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: E9-15121]


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

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; Member Conflicts in Language and Communication.
    Date: July 1, 2009.
    Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Dana Jeffrey Plude, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3176, MSC 7848, Bethesda, MD 
20892, 301-435-2309, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#42322e37262726022131306c2c2b2a6c252d34"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e4948891808180a4879796ca8a8d8cca838b92">[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 19, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-15121 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>
July 15, 2015

Reginald E. Hall

TDCJ No. 15027683

Dallas County Jailp. 0. Box 660334

Dallas, Tx. 75266-0334

RE: Court of Appeals Number: 05-9 1-00799-CR

Trial Court Case Number: F90-33988-QW

Style: Hall, Reginald Eugene

V.

Texas, The State of

I. The case has been submitted and is pending consideration.

2. The Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction over post-conviction writs and

habeas corpus. Please contact the Court of Criminal Appeals for any forms orinformation.

3. The Court has no record of an appeal on file in the above referenced name or trial

court number.

4. Enclosed is a copy of the opinion in your appeal.

5. This Court does not appoint counsel

6. Neither the judges nor the staff of this Court can give legal advice. Therefore, you

may wish to contact your attorney; the trial court; or the State Counsel ForOffenders, Texas Department of Crinunal Justice, P.O. Box 4005, Huntsville, TX,

77342 for further information or assistance.
x 10. Enclosed please find the copies you requested.( enclosed are 3 volumes clerk

record & 3 volumes of reporter records as requested and paid for.

II. The cost for the copies you requested is

Respectfully,

Is! Lisa Matz, Clerk of the Court

7
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

To the Board of Directors
Northeast Bancorp:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (No. 33-32095), (No. 33-58538), (No. 33-32096) and (No. 33-87976) of
Northeast Bancorp of our report dated July 30, 1999, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Northeast Bancorp and Subsidiary included
in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended June 30, 1999.

Portland, Maine                             /s/ Baker Newman & Noyes
                                            _________________________
September 22, 1999                          Limited Liability Company
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Green Irons Holdings Corp.,
Form 10-QSB for the period ending October 31, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned, Andrew Couvell, President, Chief Executive Officer,
Chief Financial Officer, and Principal Accounting Officer, of the
Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations
of the Company.


Date: December 12, 2006


By: /s/ Andrew Couvell
        Andrew Couvell
        President, Chief Executive Officer,
        Chief Financial Officer, and Principal
        Accounting Officer
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18D0545. JANICE LONG-HATEF v. U.S. BANK, NA, AS TRUSTEE.

This is a dispossessory action brought by U.S. Bank, NA, as Trustee, against

Janice Long-Hatef. The magistrate court issued a writ of possession in favor of U.S.

Bank on June 29, 2018, and Long-Hatef filed this pro se application for discretionary

appeal on July 9, 2018. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

Generally, “[t]he only avenue of appeal available from [a] magistrate court

judgment is provided by OCGA § 15-10-41 (b) (1), which allowsfor a de novo appeal

to the state or superior court.” Handler v. Hulsey, 199 Ga. App. 751, 751 (406 SE2d

225) (1991). This Court may only address magistrate court mattersthat already have

been reviewed by the state or superior court. See Westwind Corp. v. Washington Fed.

S & L Assn., 195 Ga. App. 411, 411 (1) (393 SE2d 479) (1990); see also OCGA § 5-

6-35 (a) (1), (a) (11). Here, the only order in the application materials was issued by

the magistrate court, and it has not been reviewed by a state or superior court. 

Moreover, ordinarily, an application for discretionary appeal must be filed

within 30 days of entry of the order sought to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-35 (d). The

underlying subject matter of an appeal, however, controls over the relief sought in

determining the proper appellate procedure. Rebich v. Miles, 264 Ga. 467, 467-468

(448 SE2d 192) (1994). The underlying subject matter here is a dispossessory action. 

