alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      May 14,    2008 | /s/ Arthur      W. Budich                                  |   |
|----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                       | Arthur      W. Budich                                      |   |
|                       | Executive      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer  |   |
|                       |                                                            |   |
@article{1209716,
  author = {Milos Drobnjakovic and Boonserm Kulvatunyou and Simon P. Frechette and Vijay Srinivasan},
  title = {RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN ONTOLOGY STANDARDS AND THEIR APPLICABILITY TO BIOMANUFACTURING},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-07-14 16:07:32},
  publisher = {ASME Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering},
  language = {en},
}
#### In the Matter of Danny D., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 882]

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about August 3, 2005, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding determination that he had committed acts, which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of assault in the second degree (two counts), assault in the third degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree and menacing in the second degree (two counts), and placed him with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of up to 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility. The evidence disproved appellant’s justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court properly exercised its discretion *(see People v Corby,*6 NY3d 231, 234-235 [2005]) in reasonably limiting the scope of appellant’s cross-examination of a witness as to matters having little or no relevance to the witness’s credibility or any other issue in the case. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Sullivan, McGuire and Malone, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk November 20, 2012

d1113 

# Order

November 20, 2012

145117(51)(52)

JOYCE BONNER, f/k/a JOYCE ALLEN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 145117

COA: 307802

Wayne CC: 95

- 507577

- DM

JAMES ALLEN,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to expedite is GRANTED. T he motion for

reconsideration of this Court’s September 4, 2012 order is considered, and it is DENIED,

because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.
# NIMH Pages About HIV/AIDS

Find current clinical trials on HIV/AIDS...

----

### Latest Science News About HIV/AIDS

Decades of Dedication and Collaboration: Unraveling the HIV Mystery
January 29, 2024

Dr. Lisa Bowleg Named James S. Jackson Memorial Award Winner
July 28, 2023

Blocking HIV Enzyme Reduces Infectivity and Slows Viral Rebound
July 26, 2023

----

### Latest Video and Audio About HIV/AIDS

Director’s Innovation Speaker Series: HIV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 Effects on Brain and Mind Health: A Tale of Two Viruses

Center for Global Mental Health Research Webinar Series:  Writing a Successful Individual Training Grant Application Focused on Global Mental Health

Macrophage Infection by HIV: Implications for Pathogenesis and Cure: Day Two

----

### Latest Director's Messages About HIV/AIDS

Supporting HIV Research From Cell to Society
                                                          By  on                December 1, 2023

Addressing HIV-related Intersectional Stigma and Discrimination
                                                          By  on                July 28, 2022

Reflection on 40 Years of HIV/AIDS Research
                                                          By Guest Author on                June 7, 2021
cc: Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge 

Spencer M. Judd 

Johnnie Benjamin Jordan, Jr. 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A
Dismiss and Opinion Filed December 30, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-20-00760-CV

DALLAS COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT D/B/A 

PARKLAND HEALTH & HOSPITAL SYSTEM, Appellant

V.

DELLA MAE WILLIAMS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-18710

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Whitehill, Schenck, and Browning

Opinion by Justice Schenck

Appellant appeals from the trial court’s interlocutory order denying its 

motion to dismiss appellee’s healthcare liability claims for failure to file an expert 

report. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 51.014(a)(9), 74.351. Before

the Court is appellant’s status report informing the Court that appellee has filed a 

notice of nonsuit of her claims and the trial court has signed an order of nonsuit. 

Because appellee has nonsuited her claims, appellant seeks dismissal of this appeal 

as moot. See Klein v. Hernandez, 315 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Tex. 2010) (holding that after 

non-suit in the trial court, “there was no live controversy for the court of appeals to 
–2–

decide”). We construe appellant’s status report as a motion to dismiss, grant the 

motion, and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1).

200760F.P05

/David J. Schenck/

DAVID J. SCHENCK

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

DALLAS COUNTY HOSPITAL 

DISTRICT D/B/A PARKLAND 

HEALTH & HOSPITAL SYSTEM, 

Appellant

No. 05-20-00760-CV V.

DELLA MAE WILLIAMS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-18710.

Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck. 

Justices Whitehill and Browning 

participating.

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

DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that the parties bear their own costs of this appeal.

Judgment entered this 30th day of December, 2020.
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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Area 6 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Tuesday, February 3, 2009. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dave Coffman at 1-888-912-1227, or (206) 220-6096 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Area 6 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Tuesday, February 3, 2009, at 1 p.m. Pacific Time. For more information, please contact Dave Coffman. Mr. Coffman may be reached at 1-888-912-1227, or (206) 220-6095. You can submit written comments to the panel by faxing the comments to (206) 220-5760, or by mail to Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, 915 Second Avenue, Stop W-406, Seattle, WA 98174, or you can post comments to the Website at                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

The agenda will include the following: Various IRS issues. 

Dated: December 22, 2008. 

