alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 130 (Thursday, July 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 32891]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16290]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


Notice of Consolidated Decision on Applications for Duty-Free 
Entry of Electron Microscopes; U.S. Food and Drug Adminsitration, et 
al.

This is a decision consolidated pursuant to Section 6(c) of the 
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 
(Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR 
part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 
P.M. in Room 3705, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14\th\ and Constitution 
Avenue., NW, Washington, D.C.
Docket Number: 09-015. Applicant: U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 
Laurel, MD 20708. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: JEOL, 
Japan. Intended Use: See notice at 74 FR 27017, June 5, 2009.
Docket Number: 09-023. Applicant: Florida State University, 
Tallahassee, FL 32306. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: 
FEI Company, the Netherlands. Intended Use: See notice at 74 FR 27017, 
June 5, 2009.
Docket Number: 09-024. Applicant: National Institutes of Health, 
Bethesda, MD 20895-3210. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: 
FEI Company, the Netherlands. Intended Use: See notice at 74 FR 27017, 
June 5, 2009.
Docket Number: 09-025. Applicant: University of Virginia, 
Charlottesville, VA 22908. Instrument: Electron Microscope. 
Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech Republic. Intended Use: See notice at 
74 FR 27017, June 5, 2009.
Docket Number: 09-026. Applicant: Yale University School of Medicine, 
New Haven, CT 06520. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI 
Company, the Netherlands. Intended Use: See notice at 74 FR 27017, June 
5, 2009.
Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of 
equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such 
purposes as these instruments are intended to be used, was being 
manufactured in the United States at the time the instruments were 
ordered. Reasons: Each foreign instrument is an electron microscope and 
is intended for research or scientific educational which was being 
manufactured in the United States at the time of order of each 
instrument.

    Dated: July 1, 2009.
Christopher Cassel,
Acting Director Subsidies Enforcement Office Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-16290 Filed 7-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
U.S. Department ofJustice

(Jotted States Attorney

District ojtVew Jersey

070 BnxscI Sweet. State 700 (973/645-2700

NeworIcNJ 07102

March 20. 2012

VIA EMAIL

Honorable Jose L. Linares

United States District Judge

Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Building & US, Courthouse

50 Walnut Street

Newark, NJ 07101

Re: United States v. Andrew Cox, Cr. No. 11-99 (JLL)

Dear Judge Linares:

Please accept this letter response to Defendant Andrew Cox’s pro se motion for release

pending appeal before entry ofjudgment of conviction (Docket No. 78). As indicated in the

defendant’s motion, he is represented by counsel and has opted against counsel’s advice to file

the instant motion pro se. 5cc l)ocket No, 78 at 1 (1 am submitting this motion pro se because

my very competent counsel and I (reasonable minds) disagree. . . “) (emphasis added).

Pursuant to vell-settied law in the Third Circuit, a defendant is not entitled to hybrid

representation and district courts may properly exercise their discretion to disregard pro se filings

by represented defendants 5gg United States v D’Amano, No 07-4134, 268 fed Appx 179

(3d Cir. 2008) (also citing McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 183 (1984) (finding that there is

no constitutional right to hybrid representation)).

Accordingly, the government respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the defendant’s

pro se motion for release. We thank the Court for its consideration.

Respectfully submitted,

PAUL J. FISHMAN

cc: Michael Orozco

SO ORDERED.

C - 3

HON 9CEt.LINARES, U.S.D.J. bATk

Case 2:11-cr-00099-CCC Document 80 Filed 03/21/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 989
EXHIBIT 31.2

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, Francisco Hoyos, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Indigo
     Technologies, Inc..;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

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

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
     procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
     registrant and have:

     a.   designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly
          report is being prepared;
     b.   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c.   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
     auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or
     persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a.   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
          controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
          identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
          internal controls; and
     b.   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          controls; and

6.   I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
     significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
     significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most
     recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
     significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
27th day of April, 2007.


/s/ Francisco Hoyos
---------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

PROBATION OFFICE

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

WILFREDO TORRES Mailing Address: CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER October 19, 2012 50 WALNUT STREET

200 FEDERAL PLAZA ROOM 1001

ROOM 130 NEWARK, NJ 07102

PATERSON, NJ

(973) 357-4080 www.njp.uscourts.gov

FAX: (973) 3574092

Honorable Dennis M. Cavanaugh,

United States District Judge

Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal

Building & U.S. Courthouse

P.O. Box 0999

Newark, N.J. 07102-0999

RE: U.S. v. Justin Birdsall

DkL No.: 11-00134-001

RequestforPermission

to Travel Outside ofthe

United States

Dear Judge Cavanaugh:

On June 13,2011, the above-referenced individual was sentenced by Your Honor to a term

of five years probation for the offense of Possession of Material Constituting/Containing Child

Pornography The offender was ordered to pay a $100 Special Assessment fee, along with the

following special conditions: alcoholldrug testing/treatment; computer search; location monitoring;

mental health treatment; no contact with minors; and sex offender registration.

