alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 122 (Friday, June 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 30596]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15122]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; 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: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel; HDM Competitive Revision Applications.
    Date: June 30, 2009.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: InterContinental Harbor Court Baltimore, 550 Light 
Street, Baltimore, MD 21202.
    Contact Person: Karin F. Helmers, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3166, MSC 7770, Bethesda, MD 
20892, 301-435-1017, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6e060b02030b1c1d052e0d1d1c4000070640090118"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="553d3039383027263e153626277b3b3c3d7b323a23">[email protected]</span></a>.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: June 18, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-15122 Filed 6-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### In the Matter of Centerpointe Corporate Park Partnership 350, Respondent, v Mony, Also Known as the MONY Group and Another, et al., Respondents. Broker Alliance Group, Inc., Appellant.

Submitted July 30, 2012;

decided October 30, 2012

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
Exhibit 32(l)

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002











|(1) | The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2008 (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 as of the dates and for the periods presented in the Report.









|/s/ Theodore H. Bunting, Jr.Theodore H. Bunting, Jr. 
Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer of
Entergy New Orleans, Inc.
(acting principal financial officer)
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:	February 27, 2009
EXHIBIT 32.1
------------


                  SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Landauer, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Brent A. Latta, 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:

     i.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
          13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     ii.  The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
          in all material respects, the financial condition and result of
          operations of the Company.



                              /s/  Brent A. Latta
                              ------------------------------------
                              President & Chief Executive Officer


August 12, 2004



[Signed originals of these written statements required by Section 906 have
been provided to Landauer, Inc. and will be retained by Landauer, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.]
#### Grant Captanian, Appellant, v Angela Schramm, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Eugene Delakis, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

[823 NYS2d 217]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schulman, J.), entered September 8, 2005, and September 27, 2005, respectively, which, after a jury trial, and upon the granting of the respective motions of the defendant and third-party plaintiff and the third-party defendant pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint and, in effect, dismissing the complaint and the third-party complaint, respectively, inter alia, dismissed the complaint and the third-party complaint.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The plaintiff helped the defendant and the third-party defendant remove a large limb from a tree on the defendant’s premises. After a small section of the limb was removed, the plaintiff partially severed the remaining segment with a chainsaw. Each of the parties then threw a rope across the limb and, in unison, attempted to pull it down. However, in order to acquire additional leverage, the plaintiff wrapped the rope that he was using around his waist. When the approximately 24-foot long and 2-foot thick limb broke and plummeted to the ground, *835the plaintiff was propelled upward and was struck twice by the descending limb.

The plaintiffs injuries were not caused by an unsafe condition on the defendant’s property, but rather were a direct result of the voluntary actions he undertook to remove the limb (see *Mattes v Joseph,*282 AD2d 506 [2001]). “Under these circumstances, the law imposed no duty on defendant as landowner to protect plaintiff from the unfortunate consequences of his own actions” *(Macey v Truman,*70 NY2d 918, 919 [1987]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the respective motions of the defendant and third-party defendant made at the close of the plaintiffs case pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, there was no rational process by which the jury could have found in his favor *(see Szczerbiak v Pilat,*90 NY2d 553, 556 [1997]; *Friedman v Stauber,*18 AD3d 606, 607 [2005]; *Plass v Solotoff,*5 AD3d 365, 367 [2004]; *Raciti v City of Yonkers,*307 AD2d 309 [2003]). Plorio, J.P, Goldstein, Luciano and Lunn, JJ., concur.
#### Hudson Valley Federal Credit Union, Appellant, v New York State Department of Taxation and Finance et al., Respondents.

Submitted August 6, 2012;

decided August 28, 2012

Motion by Association of Towns of the State of New York et al. for leave to file a brief amici curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 10 copies filed within seven days.

