alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# National Institute of Mental Health: Celebrating 75 Years

      - Download PDF
      - 

This booklet provides an overview of NIMH’s 75-year history, charting a timeline of key events and major research programs and public health initiatives. The timeline includes a selection of pivotal discoveries made by NIMH researchers and grantees, many of whom have received Nobel Prizes, Lasker Awards, and other accolades for their groundbreaking scientific achievements. The timeline also tracks NIMH’s evolving research priorities and efforts to balance basic research with translational work to advance treatments for mental disorders and address mental health disparities.

- **Download and read the booklet** 

## Reprints

The information in this publication is in the public domain and may be reused or copied without permission. However, you may not reuse or copy images. Please cite the National Institute of Mental Health as the source. Read our copyright policy to learn more about our guidelines for reusing NIMH content.
Exhibit 21.1



Subsidiaries of the Registrants





|Blue Ridge Real Estate Company Subsidiaries | Jurisdiction of Incorporation/ Formation
|------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------
|                                            |                                         
|1.
Northeast Land Company                   | Pennsylvania                            
|2.
Jack Frost Mountain Company              | Pennsylvania                            
|3.
BRRE Holdings, Inc.                      | Delaware                                
|4.
Boulder Creek Resort Company             | Pennsylvania                            
|5.
Moseywood Construction Company           | Pennsylvania                            
|6.
Jack Frost National Golf Course, Inc.    | Pennsylvania                            
|7.
Coursey Commons Shopping Center, LLC     | Louisiana                               
|8.
Coursey Creek, LLC                       | Louisiana                               
|9.
Cobble Creek, LLC                        | Louisiana                               
|10.
Blue Ridge Acquisition Company          | Pennsylvania                            
|11.
Flower Fields Motel, LLC                | Pennsylvania                            
|12.
Blue Ridge WMN, LLC                     | Minnesota                               
|13.
Blue Ridge WNJ, LLC                     | New Jersey                              
|                                            |                                         
|Big Boulder Corporation Subsidiaries        | Jurisdiction of Incorporation/ Formation
|                                            |                                         
|1.
Lake Mountain Company                    | Pennsylvania                            
|2.
BBC Holdings, Inc.                       | Delaware                                
|3.
Big Boulder Lodge, Inc.                  | Pennsylvania
**NUMBER 13-14-00136-CR**

**COURT OF APPEALS**

**THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS**

**CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG**

**Joe Torres,Appellant,**

**v.**

**The State of Texas,Appellee.**

**On appeal from the 28th District Court**

**of Nueces County, Texas.**

**O R D E R**

**Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Perkes**

**Order Per Curiam**

Appellant, Joe Torres, has filed a notice of appeal with this Court from his conviction in trial court cause number 12-CR-4051-A. The trial court’s certification of the defendant’s right to appeal shows that the defendant does not have the right to appeal.  *See*Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2).  The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing that a defendant has a right of appeal is not made a part of the record.  Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d);*see* Tex. R. App. P. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4.

Within thirty days of receipt of this notice, appellant’s lead appellate counsel, Steve Schiwetz, is hereby ORDERED to: 1) review the record; 2) determine whether appellant has a right to appeal; and 3) forward to this****Court, by letter, counsel’s findings as to whether appellant has a right to appeal and/or advise this Court as to the existence of any amended certification. 

If appellant’s counsel determines that appellant has a right to appeal, counsel is further ORDERED to file a motion with this Court within thirty days of receipt of this notice, identifying and explaining substantive reasons why appellant has a right to appeal.  *See*Tex. R. App. P. 44.3, 44.4; *see also, e.g., Carroll v. State,*No. 04-03-00473-CR, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 7317 (San Antonio 2003, no pet.) (designated for publication) (certification form provided in appendix to appellate rules may be modified to reflect that defendant has right of appeal under circumstances not addressed by the form).  The motion must include an analysis of the applicable case law, and any factual allegations therein must be true and supported by the record.  *Cf. Woods v. State,*108 S.W.3d 314, 316 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (construing former appellate rule 25.2(b)(3) and holding that recitations in the notice of appeal must be true and supported by the record).  Copies of record documents necessary to evaluate the alleged error in the certification affecting appellant’s right to appeal shall be attached to the motion.  *See*Tex. R. App. P. 10.1, 10.2.

 PER CURIAM

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 3rd day of March 2014.

2
f*7«/5„

mretwAt

Court" of OlxtpwaaI #FPsafa

fltgrtfa "TSkas

CLaW^w Fflci?l likUA^ RECEIVED IN ' • nuTTlQMy La<U LLteV\<*gTBM COURT OF CR«LAPPCALS