Roy L. Block, 

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

 [FR Doc. E9-153 Filed 1-8-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
@article{1212356,
  author = {Douglas Bennett and W.Bertrand (Randy) Doriese and Malcolm Durkin and Joseph Fowler and Johnathon Gard and Gene C. Hilton and Kelsey Morgan and Galen O'Neil and Carl D. Reintsema and Dan Schmidt and Daniel Swetz and Joel Ullom and Takuma Okumura},
  title = {Proof-of-Principle Experiment for Testing Strong-Field Quantum Electrodynamics with Exotic Atoms: High Precision X-Ray Spectroscopy of Muonic Neon},
  year = {2023},
  number = {130},
  month = {2023-04-27 04:04:00},
  publisher = {Physical Review Letters},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=933664},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.173001},
  language = {en},
}
FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/21/2015 2:58:24 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - March 2002 

Regular Retirement 

and Survivor Benefits 

Benefit payments March 2002 

Total 

Retired employees 

Spouses and divorced spouses 

Widow(er)s - aged and disabled 

Other survivors 

March 2001 

$714,245,000 $698,949,000 

453,648,000 439,280,000 

87,289,000 86,994,000 

21,412,000 21,097,000 

151,895,000 151,578,000 

Number Average1 Number Average1 

Total 648,800 ......... 5,000 ......... ......... 

Regular employee annuities, total 298,300 $1,502 2,700 $2,185 ......... 

Age 217,300 1,464 2 500 2 2,380 3 $1,095 

Disability, age 65 and over 37,200 1,349 ......... ......... ......... 

Disability, under age 65 43,700 1,819 500 2,096 

Spouses and divorced spouses 152,200 565 1,400 573 

Widow(er)s--aged and disabled 169,000 896 800 1,058 

Widowed mothers and fathers 1,100 1,100 4/ 952 

Widow(er)s--remarried and divorced 15,200 624 100 685 

Children 13,100 729 100 971 

Other survivors 100 601 ......... ......... ......... 

Average under 

Being paid 

end of month 

Awarded in 

month 

Social Security 

Monthly benefits March 2002

Being Paid Awarded 

......... 

......... 

$877 

......... 

614 649 

816 862 

431 319 

......... 

5/ / 

574 598 

830 710 

5

Supplemental 

Employee 

Annuities 

Benefit payments 

March March 

2002 2001 Number Average 

$5,496,000 $5,771,000 130,100 $42 

Being paid 

end of month 

Awarded 

in month 

Number Average 

300 $40 

1

Railroad retirement benefits shown are net of reduction for social security benefit entitlement.

2

For employees retiring directly from the railroad industry with full age annuity (their years of service averaged 35); some 1700

other age annuities were awarded in the month. 

3

For men aged 65 or over insured on regular basis.

4

Fewer than 50.

5

Remarried and divorced widow(er)s included with aged and disabled widow(er)s and widowed mothers and fathers.

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited) and are partly estimated. Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.

Regular retirement and survivor benefit payments total includes hospital insurance benefits for services in Canada.

(Over) 
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - (Continued) 

March 2002 

Unemployment and Sickness Benefits 

Unemployment 7,400 $247.80 

Sickness 7,200 246.80 

Unemployment 

Sickness 

Average payment 

Per 

full week 

$434.70 

Number of beneficiaries 

during month 

Per 2-week 

registration period 

435.63 

March 2002 

Benefit payments 

March 2001 

Total $9,752,000 $10,353,000 

5,946,000 6,065,000 

3,807,000 4,287,000 

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited) and are partly estimated. Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Recycled 

Paper 

Published by the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board 

Bureau of the Actuary and the Office of Public Affairs
EXHIBIT 32.2




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




The undersigned, Andrew R. Boll, Principal Accounting and Financial Officer of Transdel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:





1.
The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2011 (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.
Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this statement this 23rd day of February, 2012.




By:
/s/ Andrew R. BollAndrew R. BollVice-President of Accounting and Public Reporting(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Transdel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Transdel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

NELSON IVAN DEL VALLE NAZARIO, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-1133 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed June 28, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Mark Wolfe, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and J.L. "Ray" LeGrande, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kiersten E. Jensen, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, VILLANTI, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
[983 NE2d 1239, 960 NYS2d 55]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Marche Johnson, Appellant.

Decided January 8, 2013

*991APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Adam H. Van Buskirk,*Aurora, for appellant.

*Jon E. Budelmann, District Attorney,*Auburn *(Christopher T. Valdina*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The Appellate Division correctly held that the resentencing court’s error in allowing defendant to proceed pro se was harmless in these narrow circumstances, where the proceeding involved a single question of law and standby counsel argued that issue on defendant’s behalf *(see People v Wardlaw,*6 NY3d 556, 559 [2006]; *People v Adams,*52 AD3d 243, 243-244 [1st Dept 2008]).

Defendant’s argument that the People were not entitled to withdraw their consent to a resentence without a period of post-release supervision (PRS) should be rejected *(see*Penal Law § 70.85). After the consent was given, defendant requested an adjournment and the court informed him that it was holding its resentencing decision “in abeyance.” The People were under no continuing obligation to consent to a resentence that did not include PRS. When the People withdrew their consent, the resentencing court was compelled to impose PRS in accordance with Penal Law § 70.45 *(see People v Sparber,*10 NY3d 457, 471-472 [2008]).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith and Pigott concur.

