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

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 141 (Friday, July 24, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 36656]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17516]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Tuolumne County Resource Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Tuolumne County Resource Advisory Committee will meet on 
August 10, 2009 at the City of Sonora Fire Department, in Sonora, 
California. The purpose of the meeting is to vote on projects, 
determine the need for an August 17th meeting, and schedule meetings 
and topics for 2010.

DATES: The meeting will be held August 10, 2009, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the City of Sonora Fire 
Department located at 201 South Shepherd Street, in Sonora, California 
(CA 95370).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beth Martinez, Committee Coordinator, 
USDA, Stanislaus National Forest, Mi-Wuk Ranger District, P.O. Box 100, 
Mi-Wuk Village, CA 95346, (209) 586-3234; E-mail: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Tuolumne County RAC plans to expand its 
geographic area to include Mariposa County and will be reviewing and 
recommending projects in both counties. Agenda items to be covered 
include: (1) Discussion and voting on projects; (2) determine need for 
an August 17 meeting; (3) schedule meetings/topics for 2010; (4) public 
comment on meeting proceedings. This meeting is open to the public.

    Dated: July 16, 2009.
Timothy A. Dabney,
Acting Deputy Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. E9-17516 Filed 7-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-ED-M
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998                          
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          41,147
<SECURITIES>                                       150
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,513
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,837
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                50,912
<PP&E>                                          22,927
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  77,206
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,682
<BONDS>                                         45,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            19
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    77,206
<SALES>                                          2,084
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,361
<CGS>                                            1,416
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,980
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,320
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 953
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,221)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (13,221)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (13,221)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.71)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.71)
        

</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 BROOKSIDE TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS CORP
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
RULE 13a-14(a) / 15d-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-QSB of Brookside Technology Holdings
Corp;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15e for the small business issuer and have:
 a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidating subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal
control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small
business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of
directors (or persons performing equivalent functions):
 a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely
to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal
control over financial reporting.
  By:
Name:
    
    /s/ Bryan McGuire

Bryan McGuireTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE
              -----------------------------------------------------

                   CHASE CREDIT CARD OWNER TRUST SERIES 2000-1

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



      The undersigned, an Authorized Officer of the Chase Manhattan Bank USA,
National Association, as Administrator pursuant to the Indenture for the Chase
Credit Card Owner Trust Series 2000-1 does hereby certify that:

                  1. The undersigned is an Authorized Officer pursuant to the
            Indenture to execute and deliver this Certificate to the Indenture
            Trustee.

                  2. This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 3.9 of
            the Indenture.

                  3. A review of the activities of the Issuer for the calendar
            year ended December 31, 2002, and of performance under this
            Indenture has been made under the supervision of the undersigned.

                  4. To the best of the undersigned knowledge, based on such
            review, the Issuer has complied with all conditions and covenants in
            all material respects under this Indenture for the calendar year
            ended December 31, 2002. No default in the compliance of any such
            condition or covenant has occurred or is continuing except as set
            forth in paragraph 5 below.

                  5. The following is a description of each default in the
            performance of the Issuer's obligations under the provisions of the
            Indenture known to the undersigned to have been made during such
            period which sets forth in detail (i) the nature of each such
            default, (ii) the action taken by the Issuer, if any, to remedy each
            such default and (iii) the current status of each such default:
            NONE.


      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this certificate
this 28th day of March, 2003.

                                              By CHASE MANHATTAN BANK
                                              USA, National Association,
                                              as Administrator




                                              By:  /s/ Patricia M. Garvey
                                                   -----------------------------
                                              Name: Patricia M. Garvey
                                              Title: Vice President
# laucnty21

&8Page &P of &N
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification of Chairman andChief Executive Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

Theundersigned officer of Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”),hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i)                                     the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d),as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(ii)                                  the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 

Date:                    November 7, 2005
|       | By:        | **/s/ Allen Chao**                    |
|------------|------------|---------------------------------------|
| ** ** | ** ** | ** **                            |
| ** ** | ** ** | **Allen  Chao, Ph.D.**                |
|       |       | Chairman and Chief Executive  Officer |
|       |       | (Principal Executive  Officer)        |

 

 

The foregoing certificationis being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by referenceinto any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof,regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

 

----
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE:

SUN FAB INDUSTRIAL

CONTRACTING, INC.,

RELATOR.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-11-00085-CV

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

IN MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Relator seeks a writ of mandamus to overturn an order denying its motion to compel

arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). A writ of mandamus will issue only

if the trial court clearly abused its discretion and if the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. 