VZSl

-JOL 14 2015

Tf"\F S^Mp. rrP TpKfl-3 •• -AbeS Acosta, C8erk

ffpfrgltgg ' FILED IN

ffifPEff J£d -fltoh T^E

suf** ^u^itryrL T)t'ste(ctr

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

JUL 14 ZU13 ^~~

rtaifcfr Gouijte,!1e£k Abel Acosta-Cierk

"TlFe rtoipg^gj"KktkBg.iio& £*8dM&s

^Pt^htTQ/O •Po<LfDlSg-^gtTo»v^<tLi ^RgUlga

^Pto *SE fcforna <rf2uSbas

iSOlJfeu^5oa

T^EfeOdte.Tgfrfr 7ff/a£~
ItfRfe pP CoAJteAjte

J-^ie^' oP ^othcgits^ j ^Jul

: = : . : S_

. i—

'Steteme^t7 ^g^orf/u^ Oval /feywig*^ <% 3-y.
of A £QMvJ\dr?o<o -tVtarb* qjas i/SBa -fa Ta)^aj£f ff/^

fj^Pi^tfr idr^xiT j ; , j

H^yPK. -.-fig, ^dierP

flR*pEKvi(£

4X

•\

—\-
2d*Ask o-F fluifavL\Xias

er&mH j rnettsjlQvcf: st-i us. 83, ire Ts.gr" //q</

gUCS vJ State ; 9££ .^.uj,.3d«' 194,, (34

(>JfeW^w uTskjs*' 3fr? as. /*fjiq,?7 3:117

TEkflS K<uteS oP CfZimiMfti hQ.Oce^pfe/ZB

TTcP'^uib : g>?>oo.

Tfof?' °guitE : 3 8., 33

TCcy^tiiUrr W,a

cu
J_uuc/gte O^ 'l5€do^<]Vk^tr^ Geud&ut&t.l

TKfi riofjQQi^Bl^ T5uC/gg

KfithsOJMS &f&j«J®sS

oiV^ VijzlLCJtl T)<Zl¥ic*~

fool f^A^Kl>o;^ r7<K?ft

t^sfe/O;TFfcds ^?om

^Dish^l^tr Attache, /t>g-^tk> ^StafelSt(\g e/efehefc.

iQioi PEAMia.^ , ^ p/ow

H-QH^fp^?11iQ^ 7-^QO^

^/ftofl. 53SH9-

Vfaxi^^TSas 'j&QS3l

(SO
•febi Huwctoj;, &*** Float'

fex-grtorQ .Tbj^s y?QQ5L

ftadsjad jisar niot>q __^

TDd^** i^wx

d&fty rtu/n oLoq

<=&^&oiU^JTgBep- 7^/QX

( )0o D£fll -ftfcymfrfat- ^R<feg^ft5^) __ :

"ShrtenSsivffc" o£lte £W

f3)
^jhtidAK ^Kt^L^go^^7 -ftcdK^^ fe(LQK)ious> £ofcygA/g^ AmO/

pyffc AcT)B-^/c< OJWpo/0 o^ t3g>Ajc^LM ¥* QoB-

^^omAhJ^ThdAj^ \dLi&/ /JO ff/6tjd/L& rx l&GLK •4-'?/go/-
July 28, 1975 

The Honorable Kenneth W. Cook 

Administrator 

Alcoholic Beverage Commission 

P. 0. Box 13127, Capitol Station 

Austin, Texas 78711 

Dear Mr. Cook: 

Opinion No. H- 650 

Re: Effect of Administrative 

Procedure Act on subpoena power of the Alcoholic 

Beverage Commission. 

You have requested our opinion concerning the effect of the Administrative 

Procedure and Texas Register Act, Acts 1975, 64th Leg., ch. 61. p. 136, on 

the subpoena power of the Alcoholic Beverage Commission. 

Article 666-7, Penal Auxiliary Laws, provides in part: 

The Board. , . shall. . . have power to issue 

subpoenas. . . . 

. . . 

,Subpoenas shall be served . , . as in civil 

cases in the District Court in the county to which 

such witness shall be called. 

Section 22 of the Administrative Procedure and Texas Register Act provides 

in part: 

This Act does not repeal any existing statutory 

provisions conferring investigatory authority 

on any agency, including any provision which 

grants an agency the power, in connection with 

investigatory authority, to . . . issue subpoenas 

or summons. 

We have discovered no other provision of the Act which would affect the 

eubpoena power of the Alcoholic Beverage Commission. Accordingly, in our 

opinion the subpoena power provided in article 666-7 is unaffected by the 

Administrative Procedure and Texas Register Act. 

p. 2856 
The Honorable Kenneth W. Cook, page 2 

SUMMARY 

The subpoena power of the Alcoholic Beverage 

Commission is not affected by the Administrative 

Procedure and Texas Register Act. 

Very truly yours, 

u Attorney General of Texas 

APPROVED: 

DAVID M. KENDALL, First Assistant 

9 

C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

p. 2857
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed July 10, 2015.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-15-00072-CV

GRAHAM-RUTLEDGE & COMPANY, INC., Appellant

V.

BAILEY'S FURNITURE, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-11-02523-J

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Fillmore, Myers, and Evans

Opinion by Justice Fillmore

Both the filing fee and the clerk’s record in this case are overdue. By postcard dated 

January 20, 2015, we notified appellant the $195 filing fee was due. We directed appellant to 

remit the fee within ten days. We cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in the 

dismissal of this appeal without further notice. By letter dated March 26, 2015, we informed 

appellant that we had been notified by the Dallas County District Clerk that the clerk’s record in 

this case had been prepared but had not been filed because appellant had not paid for or made 

arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record. We directed appellant to provide the Court with 

written verification that it had paid for or made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record within 

ten days. We cautioned appellant that if we did not receive the required verification, we might 

dismiss the appeal without further notice. To date, appellant has not paid the filing fee, provided 
–2–

the required verification, or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this 

appeal.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b); 42.3(b), (c).

