alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 132 (Monday, July 13, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 33489]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16587]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Wednesday, July 
15, 2009 at 10 a.m., in the Auditorium, Room L-002.
    The subject matter of the Open Meeting will be:
    The Commission will consider a recommendation regarding amendments 
to Rule 15c2-12 (``Rule'') under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 
(``Act''), concerning the responsibilities of a broker, dealer, or 
municipal securities dealer acting as an underwriter in a primary 
offering of municipal securities and interpretive guidance intended to 
assist municipal securities issuers, brokers, dealers and municipal 
securities dealers in meeting their obligations under the antifraud 
provisions of the Act.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have 
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: July 8, 2009.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-16587 Filed 7-9-09; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4917 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 4917

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 9, 2004

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend title 5, United States Code, to authorize appropriations for 
  the Administrative Conference of the United States for fiscal years 
             2005, 2006, and 2007, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Federal Regulatory Improvement Act 
of 2004''.

SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

    (a) Purposes.--Section 591 of title 5, United States Code, is 
amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 591 Purposes
    ``The purposes of this subchapter are--
            ``(1) to provide suitable arrangements through which 
        Federal agencies, assisted by outside experts, may 
        cooperatively study mutual problems, exchange information, and 
        develop recommendations for action by proper authorities to the 
        end that private rights may be fully protected and regulatory 
        activities and other Federal responsibilities may be carried 
        out expeditiously in the public interest;
            ``(2) to promote more effective public participation and 
        efficiency in the rulemaking process;
            ``(3) to reduce unnecessary litigation in the regulatory 
        process;
            ``(4) to improve the use of science in the regulatory 
        process; and
            ``(5) to improve the effectiveness of laws applicable to 
        the regulatory process.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--Title 5 of the United States Code is 
amended--
            (1) in section 594 by striking ``purpose'' and inserting 
        ``purposes''; and
            (2) in the table of sections of chapter 5 of part I by 
        amending the item relating to section 591 to read as follows:

``591. Purposes''.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    Section 596 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to read as 
follows:
``Sec. 596. Authorization of appropriations
    ``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
subchapter not more than $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, $3,100,000 
for fiscal year 2006, and $3,200,000 for fiscal year 2007. Of any 
amounts appropriated under this section, not more than $2,500 may be 
made available in each fiscal year for official representation and 
entertainment expenses for foreign dignitaries.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 8, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Case 2:10-cv-03984-FSH -PS   Document 14    Filed 09/10/10   Page 1 of 2 PageID: 157

Case 2:10-cv-03984-FSH -PS   Document 14    Filed 09/10/10   Page 2 of 2 PageID: 158
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-11527

Conference Calendar

 

RODERICK LADELL BONNER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CITY OF MANSFIELD, TEXAS; 

MONTE ROBERTS, Police Officer,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:01-CV-760-A

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

August 21, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Roderick Ladell Bonner, Texas prisoner #1057449, proceeding

pro se and in forma pauperis under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, appeals the

district court’s order denying his motion for appointment of

counsel. In his appellate brief, Bonner recites the factual

allegations of his claims and asserts that he should be permitted

to take a polygraph test to prove that he is “telling the truth.” 
No. 01-11527

-2-

He does not, however, address the district court’s denial of his

motion for the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, Bonner has

waived the only issue properly before this court. See Yohey v.

Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993)(arguments must be

briefed adequately in order to be preserved for appeal). 

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-QSB of Grace 4,
Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ending August 31, 2006, I, Virginia K.
Sourlis, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company
hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, that:

      1.    Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending August
            31, 2006, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
            for the quarter ending August 31, 2006, fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

Dated:  October 12, 2006

Grace 4, Inc.

By: /s/ Virginia K. Sourlis
    -----------------------
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
#### Raquel Wright et al., Appellants, v William Rodriguez et al., Respondents.

[855 NYS2d 147]

*533The defendant William Rodriguez made a prima facie showing that neither plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]; *see also Kearse v New York City Tr. Auth.,*16 AD3d 45, 49-50 [2005]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. As to the plaintiff Raquel Wright, neither she nor her examining physician adequately explained the lengthy gap in her treatment between October 14, 2004, and her most recent examination on February 23, 2006 *(see Pommells v Perez,*4 NY3d 566, 574 [2005]; *Sibrizzi v Davis,*7 AD3d 691 [2004]; *cf. Black v Robinson,*305 AD2d 438, 440 [2003]).

