alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 8, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 32619]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16100]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
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. App., as amended. The purpose of this meeting is to evaluate 
requests for preclinical development resources for potential new 
therapeutics for type 1 diabetes. The outcome of the evaluation will be 
a decision whether NIDDK should support the request and make available 
contract resources for development of the potential therapeutic to 
improve the treatment or prevent the development of type 1 diabetes and 
its complications. The research proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the proposed research projects, the disclosure of which 
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Type 1 Diabetes--Rapid Access to Intervention 
Development Special Emphasis Panel; National Institute of Diabetes 
and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.
    Date: July 22, 2009.
    Time: 11 a.m.-1 p.m.
    Agenda: To evaluate requests for preclinical development 
resources for potential new therapeutics for type 1 diabetes and its 
complications.
    Place: 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone 
Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Dr. Myrlene Staten, Senior Advisor, Diabetes, 
Translation Research, Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology and 
Metabolic Diseases, NIDDK, NIH, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, 
MD 20892-5460, 301-402-7886.
    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. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 98.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: July 1, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-16100 Filed 7-7-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-18-00466-CV

Pedro RAMIREZ,

Appellant

v.

Frances RAMIREZ,

Appellee

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017-CI-21553

Honorable Angelica Jimenez, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ, JUSTICE CHAPA, AND JUSTICE RIOS

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

court for this appeal are taxed against Appellant Pedro Ramirez. 

SIGNED January 2, 2019.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
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 RathGibson, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Harley B. Kaplan, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:  1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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.   Date:  September 14, 2007/s/ Harley B. KaplanHarley B. KaplanPresident and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 22.1

                      SUBSIDIARIES OF DYNEGY HOLDINGS INC.
                                 AS OF 02/29/00

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
SUBSIDIARY                                     STATE OR JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION
----------                                     --------------------------------------
<S>                                           <C>
1. Dynegy Power Corp.                          Delaware
2. Dynegy Global Energy, Inc.                  Delaware
3. DMT Holdings, Inc.                          Delaware
4. Dynegy GP Inc.                              Delaware
5. Dynegy Midstream, Inc.                      Delaware
6. Dynegy Regulated Holdings, Inc.             Delaware
7. Dynegy Upper Holdings, LLC                  Delaware
8. Dynegy Administrative Services Company      Delaware
</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1115 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1115

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit the Commissioner 
   of the Internal Revenue Service from rehiring any employee of the 
 Internal Revenue Service who was involuntarily separated from service 
                            for misconduct.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 10, 2019

    Mr. Burr (for himself, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Enzi) 
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 prohibit the Commissioner 
   of the Internal Revenue Service from rehiring any employee of the 
 Internal Revenue Service who was involuntarily separated from service 
                            for misconduct.

    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 ``Ensuring Integrity in the IRS 
Workforce Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON REHIRING FORMER IRS EMPLOYEES WHO WERE 
              INVOLUNTARILY SEPARATED FOR MISCONDUCT.