OCGA § 44-7-56 provides that an appeal from any dispossessory judgment must be

filed within seven days of the date the judgment was entered. See Ray M. Wright,

August 06, 2018
Inc. v. Jones, 239 Ga. App. 521, 522-523 (521 SE2d 456) (1999). Because LongHatef’s application was filed 10 days after the magistrate court’s order was entered,

this application is untimely. Accordingly, this application is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

08/06/2018
##### 



Subsidiary
    
    State or other jurisdiction of IncorporationSovereign Bank
    
    United States of America195 Montague Street LP
    
    New York1130 Abstract, Inc.
    
    Pennsylvania201 Associates, Inc
    
    Delaware70 Quincy Avenue, LLC
    
    DelawareCBL Service Corporation
    
    PennsylvaniaCompass REIT Corp
    
    MassachusettsCompass REIT Holding, Inc.
    
    DelawareFirst Essex Capital Statutory Trust II
    
    ConnecticutFirst Essex Capital Trust I
    
    DelawareFirst Essex Capital, Inc.
    
    MassachusettsFirst Essex Securities Corp
    
    MassachusettsICM Capital LLC
    
    New YorkIndependence Community Bank Corp.
    
    New YorkIndependence Community Commercial
Reinvestment Corp.
    
    DelawareIndependence Community Insurance Agency, Inc.
    
    New YorkIndependence Community Investment Corp.
    
    DelawareIndependence Community Realty Corp.
    
    New YorkMeridian Capital Group LLC
    
    New YorkML Capital Trust I
    
    DelawarePBE Companies, LLC
    
    DelawareSeacoast Capital Trust I
    
    DelawareSeacoast Capital Trust II
    
    DelawareSIB Mortgage Corp.
    
    New JerseySOV APEX Co.
    
    DelawareSOV Asset Management LLC
    
    DelawareSOV Charter Limited
    
    UK (England & Wales)SOV Collateral Management LLC
    
    DelawareSOV Facilitation LLC
    
    DelawareSOV Funding Trust
    
    DelawareSOV Trust Manager Co.
    
    DelawareSovereign Agency Massachusetts, LLC
    
    MassachusettsSovereign Agency, LLC
    
    New JerseySovereign Auto 2001-A LLC
    
    Delaware




---



##### 



Sovereign Auto Finance 2001-A LLC
    
    DelawareSovereign Benefits Consulting, Inc.
    
    PennsylvaniaSovereign Capital Trust I
    
    DelawareSovereign Capital Trust III
    
    DelawareSovereign Capital Trust IV
    
    DelawareSovereign Capital Trust V
    
    DelawareSovereign Capital Trust VI
    
    DelawareSovereign Community Development Co.
    
    DelawareSovereign Dealer Finance, Inc.
    
    DelawareSovereign Dealer Floor Plan Master LLC
    
    DelawareSovereign Delaware Investment Corporation
    
    DelawareSovereign Leasing LLC
    
    DelawareSovereign LMI, Inc.
    
    Rhode IslandSovereign Precious Metals, LLC
    
    PennsylvaniaSovereign Real Estate Investment Trust
    
    DelawareSovereign REIT Holdings, Inc.
    
    DelawareSovereign Securities Corporation, LLC.
    
    PennsylvaniaSovereign SFG, Inc.
    
    DelawareSovereign Trade Services (HK) Limited
    
    Hong KongSTA, Inc.
    
    DelawareWaypoint Brokerage Services, Inc.
    
    PennsylvaniaWaypoint Capital Trust I
    
    DelawareWaypoint Capital Trust II
    
    DelawareWaypoint Insurance Group, inc.
    
    PennsylvaniaWaypoint Settlement Service, LLC
    
    PennsylvaniaWaypoint Statutory Trust III
    
    ConnecticutWiljo Development Corp.
    
    New York
#### Shamel Ferguson et al., Appellants, v Mohammad Z. Iqbal et al., Respondents.

[823 NYS2d 180]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), entered August 25, 2005, which, upon a jury verdict on the issue of liability, is in favor of the defendants and against them, dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs to the defendant Mohammad Z. Iqbal.