As to the plaintiff Hasan Precise, the affirmation of his treating physician submitted in opposition to the motion was not based on a recent examination, and thus the physician’s projections of permanent limitations had no probative value *(see Amato v Fast Repair Inc.,*42 AD3d 477 [2007]; *Ali v Mirshah,*41 AD3d 748 [2007]; *Elgendy v Nieradko,*307 AD2d 251 [2003]). Moreover, the physician’s opinion that Precise’s injuries and limitations were caused by the subject accident was speculative in light of the fact that the physician failed to acknowledge in his affirmation that Precise was involved in a prior automobile accident in 2002 *(see Moore v Sarwar,*29 AD3d 752 [2006]; *Tudisco v James,*28 AD3d 536 [2006]; *Bennett v Genas,*27 AD3d 601 [2006]; *Allyn v Hanley,*2 AD3d 470 [2003]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining submissions were insufficient on their own to raise a triable issue of fact. The mere existence of a herniated or bulging disc, and even radiculopathy, is not evidence of a serious injury in the absence of objective evidence of the extent of the alleged physical limitations resulting from the disc injury and its duration *(see Patterson v NY Alarm Response Corp.,*45 AD3d 656 [2007]; *Mejia v DeRose,*35 AD3d 407 [2006]; *Yakubov v CG Trans Corp.,*30 AD3d 509, 510 [2006]; *see also Furrs v Griffith,*43 AD3d 389, 390 [2007]). Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Dillon and Balkin, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 133 (Tuesday, July 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34028-34029]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16708]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-5300-N-28]


Notice of Availability: Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for 
Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 Hispanic-Serving Institutions Assisting 
Communities (HSIAC) Program

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and 
Research, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: HUD announces the availability on its Web site of the 
application information, submission deadlines, funding criteria, and 
other requirements for the FY2009 Hispanic-Serving Institutions 
Assisting Communities (HSIAC) Program NOFA. Approximately $6 million is 
made available through this NOFA, by the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development Appropriations Act, 2009 (Pub. L. 111-8, approved 
March 11, 2009), to assist Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI) expand 
their role and effectiveness in addressing community development needs 
in their localities, including neighborhood revitalization, housing, 
and economic development, principally for persons of low- and moderate-
income, consistent with the purposes of Title I of the Housing and 
Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) as amended. 
The notice providing information regarding the application process, 
funding criteria and eligibility requirements is available

[[Page 34029]]

on the Grants.gov Web site at http://apply07.grants.gov/apply/forms_apps_idx.html. A link to Grants.gov is also available on the HUD Web 
site at http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/grants/fundsavail.cfm. The 
Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number for the 
Hispanic-Serving Institutions Assisting Communities (HSIAC) Program is 
14.514. Applications must be submitted electronically through 
Grants.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning the 
Hispanic-Serving Institutions Assisting Communities (HSIAC) Program, 
contact Susan Brunson, Office of University Partnerships, Office of 
Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 8226, Washington DC 20410; 
telephone 202-402-3852 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with 
speech or hearing impairments may access this telephone number via TTY 
by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service during 
working hours at 800-877-8339.

    Dated: June 15, 2009.
Jean Lin Pao,
General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research.
 [FR Doc. E9-16708 Filed 7-10-09; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
#### Willis and others *v.*McCullen.1

*(Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.*

December 8, 1886.)

Patents son Inventions—Inebingement—Salb of Matebial by Licensee to Non-Licensees.

Where a licensee to sell materials for use in a patented process to other licensees, sells said materials, to be used for such process, to other persons known not to be licensees, he is guilty of infringement.

In Equity.

*Alexander & McGill*and *Charles Howson,*for complainants.

*John G.*Johnson, for respondent.

1

 Reported by C. Berkeley Taylor, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.

McKennan, J.