Judge Smith taking no part.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of

INDEPENDENT BANCSHARES, INC.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

(Adopted by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Independent BancShares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Mark A. Imes, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Nicholas J. Panicaro, Chief
Financial 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 as of the dates and for the
periods presented in the financial statements included in such Report.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                      |  |  |  |                         
|------------------------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------
|/s/ Mark A. Imes                      |  |  |  | /s/ Nicholas J. Panicaro
|Mark A. Imes                          |  |  |  | Nicholas J. Panicaro    
|President and Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer 
|                                      |  | 
|Date: November 12, 2008               |  |  |  | Date: November 12, 2008
[880 NYS2d 453]

#### Lex & Third 116th St. Corp., Appellant, v Perfecto Marrero, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

April 27, 2009

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Rapport, Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal,*Forest Hills *(David I.**60*Paul*of counsel), for appellant. *Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison,*New York City *(Robert J. McCallum*of counsel), and *Legal Aid Society,*New York City, for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Final judgment, entered October 1, 2004, affirmed, with $25 costs.

The trial evidence, fairly interpreted, supports the court’s determination that respondent and his family have continuously occupied the subject apartment since before June 30, 1971, and that the apartment is subject to rent control *(see*NY City Rent and Rehabilitation Law [Administrative Code of City of NY] § 26-403 [e] [2] [i] [9]; Rent and Eviction Regulations [9 NYCRR] § 2200.2 [f] [17]; *Matter of Posalski v State of N.Y. Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal, Off. of Rent Admin.,*291 AD2d 327 [2002]). This finding, resting in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of respondent and his witnesses, whose testimony was found by the trial court to be “consistent, believable and supported by the DHCR records,” is entitled to deference on appeal, especially in view of petitioner’s failure to proffer any competent evidence to support its assertion that respondent’s family took occupancy of the subject apartment after the 1971 base date. Since it is not seriously disputed that respondent primarily resided with his father, the tenant of record, for the requisite two-year period immediately prior to his father’s death *(see*Rent and Eviction Regulations [9 NYCRR] § 2204.6 [d]), respondent is entitled to succeed to the rent-controlled tenancy.

That the record tenant acceded to petitioner’s demand that he execute a stabilized lease for what petitioner (mis)represented to be an unregulated apartment some 13 years after the rent-controlled tenancy began, does not negate respondent’s otherwise persuasive showing that his father’s tenancy was rent controlled. A contrary holding would run afoul of the statutory proscription against agreements waiving the benefits of the rent control law *(see*Rent and Eviction Regulations [9 NYCRR] § 2200.15), and ignore the well established principle that “[deregulation of apartments is only ‘available through regular, officially authorized means [and] not by private compact’ ” *(Georgia Props., Inc. v Dalsimer,*39 AD3d 332, 334 [2007], quoting *Draper v Georgia Props.,*94 NY2d 809, 811 [1999]).

*61McKeon, EJ., Schoenfeld and Heitler, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**


**OF
      THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of BreitBurn Energy Partners L.P (the
      “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Randall H. Breitenbach, Co-Chief Executive Officer of BreitBurn GP, LLC, the
      general partner of the Partnership, hereby 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 results of operations of the
      Partnership.





/s/
                RANDALL H. BREITENBACHRandall
                H. Breitenbach*Co-Chief
                Executive Officer of BreitBurn GP,
                LLC*





Dated:
      August 11, 2008
<PAGE>
                                                        Exhibit 99.2


         Report of Independent Accountants on Financial Statement Schedules


To the Board of Directors
of Michael Baker Corporation


Our audits of the consolidated financial statements referred to in our report 
dated February 16, 1996 (except as to Notes 6 and 12, which are as of March 22,
1996), appearing within the Exhibit 13.1 which has been incorporated by 
reference into various items of Michael Baker Corporation's Annual Report on
Form 10-K, also included an audit of the Financial Statements Schedules as of 
and for the years ended December 31, 1995 and 1994, listed in Item 14(a)(2) of
this Form 10-K.  In our opinion, these Financial Statement Schedules present 
fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein when read
in conjunction with the related consolidated financial statements.