The plaintiffs contend that the Supreme Court committed reversible error in declining to instruct the jury that any negligence of the infant plaintiffs mother could not be imputed to the infant plaintiff. Pursuant to General Obligations Law § 3-111, the contributory negligence of an infant plaintiffs parent or custodian shall not be imputed to the infant in an action brought by the infant to recover damages for personal injuries.

Here, the Supreme Court instructed the jury regarding the applicable principles of law concerning the defendants’ potential liability for negligence. At no time was the issue of contributory or comparative negligence ever presented to the jury. Accordingly, there was no need to instruct the jury that the mother’s contributory negligence could not be imputed to the infant plaintiff, since the jury found the defendants free from *658negligence and was never presented with any question of the infant plaintiffs negligence *(see Palazzo v Hartford Ins. Co. of Midwest,*10 AD3d 711, 712 [2004]; *Weingarten v Landesman,*137 AD2d 520 [1988]; *cf. Avram v Haddad,*88 AD2d 942 [1982] [failure to instruct the jury that any negligence by the infant plaintiffs brother could not be imputed to the infant plaintiff constituted reversible error where the jury had been given a comparative negligence charge]).

Similarly unavailing is the plaintiffs contention that the court erred in failing to instruct the jury with respect to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146, and that a violation of that statute constitutes negligence. The court properly charged the jury regarding New York City Traffic Regulations (34 RCNY) § 4-04 (d), which superseded Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1146 *(see*Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1642 [a] [10]; *Ferreira v New York City Tr. Auth.,*79 AD2d 596 [1980]). Florio, J.E, Goldstein, Mastro and Fisher, JJ., concur.
@article{1216581,
  author = {Ashlee Aiello and John Hoffman and Anthony Kotula and Lucas Flagg and Ruipeng Li and Jeremiah Woodcock},
  title = {Trace Water Effects on Crystalline 1-Ethyl-3-methylimidazolium Acetate},
  year = {2023},
  number = {127},
  month = {2023-05-16 04:05:00},
  publisher = {Journal of Physical Chemistry B},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936365},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcb.3c02735},
  language = {en},
}
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Atlantis Plastics, Inc.;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 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:
    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 the registrants board of directors:
   /s/ Anthony F. BovaAnthony F. BovaPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: March 30, 2006
    
    (Principal Executive Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-2102

PEARLINE RUFFIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ANTHEM, INC.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Lawrence R. Leonard, Magistrate Judge. (2:21-cv-00251-LRL)

Submitted: June 22, 2023 Decided: June 26, 2023

Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Pearline Ruffin, Appellant Pro Se. David Edward Constine, III, Trial Attorney, Andrew J. 

Henson, TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2102 Doc: 15 Filed: 06/26/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Pearline Ruffin appeals the district court’s order granting Anthem, Inc., summary 

judgment on Ruffin’s discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims, brought pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1981. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal 

brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The 

informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited 

to issues preserved in that brief.”). We have reviewed the record in conjunction with the 

arguments Ruffin raises on appeal and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm 

the district court’s judgment. Ruffin v. Anthem, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00251-LRL (E.D. Va. 

Sept. 23, 2022). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2102 Doc: 15 Filed: 06/26/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-15-00381-CV

In re Antonio Brunet

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the district court’s order

dated June 5, 2015, is denied.1

__________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Field

Filed: July 15, 2015

 See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

1
|   | (1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |
|--------|--------|

|   | (2)           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |
|--------|--------|

|                        | PORTER BANCORP, INC. |
|-----------------------------|----------------------|
|                        |                 |   |
|                        |                 |   |
| Dated:  August 1, 2012 | By:                  | /s/ Maria L. Bouvette |   |
|                        |                 |  Maria L. Bouvette |
|                        |                 |  Chief Executive Officer |
Labor Employer Reporting Instructions

Part VIII - Employer Reporting System (ERS) Internet User Instructions

Chapter 4b: How to Reply to Request from RRB

 Form GL-129a, Record of Employer Determination on Employee Protest

1

GL-129a Request

If the RRB receives from an employee a protest of the service and compensation reported on 

Form BA-6, the RRB will send the employer a GL-129a request. The request will appear in the 

New Items list which will be displayed when you first logon. You can work the item at this point 

or select it later by clicking the New items from the left menu and click the SSN link for the GL129a. This brings up the GL-129a screen. The screen is prefilled to show the RRB's record of 

service and compensation and what the employee is claiming that his or her record should be. 