In re Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004). A party may bring

an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to compel arbitration under the FAA. 

See TEX.CIV.PRAC.&REM.CODE ANN. § 51.016 (West Supp. 2010); In re Merrill Lynch & Co.,

Inc., 315 S.W.3d 888, 891 n.3 (Tex. 2010)(orig. proceeding); Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, LLP

v. J.A. Green Dev. Corp., 327 S.W.3d 859, 861 (Tex.App.--Dallas 2010, no pet.). Because

Relator has an adequate remedy by appeal, the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. See In

re H.D. Vest, Inc., ___ S.W.3d ___, ___, 2010 WL 4816067, at *1 (Tex.App.--El Paso Nov. 29,

2010, orig. proceeding).1

 An appeal, docketed as No. 08-10-00340-CV, is pending in this Court from the same 1

order that is being challenged in this mandamus proceeding.
March 23, 2011

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Chief Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.

-2-
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Scott Parilla, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 599]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Steven Lloyd Barrett, J.), rendered September 16, 2003, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of rape in the first degree and sodomy in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 7 to 14 years, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about February 28, 2005, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion to vacate the judgment of conviction on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant, who made a valid waiver of his right to appeal, claims that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance by failing to move to dismiss the indictment as time-barred, and that the court improperly enhanced the sentence it promised at the time of the plea. Regardless of whether or not these claims go to the voluntariness of the plea and thus survive the appeal waiver *(see People v Denny,*95 NY2d 921, 923 [2000]), we find both arguments to be without merit.

Defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; *see also Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]). The record establishes that a motion to dismiss the indictment on statute of limitation grounds would have been futile. The ap*364plicable statute of limitations was tolled pursuant to CPL 30.10 (4) (a) (ii) because defendant’s identity, and therefore his whereabouts, were unknown and could not be ascertained by the exercise of reasonable diligence (see *People v Seda,*93 NY2d 307 [1999] ). At the time of this 1993 crime, the victim would not view photographs or otherwise cooperate, and the police had no evidence, or means of obtaining evidence, until the advent of modern DNA technology (see *People v Grogan,*28 AD3d 579 [2006]; *People v Harrison,*22 AD3d 236 [2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 754 [2005]). The police had no additional investigative steps to take, and defendant does not suggest any on appeal.

When the court imposed a greater sentence than the 6 to 12 years previously negotiated, it provided defendant with a suitable remedy by offering him the opportunity to withdraw his plea (see *People v Schultz,*73 NY2d 757, 758 [1988]). Defendant’s remaining arguments on this issue, including his constitutional claims, are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur—Tom, J.E, Saxe, Friedman, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.
Exhibit 10.14.1

 




[*] = CERTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT, MARKED BY BRACKETS, IS FILED WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO RULE 406 OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED.

 



 

Date:       March 14, 2011

 

To:          Management Metric Based Bonus (MBB) Participants

 

From:     Jim Lejeal

 

Regarding:            Q1-2011 MBB Algorithm

 

The Rally Management Metric Based Bonus for Q1 2011 will be attached to company performance against total product bookings.

 

The intent is to align the company management with the sales team’s bookings objectives.