150072F.P05

/Robert M. Fillmore/

ROBERT M. FILLMORE

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

GRAHAM-RUTLEDGE & COMPANY, 

INC., Appellant

No. 05-15-00072-CV V.

BAILEY'S FURNITURE, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-11-02523-J.

Opinion delivered by Justice Fillmore. 

Justices Myers and Evans participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellee BAILEY'S FURNITURE, INC. recover its costs of this 

appeal from appellant GRAHAM-RUTLEDGE & COMPANY, INC.

Judgment entered this 10th day of July, 2015.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-1396V

UNPUBLISHED

MICHELE MULLOY,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: May 5, 2021

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Leah V. Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for petitioner.

Lynn Christina Schlie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On September 12, 2019, Michele Mulloy filed a petition for compensation under 

the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.

2

(the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine 

administration (SIRVA) resulting from adverse effects of an influenza (flu) vaccination she 

received on October 31, 2018. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special 

Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On April 22, 2021, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report at 1. 

Specifically, Respondent found that “[P]etitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth in the

Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (“QAI”). 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 

to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act 

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government 

Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance 

with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, 

the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that 

the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease 

of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa 

(2012).
2

That is, [P]etitioner had no relevant history of pain, inflammation, or dysfunction in her 

right shoulder; her pain and reduced range of motion occurred within 48 hours of receipt 

of an intramuscular vaccination; her symptoms were limited to the shoulder in which the 

vaccine was administered; and no other condition or abnormality was identified to explain 

her symptoms.” Id. at 10. Respondent further agrees that the scope of damages to be 

awarded is limited to Petitioner’s left-sided SIRVA and its related sequelae only. Id.

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 118 (Monday, June 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 29497]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14524]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; 
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 Institute of Biomedical Imaging and 
Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel; ARRA NIBIB P30 Enhancing 
Research Capacity.
    Date: July 23, 2009.
    Time: 8 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Ruixia Zhou, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
6707 Democracy Boulevard, Democracy Two Building, Suite 957, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-4773, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#740e1c1b01063419151d185a1a1d1c5a131b02"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2b5143445e596b464a424705454243054c445d">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.701, ARRA 
Related Biomedical Research and Research Support Awards. National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: June 10, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-14524 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>
EXHIBIT 32.2
------------



                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                      OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Landauer, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jonathon M. Singer, 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 to the best of my knowledge and
belief:

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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
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.



                                    /s/ Jonathon M. Singer
                                    ------------------------
                                    Jonathon M. Singer
                                    Chief Financial Officer


August 8, 2007
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Chandra (C.B.) Brechin, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Brekford International Corp.;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

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)

Intentionally Omitted;

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 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

5.

The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



|                        |                                                    
|----------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------
|Date:  October 31, 2008 | /s/ CHANDRA (C.B.) BRECHIN                         
|                        | Chandra (C.B.) Brechin,
Principal Executive Officer
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.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - 40 CFR Part 721

### CFR Correction

In Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 700 to 789, revised as of July 1, 2008, on page 431, after the source note for § 721.8940 and before paragraph (a), reinstate the heading for § 721.8950 to read as follows:

§ 721.8950

 

[FR Doc. E9-14993 Filed 6-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Appellee

v.

HENRY DANIELS,

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 739 CAP

Appeal from the Judgment of 

Sentence entered April 23, 1990 in 

the Court of Common Pleas, 

Philadelphia County, Criminal 

Division at No. CP-51-CR-1031751-

1988. (Nunc Pro Tunc appeal rights 

reinstated on April 28, 2017)

CONCURRING STATEMENT

JUSTICE DONOHUE DECIDED: October 15, 2020

I join the order as I am constrained to do as a result of this Court’s precedential 

opinion in Commonwealth v. Reid, 235 A.3d 1124 (Pa. 2020). For the reasons stated in 

my dissenting opinion in Reid, I continue to hold the view that Williams v. Pennsylvania, 

___ U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 1899 (2016), mandates that this defendant receive a de novo 

appeal to this Court because former Justice Castille, while the District Attorney of 

Philadelphia, authorized the pursuit of the death penalty in his case and later participated 

in the appeal of the imposition of that sentence. Williams should have been retroactively 

applied to this defendant and the two other defendants similarly situated. I continue to 

believe that the preservation of the integrity of this Court demanded no less.
Missouri Court of Appeals

Southern District 

JULY 10, 2015 

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25(b). 

1. Case No. SD33494 

 Re: STATE OF MISSOURI, 

 Plaintiff-Respondent, 

 vs. 

 REBA JUNE MINOR, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

2. Case No. SD33338 

 Re: STATE OF MISSOURI, 

 Plaintiff-Respondent, 

 vs. 

 JAMES C. KLARR, 

 Defendant-Appellant.