/s/ Price Waterhouse LLP
-----------------------
Price Waterhouse LLP
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
February 16, 1996
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350,

as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Jerry M. Kennelly, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
the Quarterly Report of Riverbed Technology, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information
contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Riverbed Technology, Inc.



|                       |  |  |  |                                      
|---------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: October 25, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Jerry M. Kennelly                
|                       |  |  |  | Jerry M. Kennelly                    
|                       |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                       |  |  |  | (Principal Executive Officer)        

I, Randy S. Gottfried, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Riverbed Technology, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Riverbed Technology, Inc.



|                       |  |  |  |                                             
|---------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------
|Date: October 25, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Randy S. Gottfried                      
|                       |  |  |  | Randy S. Gottfried                          
|                       |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer                     
|                       |  |  |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 has been provided to Riverbed Technology, Inc. and will be retained by Riverbed Technology, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to
which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
#### Richland County Bar Association *v.*Wolf.

[Cite as *Richland Cty. Bar Assn. v. Wolf*(1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 476.]

(No. 96-1990

Submitted February 19, 1997

Decided May 21, 1997.)

*478
      *William T. McIntyre,*for relator.

*Charles W. Kettlewell,*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

We have reviewed the record and agree with the findings and conclusions of board. The board has determined that respondent should be sanctioned for his failure to be truthful with the detective investigating the allegations against him. Even though those allegations were based on misleading statements of a former client, respondent was not justified in lying to the detective.

Lying to an investigating officer by an attorney is not acceptable and cannot be justified by the emotional and extenuating circumstances in which respondent found himself. We agree with the recommendation of the board and hereby suspend respondent from the practice of law for six months with the entire suspension stayed. Costs taxed to respondent.

*Judgment accordingly.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.

Cook, J.,

dissenting. Since Sherri Clifton’s divorce was finalized just nine days before the sexual intercourse in respondent’s office, I agree with the relator that Clifton ought to have been considered an “existing” rather than a “former” client for purposes of assessing the gravity of respondent’s disciplinary breach. Moreover, a few days before the incident, Clifton had been a psychiatric in-patient in the Richland Hospital and respondent knew that she was mentally unstable. Considering the above two factors with respondent’s guilty pleas to sexual imposition and falsification, which conduct involves moral turpitude, fraud, and deceit, I would impose at least a six-month suspension and stay no part of it.

Lundberg Stratton, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

February 25, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00705

- CR

Ernesto Esquivel GARCIA

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CR 7806 Honorable Kevin M. O'Connell, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On Febr uary 2 1

, 20 20 , Appellant’s court

- appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders
brief and a motion to withdraw

. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967) ; High v.

State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) . In counsel’s certification to this court, Appellant’s counsel explained that he took the following steps:

• notified Appellant that counsel filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw, and provide d Appellant with a copy of the documents;

• advised Appellant of his right to review the appellate record and file a pro se brief;

• provided Appellant with a pro se motion for access to the appellate record, addressed to the Fourth Court of Appeals, that lacked only Appellant’s dated signature ; and

• advised Appellant of his right to seek discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals if this court determines his appeal is frivolous.

See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 318

– 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Ex parte Owens , 206
S.W.3d 670 , 674 n. 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Meza v. State , 206 S.W.3d 684 , 688

– 89 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

The State filed a letter conditionally waiving its right to file a brief.If Appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we OR DER Appellant to do so within thirty

days of the date of this order

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(a). If Appellant files a pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief not later than thirty days after the date Appellant’s pro se brief
is filed in this court. See id. R. 38.6(b).
If this court determines Appellant’s appeal is frivolous, Appellant may file a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.4. Appellant must file the petition with the Cl erk of the Court of Criminal Appeals within thirty days after this court issues its judgment. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2(a). The petition should be
addressed to Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals, P.O. Box 12308, Austin, Texas 78711.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is held in abeyance pending further order of this court.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 25th day of February, 2020

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz , Clerk of Court