Determine the correct service and compensation for the employee. 

Service and Compensation is Correct as Reported

If the RRB record is correct, click the 'Correct as Reported' button. This brings up a screen where 

you enter an explanation as to why the employee's claim is not being granted. The RRB uses this 

information to reply to the employee so please provide a complete explanation in terms that the 

employee will understand.

Adjustment is Being Granted

If the RRB record is being adjusted to agree with the employee's claim, click the 'Adjustment 

Granted' button. This brings you to a BA-4 screen pre-filled with identifying data and the 

adjustment claimed by the employee. Click the update button. 

Adjustment is Being Granted but not Exactly as Employee Claims

More than claimed. If you are granting the employee's adjustment but are increasing the amounts 

over what the employee claimed, click the 'Adjustment Granted' button. When the pre-filled BA4 appears, type over the pre-filled compensation amounts or click additional service months. An 

explanation is not required if you are granting more service or compensation than the employee 

claimed but if you feel that an explanation would be helpful, follow the steps below.

Less than claimed. If you are granting the employee an adjustment but in an amount less than the 

employee claimed, click the 'Correct as Reported' button, and explain the adjustment you are 

making on the next screen. After filing the explanation you will have to file a BA-4 for the 

correct adjustment. Follow the instructions under BA-4 in the previous section.
#### Campbell *v.*Mayor, Etc., of New York.

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

February 15, 1888.)

Equity—Plkadin o—Practtck .

In a suit in equity some defendants filed pleas, and then obtained leave to withdraw them, while other defendants demurred. It being doubtful whether or not the pleas were before the court, *Jteid,*to be the better practice to postpone action on the pleas until the hearing on the demurrer.

In Equity. On pleas to supplemental bill.

*Harvey D.*Hadlock, for plaintiff.

*George Mm*and *Marcus P. Norton,*for defendants filing pleas.

*796Wheeler, J.

A bill, called a “supplemental bill,” appears to have been filed in this cause by- a party other than the orator, against the orator and others. To that bill some of the defendants filed pleas, and some a demurrer. The demurrer appears to be set down for argument at the next term. The pleas do not appear to be set down for argument at all, or traversed. When the cause was reached on the calendar it was taken on briefs to be submitted as to one plea, in the absence of counsel for the orator in the supplemental bill, at the request of counsel for the party filing the plea. Since then it is made to appear that leave had been obtained to withdraw the pleas, and that notice had been given by counsel who obtained the leave that the pleas were withdrawn. The pleas, or some of them, may have been renewed, or there may be question as to the effect of the withdrawal. However these things may be, there is so much doubt whether there is any question upon the plea, or in regard to it, properly now before the court, that it seems best to continue the whole to the hearing on the demurrer.

Hearing on pleas continued to hearing on demurrer.
@article{1207541,
  author = {Yuri Ralchenko and Joseph N. Tan and Aung S. Naing and Galen O'Neil and Paul Szypryt and Dipti Dipti and Grant Mondeel and Roshani Silwal and Alain Lapierre and Steven Blundell and Gerald Gwinner and Antonio Camargo Villari and Endre Takacs},
  title = {Background and blended spectral line reduction in precision spectroscopy of EUV and x-ray transitions in highly charged ions},
  year = {2023},
  number = {11},
  month = {2023-03-03 05:03:00},
  publisher = {Atoms},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=935979},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.3390/atoms11030048},
  language = {en},
}