The offender has been supervised by this office since the commencement ofsupervision and

has been in general compliance as of yet. He completed his one-year term of location monitoring,

as well as sex offender treatment. All drug tests administered have yielded negative results.

The offender has requested permission to travel, along with his family, to the Dominican

Republic for vacation in November. (Please see attached letter from the offender, dated August 10,

2012.) The travel would conclude in one week and his parents have assured the undersigned that the

offender would not be left alone. They had initially planned on traveling to Mexico; however, there

was an extended delay in receiving a response from the Mexican Consulate. Therefore, their new

itinerary has been changed to the Dominican Republic. The undersigned and Assistant United States

Attorney Ronnell Wilson have no objections to this travel. The undersigned will be available to

discuss this matter if Your Honor should wish. I may be contacted at (973) 445-8517.
Respectfully submitted,

WILFREDO TORRES, Chief

U.S. Probation Officer

4

- I / /1_

By: Susan Ii Karlak

Senior U.S. Probation Officer

/sek

Enclosure

Please check the appropriate x.

Permission to travel is granted.

I } Permission to travel is not nranted.
proceeding void. On March 10, 2015, the district court denied the motion, 

and appellant brought this appeal. 

Our review of this appeal reveals a jurisdictional defect. 

Orders entered in NRS Chapter 432B proceedings are not final, but 

rather, temporary and thus not appealable. See In re Temp. Custody of 

Five Minor Children, 105 Nev. 441, 443, 777 P.2d 901, 902 (1989) (stating 

that no appeal may be taken from an NRS Chapter 432B temporary 

custody order). Even if an order concludes the NRS Chapter 432B 

proceedings by dismissing the case, the order likewise is not appealable 

because it arose in the juvenile court and concerns child custody. NRAP 

3A(b)(7). Instead, such orders must be challenged by way of writ petition. 

See In re A.B., 128 Nev. Adv. Op. 70, 291 P.3d 122, 126 (2012) ("[B]ecause 

the lower court's order arises from a juvenile proceeding and concerns 

child custody, it is not substantively appealable under NRAP 3A, and 

therefore, [the] only remedy is by way of a petition for a writ of 

mandamus."). 

Moreover, NRCP 60(b) allows a party to seek relief from "a 

final judgment, order, or proceeding," and by its express terms, only 

applies to final judgments. See Barry v. Lindner, 119 Nev. 661, 669, 81 

P.3d 537, 542 (2003). Because the January 29, 2014, order returning the 

child to appellant and dismissing the case was not a final judgment, 

appellant could not seek relief under NRCP 60(b). Thus, the March 10, 

2015, order denying appellant's motion is not appealable. Cf. Holiday Inn 

Downtown v. Barnett, 103 Nev. 60, 63, 732 P.2d 1376, 1379 (1987) 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

2 

(0) 1947A e 
J. 

J. 

(allowing an appeal from an order denying an NRCP 60(b) motion). As we 

lack jurisdiction, we 

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.' 

Gibbons 

Pickering 

cc: Hon. Egan K. Walker, District Judge, Family Division 

Jerry L. 0. 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

'We deny as moot the relief requested by appellant in his document 

filed on July 9, 2015. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A cep
902 A.2d 1232

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. RODNEY JACKSON, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

July 11, 2006.

ORDERED that the petition for certification is granted, and the matter is summarily remanded to the trial court for resentencing in light of *State v. Natale,*184 *N.J.*458, 878 A.2d 724 (2005).
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 Coronado Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Alejandro Quesada, Chief Executive and Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to §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. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this
certification as of the 13th day of November, 2008.  Alejandro Quesada _______ Chief Executive and Financial Officer
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 June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 Company. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| Dated:  August 17, | 2007 | By: /s/ MICAHEL MCCHESNEY |
|--------------------|------|---------------------------|

 

|   | MICHAEL MCCHESNEY |
|--------|-------------------|

|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|--------|-------------------------|
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MedPro Safety Products, Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, W. Craig Turner, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, in accordance with 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), 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.

|                    | MEPRO SAFETY PRODUCTS, INC.
|------------------- | ---------------------------
|                   
|                   
|Dated: May 20, 2009 | By:                        
|                    |                            
|                    |                            
|                    |                            

---
# table126_q14.3_size
#### The Flowergate. Sloan *v.*The Flowergate.

*(District Court E. D. New York.*

April 7, 1887.)

Ships and Shipping—Liability for Personal Injury.

The use of an eye-bolt, apparently sufficient for the purpose to which it is applied, but in reality insufficient solely because of a latent defect, entails no liability for a personal injury caused by such defect.

Libel for personal injury to a grain-trimmer while engaged in rigging the tackle preparatory to stowing a cargo of grain, occasioned by the *763breaking of an oyc-bolt, set in the deck, to which a block was attached, and in use for the purpose of moving- the vessel along the dock. After the bolt broke a latent defect was disclosed below where it was countersunk in the deck. ■

*James Troy*and *John J. Allen,*for libelant.

*F. B. Concers,*for claimant.

Benedict, J.