The respondent had a license to use the patented process, and also a license to sell materials for the process, to licensees. The use of the process by the respondent was limited to Philadelphia. Whether these license contracts have been kept in good faith, or violated, by the one party or the other, and whether the complainants could rightfully revoke their licenses, are questions which, under the circumstances here appearing, we cannot consider. *Hartell*v. *Tilghman,*99 U. S. 547. The parties are citizens of the same state, and our jurisdiction, therefore, depends on the subject-matter involved. To the extent of questions arising out of the patent, and the respondent’s acts in alleged violation of it, wo have jurisdiction. Over controversies arising out of the license contracts we have not. Thus the complaint of infringement by use of the process in Philadelphia, and the sale of materials for use by licensees elsewhere, drops out of the case.

There is no license, or room for suggestion of license, to sell materials to others than licensees, for use in the process. That the respondent did sell to such persons for such use, knowing that the materials were purchased for this use, and intending that they should be so applied, is quite clear upon the proofs, if not admitted by the pleadings. Purchasers were solicited by advertisement and otherwise, with an especial view to this use. By these sales thus made the respondent became a party *to*their use. The question whether the complainants violated their contracts, and thus failed in the observance of good faith, urged upon us in justification of this, or as a reason why we should not interfere, cannot bo considered. If they violated their contracts, the respondent has an ample remedy elsewhere. Ho cannot find or seek redress by infringing the patent.

A decree must therefore bo entered against him, as respects such sales for use in the process to unlicensed persons.
Case 1:11-cv-02578-RMB-KMW   Document 63   Filed 10/23/12   Page 1 of 18 PageID: 356

Case 1:11-cv-02578-RMB-KMW   Document 63   Filed 10/23/12   Page 2 of 18 PageID: 357

Case 1:11-cv-02578-RMB-KMW   Document 63   Filed 10/23/12   Page 3 of 18 PageID: 358

Case 1:11-cv-02578-RMB-KMW   Document 63   Filed 10/23/12   Page 4 of 18 PageID: 359

Case 1:11-cv-02578-RMB-KMW   Document 63   Filed 10/23/12   Page 5 of 18 PageID: 360

Case 1:11-cv-02578-RMB-KMW   Document 63   Filed 10/23/12   Page 6 of 18 PageID: 361

Case 1:11-cv-02578-RMB-KMW   Document 63   Filed 10/23/12   Page 7 of 18 PageID: 362

Case 1:11-cv-02578-RMB-KMW   Document 63   Filed 10/23/12   Page 8 of 18 PageID: 363

Case 1:11-cv-02578-RMB-KMW   Document 63   Filed 10/23/12   Page 9 of 18 PageID: 364

Case 1:11-cv-02578-RMB-KMW   Document 63   Filed 10/23/12   Page 10 of 18 PageID: 365

Case 1:11-cv-02578-RMB-KMW   Document 63   Filed 10/23/12   Page 11 of 18 PageID: 366

Case 1:11-cv-02578-RMB-KMW   Document 63   Filed 10/23/12   Page 12 of 18 PageID: 367

Case 1:11-cv-02578-RMB-KMW   Document 63   Filed 10/23/12   Page 13 of 18 PageID: 368

Case 1:11-cv-02578-RMB-KMW   Document 63   Filed 10/23/12   Page 14 of 18 PageID: 369

Case 1:11-cv-02578-RMB-KMW   Document 63   Filed 10/23/12   Page 15 of 18 PageID: 370

Case 1:11-cv-02578-RMB-KMW   Document 63   Filed 10/23/12   Page 16 of 18 PageID: 371

Case 1:11-cv-02578-RMB-KMW   Document 63   Filed 10/23/12   Page 17 of 18 PageID: 372

Case 1:11-cv-02578-RMB-KMW   Document 63   Filed 10/23/12   Page 18 of 18 PageID: 373
#### Roger Dale TERRY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. MIDDLETON, Ofc, Cos; Bobby Shearin, Warden; Slate State, Sgt, Rep; P. Shields, D.O.C., Co2; Fred Nastri, H.O., Defendants-Appellees, and Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services; Scott Oakley, Executive Director of the IGO; J.L. True, Captain; Lenora C. Adegbeson, Defendants.

No. 12-7329.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 29, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 13, 2012.