*992On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, in a memorandum.
Rail Employer Reporting Instructions

Appendix I: Electronic File Format

 Form BA-3, Annual Report of Creditable Compensation

 (Grand Total Record)

The information contained in this report, which is required by law under Section 9 of the 

Railroad Retirement Act (RRA) and Section 6 of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance 

Act (RUIA), is needed to pay RRA and RUIA benefits. The information is authorized for 

collection under OMB control number 3220-0008.

This report is due at the Railroad Retirement Board by no later than the last day of February 

following the report year. Failure to report or the making of a false or fraudulent report can 

result in criminal prosecution or civil penalties, or both.

We estimate the electronic versions of this form transmitted by a secure email or a File 

Transfer Protocol (FTP) takes an average of 46 hours and 15 minutes per response to 

complete, including time for reviewing the instructions, getting the needed data, and 

reviewing the completed form. Federal agencies may not conduct or sponsor, and 

respondents are not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 

valid OMB number. If you wish, send comments regarding the accuracy of our estimate or 

any other aspect of this form, including suggestions for reducing completion time, to

Associate Chief Information Officer for Policy and Compliance

Railroad Retirement Board

844 North Rush Street

Chicago, IL 60611-1275.

The grand total record is required and should be the last record on the file. If sub-total 

records are used, the grand totals are the sum of the sub-totals.

NOTE: Reports submitted on CD-ROM, secure email, or FTP must be accompanied by

Form G-440, "Report Specifications Sheet".

Form BA-3 Grand Total Record Format 

Field 

Length

Record 

Position Data and Instructions

10 1-10 "8888888888" (10 Eights - type of record code). 

5 11-15 "GRAND" 

7 16-22 A sub-total total item count for that particular sub-division 

of the report. 

13 23-35

A grand total of creditable RUIA I compensation for that 

particular sub-division of the report (Used to qualify for 

benefits). 
Rail Employer Reporting Instructions

Appendix I: Electronic File Format

 Form BA-3, Annual Report of Creditable Compensation

 (Grand Total Record)

Form BA-3 Grand Total Record Format 

Field 

Length

Record 

Position Data and Instructions

13 36-48

A grand total of creditable RUIA II compensation for that 

particular sub-division of the report (Used to determine 

maximum benefits).

13 49-61 A grand total of creditable Tier I RRA compensation for 

that particular sub-division of the report. 

13 62-74 A grand total of creditable Tier II RRA compensation for 

that particular sub-division of the report. 

13 75-87 A grand total of creditable Miscellaneous compensation 

for that particular sub-division of the report. 

13 88-100 A grand total of creditable Sick Pay compensation for that 

particular sub-division of the report. 

200 101-300 Blanks or zeros. 

NOTE: The file should be saved as a text (*.txt) file with the record format listed above.
H. Res. 481 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

July 10, 2019. 

Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are 

hereby, elected to the following standing committees of the 

House of Representatives: 

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET: Mr. Kevin Hern of Oklahoma, to rank immediately after Mr. Norman. 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR: Mr. Keller. 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM: Mr. Keller. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0434

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JOHNATHAN HETTINGER,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including May 19, 2021, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 12 2021

04/12/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0434
#### HYSTER CO. v. INDUSTRIAL POWER EQUIPMENT CO. Inc.

No. 5535.

United States District Court W. D. Missouri, W. D.

Jan. 26, 1950.

Watson, Ess, Whittaker, Marshall & Enggas, by Douglas Stripp, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.

Sprinkle & Knowles, Kansas City, Mo., for defendant.

REEVES, Chief Judge.

This is a second motion to the same effect. On December 15th last the plaintiff filed a motion “For Order Compelling Answers to Interrogatories.” And this motion was filed on January 12, 1950. After the first motion was filed the defendant undertook to answer the interrogatories. It is contended by said last motion and memorandum in support thereof that said answers were insufficient and evasive. No complaint is made to the answers returned to Interrogatories numbered 1, 2, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17 and 37. Objections are made, however, to all of the others. These have been examined.

1. The answer to Interrogatory No. 4 appears to be sufficient. This interrogatory is: “4. If defendant claims any error or inaccuracy in the account set out as Exhibit A to plaintiff’s complaint, which is not elicited by foregoing interrogatories, please identify and describe same as respects the nature, date and amount thereof.” The answer to this interrogatory is “No.” By this answer the defendant apparently means that it does not claim “any error or inaccuracy in the account set out as Exhibit A” to plaintiff’s complaint.

2. With respect to all the other interrogatories which have been examined, the answers do not conform to Rule.33, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. This rule requires that, “The interrogatories shall be answered separately and fully in writing under oath.” Some of the answers refer to depositions from which it is inferred that the plaintiff might learn proper answers. The rule does not so provide. The plaintiff has filed its motion under Rule 37, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In conformity with that rule, the defendant is now required to make prompt answers to the interrogatories, and this should be done within 10 days.