    (a) In General.--Section 7804 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(d) Prohibition on Rehiring Employees Involuntarily Separated.--
The Commissioner may not employ any individual previously employed by 
the Commissioner who was removed for misconduct under this subchapter 
or chapter 43 or chapter 75 of title 5, United States Code, or whose 
employment was terminated under section 1203 of the Internal Revenue 
Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (26 U.S.C. 7804 note).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--
            (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
        amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to 
        any employee removed from employment before, on, or after the 
        date of the enactment of this Act.
            (2) Exception.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
        not apply to any employee who is employed by the Internal 
        Revenue Service as of the date of the enactment of this Act 
        with respect to any removal for misconduct which occurred 
        before such date.
                                 <all>
```
ALD-264 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-1067

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

FRANCISCO SANTANA,

Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Crim. No. 4-95-00068-001)

District Judge: Honorable Matthew W. Brann

____________________________________

Submitted for Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

July 9, 2015

Before: CHAGARES, SCIRICA and RENDELL, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: July 21, 2015)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

Francisco Santana, a federal inmate, appeals the denial of a post-conviction 

motion seeking a modification of a sentence imposed in 1995. We will affirm.
2

In 1990, Santana received a 50-year prison sentence in a drug-conspiracy case. In 

1995, Santana pleaded guilty to assaulting a correctional officer and possessing a 

prohibited object, and the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania imposed 

concurrent thirty-month sentences to run consecutively to the 1990 sentence. In 2014, 

Santana filed a motion asking the District Court to run his 1995 convictions concurrently 

with his 1990 sentence. Santana titled the motion: “Ex-Parte Motion[:] Special 

Reconsideration Petition for a Concurrent Sentence Versus Current Consecutive 

Sentence.” The District Court construed the pleading as a motion for reconsideration and 

denied the motion because Santana had not satisfied the grounds for reconsideration.

Santana appealed. On appeal, Santana argues the District Court misconstrued his 

motion and asserts that he was simply giving the District Court an opportunity to 

resentence him in light of changes in federal sentencing law and his post-sentencing 

rehabilitation.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We conclude the District Court did 

not err in its decision to deny Santana relief. Neither this Court nor the District Court 

possesses a general authority to modify federal criminal sentences. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 

2255(a) (listing grounds to challenge a federal sentence). Moreover, regardless of how 

one might construe Santana’s motion, he has not presented this Court or the District 

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
3

Court with a basis to grant him relief. Santana remains free to pursue other available 

avenues of redress.

Accordingly, as there is no substantial question presented by this appeal, we will 

summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.
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



I, Gordon Clayton, the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer of Find The World Interactive, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1)

the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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: October 13, 2009



/s/ Gordon Clayton

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

Name: Gordon Clayton

Title: Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and

Chief Accounting Officer
Case 3:11-cv-00890-MLC-LHG Document 63 Filed 12/19/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 380
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in post-effectiveAmendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement No. 33-7053 on Form S-8, in Registration Statement Nos. 33-44700, 333-44024 and 333-46218 on Form S-8 of our report dated December 21, 2006, with respect to the Consolidated FinancialStatements of Archon Corporation in Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) for the year ended September 30, 2006. 

Las Vegas, NV

February 12, 2007 

/s/ Ernst & YoungLLP
United States District Court 

for the District of New Jersey

WARREN HAVENS; SKYBRIDGE 

SPECTRUM FOUNDATION; TELESAURUS 

VPC, LLC; AMTS CONSORTIUM, LLC; 

INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION & 

MONITORING, LLC; TELESAURUS GB, LLC, 

 Plaintiffs, Civil No.: 11-993 (KSH) (CLW) 

 v. 

MOBEX NETWORK SERVICES, LLC; 

MOBEX COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; PAGING 

SYSTEMS, INC.; TOUCH TEL 

CORPORATION; MARITIME 

COMMUNICATIONS/LAND MOBILE, LLC, 

 Defendants. 

Order 

 This matter having been opened to the Court upon the motion of defendants Paging 

Systems, Inc. and Touch Tel Corporation (collectively, the “Paging Systems Defendants”) for an 

order granting the Paging Systems Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement or 

For Dismissal with Prejudice Pursuant to Rule 41(b) [D.E. 203], and for the reasons set forth in 

the accompanying opinion, 

IT IS, on this 14th day of May, 2014, 

ORDERED that the Paging Systems Defendants’ Motion [D.E. 203] is hereby 

GRANTED; and it is further 

ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall, within 15 days of the entry of this Order, comply with 

their outstanding obligations under the Settlement Agreement between Plaintiffs and the Paging 

Systems Defendants including, but not limited to, (i) executing and delivering, via email, the 

Officer’s Certificates and Assignment and Assumptions Agreements memorializing the 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 251 Filed 05/14/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 6344
assignments of geographic AMTS license effected by numbered paragraphs 2 and 3 of the 

Settlement Agreement, (ii) filing all required notices of consummation of assignment with the 

FCC, and (iii) causing Plaintiffs’ counsel of counsel of record to execute and deliver, via email, a 

stipulation, in the form agreed to by the parties, dismissing the Paging Systems Defendants from 

this action with prejudice. 

 /s/ Katharine S. Hayden 

Katharine S. Hayden, U.S.D.J. 

Case 2:11-cv-00993-KSH-CLW Document 251 Filed 05/14/14 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 6345
EX-10.5



 EXHIBIT 10.5 
 Hub Group, Inc. 
 Description of Executive Officer Cash Compensation

 For 2013 

Annual Cash Compensation 
 Base
Salary 
 Set forth below are the 2013 base salaries of the Chief Executive Officer and each of the four most highly
compensated executive officers in 2012. The Company considers various factors in assigning executive officers to specific salary ranges, including job content, level of responsibility, accountability, and the competitive compensation market. On an
annual basis, all executive officers’ salaries are reviewed and adjusted to reflect individual performance and position within their respective ranges. 
 Bonus Plan 
 Executive officers are eligible for annual performance-based