Roger Dale Terry, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Nancy P. Tennis, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*265PER CURIAM:

Roger Dale Terry, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Terry v. Middleton,*No. 1:11-cv-01686-ELH, 2012 WL 2564779 (D.Md. June 29, 2012). 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.*
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-2518 (MLC)

for the benefit of PACE :

CONSTRUCTION INC., : OPINION & ORDER

:

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

UNIVERSAL CONSTRUCTION :

COMPANY, INC., et al., :

:

Defendants. :

 :

DEFAULT has been entered against the defendant Universal

Construction Company, Inc. (“UCCI”). (See 6-2-11 unnumbered dkt.

entry.) See Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(a).

THE PLAINTIFF now moves for entry of judgment by default

against UCCI. (See dkt. entry no. 16, Notice of Mot.) See

Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b). But it is apparent that the plaintiff intends

to continue to prosecute the action against the other defendants. 

Thus, a complete judgment entered against UCCI would not end the

litigation, thereby giving rise to (1) piecemeal litigation, and

(2) the possibility of a double recovery for the plaintiff.

THE DECISION to either enter judgment by default or refuse

to enter such judgment rests in the Court’s discretion. See

Emcasco Ins. Co. v. Sambrick, 834 F.2d 71, 74 (3d Cir. 1987). 

The Court intends to grant the part of the motion seeking entry

Case 3:11-cv-02518-MLC -LHG Document 19 Filed 11/07/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 160
of judgment by default only on the issue of liability against

UCCI, and deny the part of the motion seeking entry of judgment

by default on the issue of damages. The plaintiff may seek

judgment on the issue of damages against UCCI when the liability

of each of the other defendants has been ascertained.

FOR GOOD CAUSE APPEARING:

2

Case 3:11-cv-02518-MLC -LHG Document 19 Filed 11/07/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 161
IT IS THEREFORE on this 7th day of November, 2011,

ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for entry of judgment by

default against the defendant Universal Construction Company,

Inc. (dkt. entry no. 16) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS

FOLLOWS:

GRANTED TO THE EXTENT that it seeks entry of judgment

by default on the issue of liability against the defendant

Universal Construction Company, Inc., and

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE EXTENT that it seeks

entry of judgment by default on the issue of damages against the

defendant Universal Construction Company, Inc.; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that JUDGMENT IS ENTERED on default

against the defendant Universal Construction Company, Inc., and

in favor of the plaintiff on the issue of liability.

 s/ Mary L. Cooper 

MARY L. COOPER

United States District Judge

3

Case 3:11-cv-02518-MLC -LHG Document 19 Filed 11/07/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 162
# table154_q16.1_naics
EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
                        ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF
                             DENARII RESOURCES INC.
             FORM 10-Q FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2009
                 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Stuart Carnie, am the Chief Executive Officer and acting Chief Financial
Officer of Denarii Resources Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"). I am
delivering this certificate in connection with the Amended Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the six month period ended June 30, 2009 and
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Quarterly Report").

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge,
the Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Amended Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: November 20, 2009              By: /s/ Stuart Carnie
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                          Stuart Carnie
                                          Chief Executive Officer, President,
                                          acting Chief Financial Officer,
                                          acting Principal Accounting Officer
                                          and Director
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gabriel Perez, Appellant.

[854 NYS2d 497]

The trial court properly permitted the prosecution to introduce evidence of the defendant’s prior acts of abuse against the complainant as background material to explain the nature of the defendant’s relationship with the complainant and the reasons that an order of protection was issued, and to demonstrate that the defendant’s violation of the order of protection was neither innocent nor inadvertent *(see People v Alvino,*71 NY2d 233, 242 [1987]; *see also People v Martin,*41 AD3d 616 [2007]; *People v Hanson,*30 AD3d 537 [2006]; *People v Lawrence,*297 AD2d 290 [2002]; *People v Howe,*292 AD2d 542 [2002]).

The defendant’s contention that the admission of such evidence deprived him of a fair trial is without merit. The court remedied any possible prejudice resulting from the evidence by instructing the jurors at the close of the complainant’s testimony and in its charge that they should not consider the evidence as showing the defendant had a propensity to commit crimes but only to clarify the parties’ relationship and demonstrate the defendant’s intent to commit the charged crimes *(see People v Martin,*41 AD3d 616 [2007]; *People v Hanson,*30 AD3d 537 [2006]; *People v Lawrence,*297 AD2d 290 [2002]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit *(see People v Hanson,*30 AD3d 537 [2006]). Spolzino, J.P., Angiolillo, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur.