alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### **  Archived Content

The National Institute of Mental Health archives materials that are over 4 years old and no longer being updated. The content on this page is provided for historical reference purposes only and may not reflect current knowledge or information.

# The NIMH Director’s Innovation Speaker Series: Decision-Making and Computational Psychiatry: An Explanatory and Pragmatic Perspective

### ** Date      

### ** Location

**Sponsored by:**

NIMH Division of Extramural Activities

On November 12, Dr. Martin Paulus, Scientific Director and President of the Laureate Institute for Brain Research (LIBR) in Tulsa, Oklahoma, was the guest speaker in the NIMH Director’s Innovation Speaker Series, which focuses on innovation, invention, and scientific discovery.

Dr. Paulus discussed whether computational approaches to psychiatry – using computer models to describe the relationship between the brain's neurobiology, its environment, and mental symptoms – can be useful to better develop and rigorously test an explanatory basis for mental disorders. His research examines how to use neuroscience-based measurements to identify modifiable treatment targets and generate valid predictions that can be useful for clinicians.

Being able to understand whether an action leads to an outcome by chance, or because of statistical regularity, profoundly affects how well people can adapt their behavior to their environment. Prior studies have shown that people with anxiety may not appropriately differentiate between these situations. Dr. Paulus' research demonstrates that the inability to discriminate between chance and causality, and how this affects behavior may contribute to symptom maintenance and/or worsening. This may be an important factor underlying anxiety disorders and potentially lead to the development of improved treatments.

Dr. Paulus is the Deputy Editor of JAMA Psychiatry and serves on several editorial boards of top-tier psychiatric journals. He has served on numerous NIH and international study sections. At LIBR, Dr. Paulus focuses on using neuroscience approaches to develop better assessments for diagnosis and prognosis of mental health problems and to develop novel interventions based on an increased understanding of the underlying neuroscience.

**Background**

NIMH established the Director’s Innovation Speaker Series to encourage broad, interdisciplinary thinking in the development of scientific initiatives and programs, and to press for theoretical leaps in science over the continuation of incremental thinking. Innovation speakers are encouraged to describe their work from the perspective of breaking through existing boundaries and developing successful new ideas, as well as working outside their initial area of expertise in ways that have pushed their fields forward. We encourage discussions of the meaning of innovation, creativity, breakthroughs, and paradigm-shifting.   

**Recording**

Watch the recording.
No. 5044.

(Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans.)

#### IN RE CHAS. M. HERO vs. CONSUMERS’ LUMBER MANUFACTURING AND EXPORT COMPANY.

W. S. Hero for plaintiff and appellant.

Dart & Kernan for defendant and appellee.

*446May 30, 1910.

DUFOUR, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment on a rule to tax cost amounting to $49 stenographers’ fees and $250 expert fees in a case within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and which has been passed upon by that Court in the matter of the appointment of a receiver.

Hero vs. Company, 123 La. 361.

The judgment was rendered by the Supreme Court and that court alone is vested with jurisdiction of a rule to tax costs in its own judgments.

107 La. 70.

It is, therefoi e, ordered, adjudged and decreed that this appeal be transferred to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana, upon the appellant or his attorney of recoid making out and filing with the Clerk of this court on or before the fourth day of June, 1910, his affidavit that the appeal herein was not made for purposes of delay, and further, upon the said appellant lodging with the Clerk of the Supreme Court of this State on or before the twentieth day of June, 1910, a full and complete transcript of this case made and certified to in the manner and form required by the rules of' the Supreme Court for transcripts in appeals taken directly to that court, together with a certified copy of this decree and the affidavit herein referred to, all costs incurred in this court to be taxed against the appellant.
Exhibit 32.1  Certification  Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned hereby certifies that:  (1) I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P. (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;  (2) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (3) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P.  By:Inland Real Estate Investment CorporationGeneral PartnerBy:/s/ Brenda G. GujralName:Brenda G. GujralTitle:President of the General Partner andprincipal executive officer of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P.Date:May 13, 2008
FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 07/10/2015 9:00:31 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 3(b)

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                       of

                  SECOND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                                       of

                          BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION

             Pursuant to Section 242 of the General Corporation Law
                            of the State of Delaware


     BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION, a corporation organized and existing under the
General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (herein sometimes called the
"Corporation"), hereby certifies as follows:

     I.  The amendment to the Corporation's Second Restated Certificate of
Incorporation, set forth below, was approved by the Corporation's Board of
Directors and stockholders and duly adopted in accordance with the provisions of
Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

     II.  The Second Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation is
hereby amended by amending the first paragraph of Article Fourth thereof to read
in full as follows:

     FOURTH.   The total number of shares of all classes of stock which the
Corporation shall have authority to issue is two hundred ninety million
(290,000,000), of which (i) twenty million (20,000,000) shares are to be
Preferred Stock (hereinafter called the "Preferred Stock"), of the par value of
one dollar ($1) each; (ii) twenty million (20,000,000) shares are to be
Preference Stock (hereinafter called the "Preference Stock"), of the par value
of one dollar ($1) each; and (iii) two hundred fifty million (250,000,000)
shares are to be Common Stock (hereinafter called the "Common Stock"), of the
par value of one dollar ($1) each.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Bethlehem Steel Corporation has caused this Certificate
of Amendment to be signed by a duly authorized officer, this 30th day of June,
1995.



                                         BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION,
                                          by


                                         /s/ Curtis H. Barnette
                                         Curtis H. Barnette
                                         Chairman
Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Forms S-3(Nos. 333-45223, 333-90468, and 333-110094), Forms S-3/A(Nos. 33-51117 and 333-110094), and Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-03611, 333-18057, 333-75924, 333-75922, 333-75920, and 333-118767) of Bausch & Lomb Incorporated of our report dated March 8, 2005 relating to the financial statements, management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 23

- 0554

_________________ GARY TAYLOR,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v. GEORGE ANTHONY TAYLOR and ANNE MARIE TAYLOR,

Defendants and Appellees. O R D E R

__ _______________ This Court reviews briefs to ensure compliance with Rules 11 and 12 of the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure. After reviewing the Appellee ’ s response brief filed electronically on April 11, 2024 , this Court has determined that the brief does not comply with the below

-referenced Rule s and must be resubmitted. M. R. App. P. 12(1)(d) requires that the statement of the facts contained in the brief reference the pages or parts of the record at which material facts appear. Appellee 's statement of the facts cites only sporadically, and insufficiently, to the record. M. R. App. P. 12(1)(f) requires a summary of the argument before the argument portion of the brief. The summary of the argument should include a heading identifying it
as a separate section. The summary should be a clear and concise statement of the arguments made in the body of the brief. Appellee ’ s brief does not contain a summary of the argument

. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the referenced brief is rejected. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within ten (10) days of the date of this Order the App ellee shall electronically file with the Clerk of this Court a revised brief containing the revisions necessary to comply with the specified R ule s and that the Appellee shall serve copies of the revised brief on all parties of record; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no changes, additions , or deletions other than 04/12/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0554those specified in this Order may be made to the brief as originally filed; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the times for any subsequent briefing contained in M. R. App. P. 13 shall run from the date of filing of the revised brief. The Clerk is directed to provide a true copy of this Order to the Appellee and to all parties of record.

Electronically signed by: Dirk Sandefur Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 12 2024
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                            3755
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  3755
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    3755
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            37849
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      13453
<COMMON>                                         62937
<OTHER-SE>                                     (34094)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      3755
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                             8484
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     8484
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (611924)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (620408)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (620408)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (620408)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (620408)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.98)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.98)


</TABLE>
97-165.

#### Matthews v. Huffman.

In Habeas Corpus. *Sua sponte,*cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 23.1





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-169972) and Form S-3 (No. 333-170887) of Art’s-Way Manufacturing Co., Inc. of our report dated February22, 2011, related to the consolidated financial statements for the years ended November 30, 2010 and 2009, which appears in Art’s-Way Manufacturing Co., Inc.’s annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2010.





/s/ Eide Bailly LLP





Minneapolis, Minnesota


February 22, 2011
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Walter Roache, Appellant, v Donald Sawyer, Executive Director of Central New York Psychiatric Center, Respondent.

[977 NYS2d 664]

Motion for reargument denied. (Appeal from Judgment [denominated order] of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Bernadette T. Clark, J. — Habeas Corpus). Present — Scudder, PJ., Fahey, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3539 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to establish a grant 

program to assist in the restoration of San Francisco Bay. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 25, 2010 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. BOXER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to establish a grant program to assist in the restoration of 

San Francisco Bay. 

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 ‘‘San Francisco Bay 

5 Restoration Act’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3539 IS

1 SEC. 2. SAN FRANCISCO BAY RESTORATION GRANT PRO2 GRAM. 

3 Title I of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

4 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 

5 the following: 

6 ‘‘SEC. 123. SAN FRANCISCO BAY RESTORATION GRANT PRO7 GRAM. 

8 ‘‘(a) GRANT PROGRAM.— 

9 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator may 

10 provide grants to State and local agencies, and pub11 lic or nonprofit agencies, institutions, and organiza12 tions, for ecosystem restoration projects and habitat 

13 improvement for fish, waterfowl, and wildlife, in ac14 cordance with the priorities described in the com15 prehensive management plan for the San Francisco 

16 estuary developed under section 320. 