The evidence is not sufficient to justify finding as a fact that the condition of the oy e-bolt, when it was put to use at the time the plaintiff was injured through its giving way, was such as to inform anyone of the fact that the bolt was already partly broken off. The eye ivas connter-sunk in the dock, and the old break was below the upper surface of the deck. This location rendered the defect in truth latent. The use of an eye-bolt, apparently sufficient, but in reality insufficient solely because of a latent delect, entails no liability for damages caused by such defect.

The libel must be dismissed, with costs.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7200

DAVID BRIGHTWELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

D. SCOTT WHITNEY, Chief Attorney; GERALDINE K. SWEENEY, 

Chief Attorney; GOVERNOR MARTIN O'MALLEY; SOMERSET COUNTY 

ADMINISTRATOR,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District 

Judge. (8:11-cv-01652-DKC)

Submitted: December 15, 2011 Decided: December 20, 2011

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Brightwell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

David Brightwell appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his civil rights complaint. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. Brightwell v. 

Whitney, No. 8:11-cv-01652-DKC (D. Md. Aug. 30, 2011). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Goldie Miller, Appellant, v Ateres Shlomo, LLC, et al., Defendants, and Tora Research Academy, Respondent.

[853 NYS2d 602]

*613The defendant Tora Research Academy (hereinafter Tora) first appeared in this action when the defendant Regency Manor (hereinafter Regency) served an amended answer on behalf of both it and Tora 43 days after the date on which Tora was required to appear *(see*CPLR 320 [a]). In order to avoid the entry of a default judgment upon its failure to appear or to answer in a timely manner, Tora was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for its default and a meritorious defense *(see*CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; *Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co.,*67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]; *Giovanelli v Rivera,*23 AD3d 616 [2005]; *Mjahdi v Maguire,*21 AD3d 1067 [2005]; *Thompson v Steuben Realty Corp.,*18 AD3d 864 [2005]). The affirmation of Tora’s attorney and the affidavit of an employee of Regency in support of Tora’s cross motion indicated that the attorney’s law firm was contacted by Regency and was retained by Regency’s insurance carrier after Tora’s time to answer had expired, which did not establish a reasonable excuse for Tora’s default *(see Segovia v Deleon Constr. Corp.,*43 AD3d 1143 [2007]; *Kaplinsky v Mazor,*307 AD2d 916 [2003]; *Perellie v Crimson’s Rest.,*108 AD2d 903 [1985]). Furthermore, Tora failed to establish a reasonable excuse for its delay of more than one year in making a cross motion to compel the plaintiff to accept an amended answer. Tora received a timely letter from the plaintiff rejecting so much of the amended answer as was asserted on behalf of Tora, but did not cross-move until after the plaintiff moved, inter alia, for leave to enter judgment against it *(see Robinson v 1068 Flatbush Realty, Inc.,*10 AD3d 716 [2004]; *Duran v Edderson,*259 AD2d 728 [1999]; *Perellie v Crimson’s Rest.,*108 AD2d at 903). Accordingly, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting Tora’s cross motion to vacate its default. In view of the lack of a reasonable excuse, it is unnecessary to consider whether Tora sufficiently demonstrated the existence of a meritorious defense *(see Segovia v Deleon Constr. Corp.,*43 AD3d at 1143; *Chiulli v Coyne,*292 AD2d 413, 414 [2002]; *J.P. Equip. Rental & Materials v Fidelity & Guar. Ins. Co.,*288 AD2d 187 [2001]).

In addition, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to enter a judgment against Tora on the issue of liability since the plaintiff submitted proof of service of the summons and the complaint, a factually-detailed complaint she verified, and her attorney’s af*614firmation regarding the default *(see*CPLR 3215 [f]; *Levine v Forgotson’s Cent. Auto & Elec., Inc.,*41 AD3d 552, 553 [2007]; *599 Ralph Ave. Dev., LLC v 799 Sterling Inc.,*34 AD3d 726 [2006]; *Giovanelli v Rivera,*23 AD3d 616 [2005]). Mastro, J.P., Fisher, Florio, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 110 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 110

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for a permanent 
    extension of the lower income threshold for the medical expense 
                               deduction.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 10, 2019

  Ms. Collins (for herself and Ms. Cantwell) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for a permanent 
    extension of the lower income threshold for the medical expense 
                               deduction.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Medical Expense Savings Act''.

SEC. 2. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF REDUCTION IN MEDICAL EXPENSE DEDUCTION 
              FLOOR.

    (a) Reduction.--
            (1) In general.--Section 213(a) of the Internal Revenue 
        Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``10 percent'' and 
        inserting ``7.5 percent''.
            (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 213 of such Code is 
        amended by striking subsection (f).
    (b) Repeal of Minimum Tax Preference.--Section 56(b)(1) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking subparagraph (B).
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2018.
                                 <all>
```
| (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. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/  John H. Short |
|--------|------------------------------|
|   | John H. Short                |
|   | President and                |
|   | Chief Executive Officer      |
|   | RehabCare Group, Inc.        |
|   | February 28, 2011            |