 King Street, 
Alexandria, VA 22314.
    Contact Person: Marvin L. Salin, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Special Review and Logistics Branch, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 6116 Executive 
Boulevard, Room 7073, Bethesda, MD 20892-8329, 301-496-0694, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a5c8d6c4c9cccbe5c8c4ccc98bcbcccd8bc2cad3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fe938d9f929790be939f9792d0909796d0999188">[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: June 12, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-14507 Filed 6-19-09; 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>
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-64,742] 

In accordance with Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on December 19, 2008, in response to a petition filed by a Michigan State Workforce Office on behalf of workers of American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc., Detroit Forge Plant, Detroit, Michigan. 

The worker group is included in an active certification which covers all workers of American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc., Detroit Manufacturing Complex, Detroit, Michigan (TA-W-64,083, amended). 

Therefore, the petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn and the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed in Washington, DC, this 12th day of January 2009. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-1481 Filed 1-23-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PARMINDER SINGH, AKA Ravi Sahani,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-72334

Agency No. A088-734-466

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 6, 2015** 

San Francisco, California

Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Parminder Singh, a native and citizen of India, applied for asylum,

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). 

An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied all relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals

(BIA) affirmed. Singh petitions for review. Because Singh filed his applications

FILED

JUL 10 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
after May 11, 2005, the REAL ID Act applies. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d

1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we

deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supported the BIA’s adverse credibility finding. Singh

submitted two nearly identical affidavits signed by his father and Sarpanch in

support of his applications. The BIA reasonably concluded that the affidavits were

fraudulent because they contained nearly identical language. See Bingxu Jin v.

Holder, 748 F.3d 959, 966 (9th Cir. 2014); Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 745

(9th Cir. 2004) (pre-REAL ID Act case concluding that documents with

questionable genuineness that go to the heart of applicant’s claim may justify

adverse credibility finding). The BIA also did not err in discounting Singh’s

credibility by relying on the fact that Singh submitted the affidavits. Singh’s

testimony indicates that he had reason to know the documents were fraudulent. 

See Khadka v. Holder, 618 F.3d 996, 1000–01 (9th Cir. 2010); cf. Yeimane-Berhe

v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 907, 911–12 (9th Cir. 2004).

Singh’s inconsistent testimony about the affidavits is also substantial

evidence for the BIA’s decision. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1043–47. Singh

testified extensively about his knowledge of two nearly identical affidavits signed

2
by his father and Sarpanch, and later disclaimed all knowledge about the affidavits

when asked about their similarity. 

The BIA did not err in determining that, absent Singh’s testimony, the

record does not sustain his burden to show he is eligible for asylum. See Deloso v.

Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 858, 863–64 (9th Cir. 2005). For the same reason, substantial

evidence supported the BIA’s denial of Singh’s claim for withholding of removal. 

See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006). Nor did the BIA err

in concluding, based on the record without Singh’s testimony, that Singh failed to

sustain his burden to show eligibility for relief under CAT. See Farah v. Ashcroft,

348 F.3d 1153, 1156–57 (9th Cir. 2003).

PETITION DENIED.

3
#### Liberty Square Realty Corp., Appellant, v The Doe Fund, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Submitted July 2, 2012;

decided September 6, 2012

Motion to vacate this Court’s June 4, 2012 dismissal order denied *[see*19 NY3d 956 (2012)].

Judge Ciparick taking no part.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-20-00023-CV

Luis Enrique Guevara

v.

Amado Gamboa

On Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 5 of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2018-CCL-00152

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

February 25, 2021
For Immediate Release Media Contact: Michael Odle 

 (202) 632-1599 

NIGC revises Draft Consultation Policy to streamline process 

 Feb., 21, 2013 – Today, the National Indian Gaming Commission released 

 revised draft Consultation Policy in an effort to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of 

many Federal agencies,” said NIGC Chairwoman Tracie 

tevens. “We want to maximize the benefit of consultation with tribes while remaining 

n process and adopts appropriate guidelines 

om the Department of the Interior’s Consultation Policy, while retaining those necessary to 

 to expect and to hold us to 

ose expectations when consulting with the NIGC.” 

for tribes 

WASHINGTON,

a

the tribal consultation process. The NIGC has scheduled two consultation dates in March to 

accept comment on the new draft. 

“We know that tribes consult with 

S

mindful of tribal resources.” 

The new Draft Policy streamlines the consultatio

fr

maintaining the unique relationship between the NIGC and tribes. 

Chairwoman Stevens further added, “We want tribes to know what

th

The National Indian Gaming Commission is committed to the prompt and efficient regulation of 

the Indian gaming industry spanning more than 420 gaming establishments, associated with 

nearly 240 tribes across 28 states. The Commission’s dedication to compliance with the Indian 

Gaming Regulatory Act ensures the integrity of the $27 billion Indian gaming industry. Visit

website at 

 our 

www.nigc.gov for additional information. 

### 

The NIGC is an independent regulatory agenc lished within the Department of the Interior 

pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988.

y estab
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Benjamin Jenkins, Appellant.

Submitted September 3, 2013;

decided September 12, 2013

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Steven Banks, Esq., The Legal Aid Society, 199 Water Street, New York, NY 10038 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 381 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 381

 Recognizing the REALTORS Land Institute on the occasion of its 75th 
                              anniversary.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 14, 2019

  Mr. Peterson (for himself and Mr. Crawford) submitted the following 
 resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Recognizing the REALTORS Land Institute on the occasion of its 75th 
                              anniversary.

Whereas, in 1944, the REALTORS Land Institute was founded by 20 land 
        specialists who met at the Drake Hotel in Chicago, Illinois, to 
        establish a national organization that would provide education, 
        information, marketing opportunities, and broker networking to enhance 
        the ability of their members to conduct business as recognized 
        professional land use specialists and, through collective action, 
        preserve private property rights;
Whereas, as of 2019, the REALTORS Land Institute has been an affiliate of the 
        National Association of REALTORS for 75 years;
Whereas, in 2019, the REALTORS Land Institute celebrates 75 years of serving 
        land owners, users, and realtors throughout the United States and 
        Canada;
Whereas the members of the REALTORS Land Institute have developed international 
        marketing capabilities and networks throughout the world;
Whereas the REALTORS Land Institute is comprised of members who subscribe to a 
        strict code of ethics and to just and equitable principles in real 
        estate transactions;
Whereas the REALTORS Land Institute encourages continuing education and rewards 
        members who complete an extensive education program and service to the 
        land industry with a national designation of Accredited Land Consultant 
        (commonly known as ``ALC''); and
Whereas the REALTORS Land Institute is a national professional trade 
        association, dedicated to advancing the effective use of the most 
        precious commodity in the United States, land: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes the REALTORS Land Institute on the occasion 
        of its 75th anniversary; and
            (2) respectfully requests that the Clerk of the House of 
        Representatives transmit a copy of this resolution to the 
        REALTORS Land Institute.
                                 <all>
```
#### Potts *v.*Accident Ins. Co. of North America.

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

July 18, 1888.)

Courts—Federal—Following State Practice — Distinction between Actions at Law and in Equity.

An,action removed to and tried in the United States circuit court in a state wherein the distinctions between actions at law and suits in equity are to some extent obliterated, must be governed by the practice of the trial court, and, plaintiff's action being at law founded on fraudulent misrepresentations insufficient to recover on at law, but for which equity would grant relief upon a complaint properly framed, must be determined by the principles of the common law, although in the courts of the state he might have had relief in said action.

At Law. Application for reargument of motion for new trial.

*567
      *D.*O’Brien, for plaintiff.

*N. 0. Moak,*for defendant.

'Wallace, J.

It is undoubtedly true that courts of equity act upon misrepresentations of fact, and sometimes of law, as a ground for annulling contracts, when courts of law would treat the misrepresentation as innoxious. In other words, as slated by Mr. Pomeroy, (2 Pom. Eq. Jur. § 885:) ‘‘Whatever would be fraudulent at law will be in equity. But the equitable doctrine goes further, and includes instances of fraudulent misrepresentation which do not exist in the law. ” But the plaintiff cannot invoke this doctrine in the present case, because the action in which he seeks to avail himself of the misrepresentations of the defendant to avoid the effect of his release is at law, and not in equity If the suit had been tried in the state court, where the distinctions between legal and equitable actions are in some respects obliterated, instead of in this court, whore it came by removal, it might perhaps have been treated as an action in equity; but in this court the complaint, as framed, does not present a case of equitable cognizance, *(Buzard*v. *Houston,*119 U. S. 347, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 249,) and, having been tried as a case at law, must be determined by the rules of the common law, and not by the principles of equity. *Montejo*v. *Owen,*14 Blatchf. 324; *Manufacturing Co.*v. *Tube-Works Co.,*15 Blatchf. 432. The application for a reargumont of the motion for a new trial is denied.
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-40961 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. CARLOS JAVIER CABRERA-ORELLANA, Defendant-Appellant

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:12-CR-386-1
Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Carlos Javier Cabrera-Orellana appeals his w i t h i n - g u i d e l i n e s s e n t e n c e f or illegal reentry after a n aggravated felony conviction. He challenges the imposition of t he 16-level e nhancement under U.S. S .G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) based

on h is prior Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation with intent to commit theft. According t o Cabrera-Orellana, the Texas statutory definition of “owner” of a habitation, which includes a person who has “a g reater right to possession of the property than th e a c t o r , ” makes the statute b roader than the generic U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D April 15, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-40961 Document: 00512208757 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/15/2013No. 12-40961

definition of burglary of a dwelling. Cabrera-Orellana’s argument i s foreclosed. See United States v. Morales-Mota , 704 F.3d 4 10, 412 (5th Cir

. 2 0 1 3 ). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. T he G overnment’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED as moot.

2 Case: 12-40961 Document: 00512208757 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/15/2013
• RECEIVED IN The •'.•':iiirt of Appeals Sixth District JUL 0 9 2015
• Texarkana, Texas * Debra Autrey, Clerk Mr: JUL 14 2015 Abel Acosta, Clerk '0«XUj^%^%IJC COWT OFCR,MIWupPEALS 

### Tivk iMtt^fbrQydtUj |^ Q^ +|^-^^t JUL U 2015 Abel Acosta, Clerk

### tk^p^W^c u<^ months \At \^iL PiHridX 

## ^tfwfui^v oii, <bdua ioK pa or+o -rkij rt(| to^ m. 

### c^fnuilM iu^c^wL ikTk^Tu.w ^trUuu^ of

### P^-U«L-W O'.iX^tjk^ ^ujiwlwdt 11136 PvtiWtf, r CO $V $Hl Ttw QT4
**EXHIBIT 10 (d)**

**THE BLACK & DECKER1992 STOCK OPTION PLAN**

        Theproper execution of the duties and responsibilities of the executives and other keyemployees of The Black & Decker Corporation and its subsidiaries is a vitalfactor in the continued growth and success of the Corporation. Toward this end, it isnecessary to attract and retain effective and capable employees to assume positions thatcontribute materially to the successful operation of the business of the Corporation. Itwill benefit the Corporation, therefore, to bind the interests of these persons moreclosely to its own interests by offering them an attractive opportunity to acquire aproprietary interest in the Corporation and thereby provide them with added incentive toremain in its employ and to increase the prosperity, growth, and earnings of theCorporation. This stock option plan will serve these purposes. 

ARTICLE 1:00 

Definitions 

        Thefollowing terms wherever used herein shall have the meanings set forth below.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- FastVDO LLC Under Contract No. N00014-03-C-0350 APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: ) ) ) ) ) ASBCA No. 60646