17 ‘‘(2) MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF GRANTS; NON-FED18 ERAL SHARE.— 

19 ‘‘(A) MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF GRANTS.—A 

20 grant provided to any individual or entity under 

21 this section for a fiscal year shall not exceed an 

22 amount equal to 50 percent of the total cost of 

23 eligible activities that are to be carried out 

24 using funds from the grant. 

25 ‘‘(B) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non26 Federal share of the total cost of any eligible 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3539 IS

1 activities that are carried out using funds from 

2 a grant provided under this section shall be— 

3 ‘‘(i) not less than 50 percent; and 

4 ‘‘(ii) provided from non-Federal 

5 sources. 

6 ‘‘(b) FUNDING.— 

7 ‘‘(1) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 

8 There are authorized to be appropriated to the Ad9 ministrator to carry out this section such sums as 

10 are necessary for each of fiscal years 2011 through 

11 2020. 

12 ‘‘(2) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.—Of the 

13 amount made available to carry out this section for 

14 a fiscal year, the Administrator shall use not more 

15 than 5 percent to pay administrative expenses in16 curred in carrying out this section.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Diaz, Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 670]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (William McGuire, J.), rendered March 11, 2011, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of operating *424a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, and sentencing him to a conditional discharge and a $500 fine, unanimously affirmed.

Since defendant never moved to withdraw his guilty plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, his challenge to the voluntariness of his plea is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice (see *People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]). The narrow exception to the preservation rule is not applicable because nothing in the plea allocution casts doubt on defendant’s guilt *(see id,.).*As an alternative holding, we find, based on all the relevant circumstances, that defendant entered into his plea knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently *(see People v Nyarko,*93 AD3d 555 [1st Dept 2012], *lv denied*19 NY3d 965 [2012]).

In any event, the only relief defendant requests is a dismissal of the information, and he expressly requests this Court to affirm his conviction if it does not grant a dismissal. Since dismissal is not warranted, we affirm on this basis as well (see *People v Schweitzer,*83 AD3d 503 [1st Dept 2011], *lv denied*17 NY3d 800 [2011]). Concur — Andrias, J.E, Acosta, Moskowitz, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3435 

To amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act to revise the definition of the 

term ‘‘adulterated’’ to include contamination with E. coli. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 27 (legislative day, MAY 26), 2010 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act to revise the 

definition of the term ‘‘adulterated’’ to include contamination with E. coli. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DEFINITION OF ADULTERATED. 

4 Section 1(m) of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 

5 U.S.C. 601(m)) is amended— 

6 (1) in paragraph (8), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the 

7 end; 

8 (2) in paragraph (9), by striking the period at 

9 the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

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


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3435 IS

1 ‘‘(10) if it is contaminated with 

2 enterohemorrhagic (EHEC) Shiga toxin-producing 

3 serotypes of Escherichia coli (E. coli).’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#     All Disorders  

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPRSTVWZ
View All

## B

Back Pain

Behcet's Disease

Bell's Palsy

Benign Essential Blepharospasm

Binswanger's Disease

Birth Disorders of the Brain and Spinal Cord

Brachial Plexus Injury

Brain and Spinal Cord Tumors

Brown-Sequard Syndrome
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 State

          - [Public Notice 6635]

*Summary:*                     This notice announces a meeting of the International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) to prepare for the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Regional Preparatory Meeting for the World Telecommunication Development Conference.                

The ITAC will meet to begin preparation of advice for the U.S. government for the ITU Regional Preparatory Meeting for the World Telecommunication Development Conference, which will be held from August 13-25, 2009 in Lima, Peru. There will also be reports on recent developments in the ITU, OECD, and CITEL.

                    The ITAC will meet on July 7,2009 at 1120 20th Street, NW., 10th floor, Washington, DC 20036. This meeting is open to the public as seating capacity allows. The public will have an opportunity to provide comments at this meeting. Those desiring further information on these meeting may contact the Secretariat at                     *jillsonad@state.gov*                     or at 202-647-7847.                

      ( print page 29530)    
Dated: June 15, 2009.

Cecily C. Holiday,

International Communications & Information Policy, Department of State.

[FR Doc. E9-14611 Filed 6-19-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-07-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Enos A. WILKERSON, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 06-6202.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 15, 2006.

Decided: June 20, 2006.

Enos A. Wilkerson, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

PER CURIAM:

Enos A. Wilkerson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wilkerson has not made the requisite showing.* Accordingly, we deny Wilkerson’s motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*

*

 We decline to consider Wilkerson’s claims asserted for the first time in this appeal. *Muth v. United States,*1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). To the extent Wilkerson preserved his claim of error under *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), by including it in a motion to amend below, he is not entitled to relief because we have held that *Booker*is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. *United States v. Morris,*429 F.3d 65, 72 (4th Cir. 2005).