 

Goal:   Achieve the Company’s Q1 “assigned quota” Total Product Bookings Sales Goal:

 

Company Quota Amount Budget:

 

	
New Product   Bookings
    	
 
    	
$
    	
[*]
    	
 
    
	
Renewal Product   Bookings
    	
 
    	
$
    	
[*]
    	
 
    
	
Total Product Bookings
    	
 
    	
$
    	
[*]
    	
 
    


 

Payment Structure:

 

We will continue to have a 90% new bookings threshold as well as a total payment cap of 125%:

 

Anticipated Payout Date:

 

1 month after close of quarter
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7756

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BRIAN DAVID HILL,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:13-cr-00435-TDS-1)

Submitted: March 12, 2020 Decided: March 17, 2020

Before KING, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian David Hill, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Brian David Hill appeals the district court’s order denying his pro se motion to 

correct or modify the record from his September 12, 2019 hearing on revocation of his 

supervised release. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Hill, 

No. 1:13-cr-00435-TDS-1 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 21, 2019). 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
## F IFTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE O F 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D 20 24-0 174 LT Case No. 2 020

- CF-0 0304-A

_____________________________ W ILLIAM W ILDER , Appella nt,
v. S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee
.

_____________________________ 3.850 A ppeal from the Circuit Court for Nassau County. James Hunt Daniel, Judge. Dea na K. Marshall, of La w Office of Deana K. Marshall, P.A., Riverview, for Appellant. No Appearance for Appellee. August 13, 2024
P ER C URIAM . A FFIRMED . W ALLIS , E ISNAUGLE , and B OATWRIGHT , JJ., concur.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331 .

_____________________________
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 633 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 633

  To name the Department of Veterans Affairs medical facility in Iron 
 Mountain, Michigan, as the ``Oscar G. Johnson Department of Veterans 
                      Affairs Medical Facility''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 5, 2003

  Mr. Stupak introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To name the Department of Veterans Affairs medical facility in Iron 
 Mountain, Michigan, as the ``Oscar G. Johnson Department of Veterans 
                      Affairs Medical Facility''.

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

SECTION 1. NAME OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL FACILITY, 
              IRON MOUNTAIN, MICHIGAN.

     The Department of Veterans Affairs medical facility in Iron 
Mountain, Michigan, shall after the date of the enactment of this Act 
be known and designated as the ``Oscar G. Johnson Department of 
Veterans Affairs Medical Facility''. Any reference to that medical 
facility in any law, regulation, map, document, record, or other paper 
of the United States shall be considered to be a reference to the Oscar 
G. Johnson Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(b)
OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350.

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Curis, Inc. (the
Company) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Daniel R. Passeri, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 Company.

Dated: March 8, 2011



/s/ DANIEL R. PASSERIDaniel R. PasseriPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
# State Job Openings and Labor Turnover

The State Job Openings and Labor Turnover (JLTST) release presents data on state level job openings, hires, and separations. This release is issued monthly. For more information, visit the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey home page at www.bls.gov/jlt/.

- February job openings rates down in 4 states and DC; layoffs and discharges up in 7
- January job openings rates up in 6 states, down in 1; hires rates up in 3, down in 2
- December job openings rates down in 4 states, up in 3; quits rates down in 9, up in 1
- November job openings rates down in 4 states, up in 2; total separations rates down in 9
- October job openings rates down in 6 states; layoffs and discharges rates up in 8
- September job openings rates down in 3 states, up in 1; quits rates down in 5, up in 2
- August job openings rates up in 13 states, down in 2; total separations up in 5, down in 4
- July job openings rates down in 9 states, up in 3; quits down in 7
- June job openings rates down in 4 states, up in 2; quits down in 16, up in 1
- May job openings rates down in 12 states; total separations up in 9, down in 7
- April job openings rates up in 13 states, down in 2; layoffs and discharges down in 10
- March job openings rates down in 15 states, up in 1 and DC; hires down in 5, up in 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1546

ROBERT HOWARD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COLLEGE OF THE ALBEMARLE; KANDI DEITMEYER,

Defendants - Appellees.

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

Elizabeth City. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (2:15-cv-00039-D)

Submitted: September 26, 2017 Decided: September 28, 2017

Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Howard, Appellant Pro Se. John D. Leidy, HORNTHAL, RILEY, ELLIS & 

MALAND, LLP, Elizabeth City, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Howard appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to 

his former employer and denying several discovery motions. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. Howard v. Coll. of the Albemarle, No. 2:15-cv-00039-D (E.D.N.C Mar. 

27, 2017). 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