Daniel J. Strouse, Esq. Andrew J. Mohr, Esq.

Cohen Mohr LLP Washington, DC APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq. DCMA ChiefTrial Attorney Alexander M. Healy, Esq.

Trial Attorney Defense Contract Management Agency Boston, MA ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute which is the subject ofthe appeal having been settled, the appeal is hereby dismissed with prejudice subject to reinstatement only in the event the settlement is not consummated. Any request to reinstate the subject appeal must be filed within 90 days ofthe date ofthis Order. Dated: 17 October 2016 

# ;/**/~?**

# (/_
.**Lfy;~/,,** MARK N. STEMP Administrative Judge Acting Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract AppealsI certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 60646, Appeal ofFastVDO LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

2 JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
exhibit10-14.htm


Exhibit 10.14












SECOND AMENDMENT TO SOFTWARE SUPPLY AND LICENSE AGREEMENT







This SECOND AMENDMENT TO SOFTWARE SUPPLY AND LICENSE AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is effective as of the 30th day of June, 2013 between Triton Distribution Systems, Inc., a Colorado corporation with offices at 105 Barbaree Way, Tiburon, CA  94920 (“Triton”), and Privileged World Travel Club, Inc., a Delaware corporation, (“Privileged”), having offices at 1 Blackfield Drive, Tiburon, California 94920.







RECITALS








	
a.  

	
Triton and Privileged entered into the Software Supply and License Agreement dated as of August 21, 2012 (the “Prior Agreement”).








	
b.  

	
Pursuant to the Prior Agreement, Privileged was required to pay to Triton a license fee of $150,000 (the “License Fee”) within fifteen days of the date of the Prior Agreement, and pay a Royalty Fee of $2,000,000 on the annual anniversary of the Prior Agreement.








	
c.  

	
Triton has previously agreed to amend this License Agreement (the “First Amendment”) to permit Privileged to defer payment of the License Fee until January 31, 2013.








	
d.  

	
Triton and Privileged have agreed to amend the Prior Agreement again as set forth in this Agreement.












AGREEMENT







In consideration of the mutual promises herein set forth and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound hereby, agree as follows:







Section 6 of the Prior Agreement, as previously amended by the First Amendment, is hereby further amended to read as follows:







6.      Payments and Fees.







6.1                License Fee.  In consideration of the grant of the license of the Licensed Software hereunder, Privileged shall pay to Triton, not later than July 31, 2013, the sum of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000), as a one-time license fee (the “License Fee”) for the Licensed Software.







6.2                 Royalty Fees.  On an ongoing basis, and for the Term of this Agreement, Privileged shall pay to Triton an annual royalty payment (the “Royalty Fee”) of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000), beginning on the earlier of (a) the date on which Privileged has a gross profit from operations of at least Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000), or (b) the date on which Privileged has received equity investments of at least Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000).







6.3                 Payment Terms.  The date on which either 6.2(a) or 6.2(b) above are met shall be deemed to be the “Royalty Payment Date,” and the Royalty Fee shall thereafter be paid on the annual anniversary of such Royalty Payment Date; provided, however, that Privileged may prepay all or any portion of the annual Royalty Fee in its discretion.














 



	 PRIVILEGED WORLD TRAVEL CLUB, INC. 	 TRITON DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS, INC.
	 (formerly APEX 4, Inc.)	 
	 	 
	 	 
	 	 
	 Signature: /s/ Gregory Lykiardopoulos	 Signature: /s/ Gregory Lykiardopoulos
	 Print Name: Gregory Lykiardopoulos 	 Print Name: Gregory Lykiardopoulos
	 Title: President, CEO, Chairman of the Board 	 Title: Chairman, CEO
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sentry Petroleum Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended November 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Alan Hart, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 14th day of January, 2008.

BY:
/s/ ALAN HART                        Alan  Hart, Principal Executive Officer **