awards under the Company’s bonus plan, as are all salaried employees. For 2012, goals were weighted upon achievement of targeted levels of earnings per share and, for some executives, upon achievement of personal goals. The goals for 2013 will
also be similarly weighted. 
 Restricted Stock 
 The Company makes periodic grants of restricted stock to executive officers. The grants of restricted stock made in early 2013 vest in equal installments over a five year period beginning a year from the
grant date. 
 David P. Yeager 

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer 
  

					
	 	  	Base	 
	 2013
	  	$	693,750	  

 Mark A. Yeager 
 Vice Chairman, President and Chief Operating Officer 
  

					
	 	  	Base	 
	 2013
	  	$	565,000	  

 Terri A. Pizzuto 
 Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer 
  

					
	 	  	Base	 
	 2013
	  	$	380,050	  

 James J. Damman 
 President – Mode Transportation 
  

					
	 	  	Base	 
	 2013
	  	$	361,530	  

 Christopher R. Kravas 
 Chief Intermodal Officer 
  

					
	 	  	Base	 
	 2013
	  	$	334,750
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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2010 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph A. Mills, Chief Executive Officer of Eagle Rock Energy G&P, LLC, the general partner of Eagle Rock Energy GP, L.P., the general partner of Eagle Rock Energy Partners, L.P. (the “Partnership”), hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




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




2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.





Date:  August 6, 2010
/s/ Joseph A. MillsJoseph A. MillsChairman and Chief Executive Officer of Eagle RockEnergy G&P, LLC, General Partner of Eagle RockEnergy GP, L.P., General Partner of Eagle RockEnergy Partners, L.P.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 1, 2015

No. 04-15-00180-CV

IN RE Richard Cecil PETERSON and Alma Peterson

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On March 30, 2015, relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The court has 

considered relators’ petition and is of the opinion that relators are not entitled to the relief sought. 

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). The 

court’s opinion will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on April 1, 2015.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: ____________________________

Keith E. Hottle

 Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2012-CI-08827, styled Richard Cecil Peterson and Alma Peterson v. John 

Lawrence Jimenez, M.D.; Brian Phillip Perry, M.D.; Christopher Ayers Bogaev, M.D., Richard Kurt Newman, 

M.D.; and Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio, Ltd., LLP d/b/a Methodist Hospital, pending in the 150th 

Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable David A. Canales presiding.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Julie Herrnkind, Appellant.

[851 NYS2d 886]

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]; *People v Conway,*6 NY3d 869, 872 [2006]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]; *People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s application for the appointment, pursuant to County Law § 722-c, of a purported expert in the area of coerced, false confessions, since the defendant failed to establish that the expert’s proposed testimony was necessary or relevant to a significant issue at trial *(see People v Cronin,*60 NY2d 430, 433 [1983]; *People v Casiano,*40 AD3d 528, 529 [2007], *lv denied*
      *5569 NY3d 990 [2007]; *People v Oquendo,*250 AD2d 419 [1998]; *cf. Ake v Oklahoma,*470 US 68, 74 [1985]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Balkin, JJ., concur.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

June 22, 2021

No. 04

- 20

- 0 0467

- CV

IN RE Stephen Patrick BLACK

,

Orig inal Mandamus Proceeding



### ORDER
Appellant Stephen Patrick Black seeks to appeal the trial court’s interlocutory “Biennial Review Order” signed on August 5, 2020 finding that “probable cause does not exist to believe that [Black’s] behavioral abnormality has changed to the extent that he is no longer likely to engage in a predatory act of sexual violence.” S ee T EX

. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN

. §§841.101

- .103 (biennial review process for civil commitment )

. The order did not modify any of the requirements of Black’s civil commitment pursuant to Chapter 841 of the Texas Health and Safety Code and provided that “[a]ll requirements of the Final Judgment and Order of Commitment signed on April 7, 2016 shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.” As we noted in our previous opinion addressin g our jurisdiction over Black’s appeal from his 2018 biennial review order, the legislature did not specifically authorize an appeal from the trial court’s initial probable cause determination a nd a biennial review order finding no probable

cause does not constitute a final judgment ; therefore, we do not have jurisdiction to conduct an appellate review of the order. In re Commitment of Black , 594 S.W.3d 590, 593 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2019, no pet.)

. We issued a show cause order requesting that Black r espond and show why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In his response, Black requests that, “this present appeal be converted to a petition for writ of mandamus, to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction.” We GRANT the request in the interest of judicial efficiency.

The Clerk of this court is instructed to convert this appeal to an original mandamus proceeding. Appellant is ORDERED to file a mandamus petition in compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3 no later than thir ty (30) days from the date of this order. If appellant fails to do so, this proceeding will be dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 4 2. 3

.

_________________________________ Liz a A. Rodriguez , JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 22nd day of June, 2021

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)

I, Randolph Gress,
certify that:

1. the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 (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 Innophos, Inc. at the dates and for the periods indicated.

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

The undersigned expressly disclaims any
obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.

Date: December 15, 2006



/s/ RANDOLPH GRESSRandolph Gress Chief Executive Officer and Director (Principal Executive Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to the requirements of 18
U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as a part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23(a)

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

      We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements
(Form S-8, Nos. 33-17196, 33-44822, 33-44877, 33-44876, 33-22459, 33-38491,
33-54075, 33-54079, 33-54077, 333-47833, 333-28273, 333-38752, 333-62568,
333-62572, and Form S-3, Nos. 33-36001 and 333-60175) pertaining to various
stock option, employee savings, deferred compensation and restricted stock plans
and a universal shelf registration statement of Wellman, Inc. of our report
dated February 20, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
and financial statement schedules included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of
Wellman, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2003.

                                        /s/  Ernst & Young LLP
                                        Ernst & Young LLP

Charlotte, North Carolina
March 12, 2004