alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
527

48

1,466

1,816

434

-91

-25

352

423

368

923

135

-236

1,209

-500 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000

Government 

Other services 

Leisure and hospitality 

Education and health services 

Professional and business services 

Financial activities 

Information 

Utilities 

Transportation and warehousing 

Retail trade 

Wholesale trade 

Manufacturing 

Construction 

Natural resources and mining 

Employment change (seasonally adjusted, in thousands),

August 2003 to December 2006

Chart 1-8. Employment rose in most industries from August 

2003 to December 2006

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Total nonfarm employment

+7.3 million

Chart 1-8. Employment rose in most industries from August 

2003 to December 2006

• Job growth from August 2003 to the end of 2006 was fairly widespread among 

the major industry sectors. Employment gains in professional and business 

services, in education and health services, and in leisure and hospitality 

accounted for about 60 percent of total job growth over the time period. 

• Between August 2003 and December 2006, employment declined in 

manufacturing and in information.
<PAGE>


Exhibit 32.2
------------


                            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 MedQuist Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Brian J. Kearns,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
              or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
         (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
              material respects, the financial condition and results of
              operations of the Company.





Brian J. Kearns
------------------------
Brian J. Kearns
Chief Financial Officer
August 12, 2003





                                       30
Exhibit 31.2

| 1. | I      have reviewed this amendment to the annual report on Form 10-K/A of      ZIOPHARM Oncology, Inc.; and |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based      on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a      material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the      statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements      were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this      report. |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                               |   |   |   |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/      Richard E. Bagley                                         |   |   |   |   |
| Richard      E. Bagley, President and Chief      Financial Officer |   |   |   |
| (Principal      Financial and AccountingOfficer)                   |   |   |   |   |

----
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and  552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential  trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals  associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of  personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Center for Research Resources Initial Review Group,  Comparative Medicine Review Committee,  CMRC 3.                    

*Date:*                         October 14, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 4 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Hilton Washington/Rockville,  1750 Rockville Pike,  Rockville, MD 20852.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Bonnie B. Dunn, PhD,  Scientific Review Officer,  National Center for Research Resources, or  National Institutes of Health,  6701 Democracy Blvd.,  1 Democracy Plaza, Room 1074, MSC 4874,  Bethesda, MD 20892-4874,  301-435-0824,                         *dunnbo@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research; 93.371, Biomedical Technology; 93.389, Research Infrastructure, 93.306, 93.333, 93.702, ARRA Related Construction Awards, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 17, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-17585 Filed 7-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### James L. DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RAMEN, Correctional Doctor; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-17414.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.*

Filed Dec. 21, 2012.

James L. Davis, Represa, CA, pro se.

Ellen Hung, Deputy Attorney General, Vickie P. Whitney, AGCA — Office Of The California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

James L. Davis, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo summary judgment, *Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and for an abuse of discretion the decision to deny a request to conduct additional discovery, *Barona Grp. of the Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians v. Am. Mgmt. & Amusement, Inc.,*840 F.2d 1394, 1399-1400 (9th Cir.1987). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Davis failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent when they discontinued Davis’s HIV medication when he refused to take it as prescribed, and altered Davis’s diabetes treatment. *See Toguchi*391 F.3d at 1059-60 (difference of medical opinion does not support deliberate indifference claim); *Franklin v. Oregon,*662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir.1981) (difference of opinion between prisoner and medical staff does not support deliberate indifference claim).

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to reopen the discovery process because Davis was afforded an opportunity to conduct discovery and did not “explain how additional discovery would have affected the disposition of the case-” *Barona Grp.,*840 F.2d at 1400.

We do not address Davis’s arguments that defendants did not file their summary judgment motion by the court’s deadline and that the magistrate judge and defen*661dants’ counsel lacked valid oaths of office. *See Bolker v. Comm’r,*760 F.2d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir.1985) (“As a general rule, we will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal.”). In any event, such arguments are without merit.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**REPORT of****INDEPENDENTACCOUNTANTS**

To the Shareowners and Board of Trustees  Idaho Tax-Exempt Fund  We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities of the  Idaho Tax-Exempt Fund, a series of shares of the Saturna Investment Trust,including  the schedules of investments as of November 30, 2001, and the relatedstatements  of operations for the year then ended, the changes in net assets for each of  the two years then ended, and the financial highlights for the five years then  ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are theresponsibility  of the Trust’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion  on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.  We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generallyaccepted in the United States of America.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtainreasonable  assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are  free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis,  evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.  Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of November 30,  2001, by correspondence with the custodian. Our audit also includes assessing  the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management,  as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe  that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.   In our opinion the financial statements and financial highlights referred to  above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position ofIdaho  Tax-Exempt Fund as of November 30, 2001, the results of its operations for the  year then ended, the changes in net assets for each of the two years thenended,  and the financial highlights for each of the five years then ended, inconformity  with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
 /s/ signature    Tait, Weller & Baker
December 13, 2001
EXHIBIT 32.2
                        COLLECTIBLE CONCEPTS GROUP, INC.
    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 Annual Report of Collectible  Concepts  Group,  Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended February 28, 2002 as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  Report),  I, Paul
Lipschutz,  Principal Financial Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss.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) 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.

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

Date:  July 20, 2004

/s/ Paul Lipschutz
---------------------------
Paul Lipschutz
Principal Financial Officer
EX-10.30



 EXHIBIT 10.30 

DIRECTOR FEE SUMMARY 
 Set forth below is a summary of the current director fee arrangements for non-employee directors serving on the Boards of Directors of Mercantile Bank Corporation (“Mercantile”) and its
wholly-owned subsidiary, Mercantile Bank of Michigan (“Bank”). 
 For 2013, non-employee directors of the Bank are
paid an annual retainer of $12,000, and a fee of $750 for each meeting of the Board of Directors of the Bank that they attend, other than meetings that focus on loans, for which non-employee directors are paid a fee of $700. In addition,
non-employee directors are paid a meeting fee of $700 for each meeting of the Audit Committee, $600 for each meeting of the Compensation Committee and the Governance and Nominating Committee, and $400 for each meeting of other committees of the
Board of Directors of the Bank that they attend. Non-employee directors are also paid fees of the same amount for meetings of Mercantile’s Board of Directors and its committees, when for Board meetings there is also not a meeting of the Board
of Directors of the Bank on the same day, and for committee meetings when there is also not a meeting of a committee of the Board of Directors of the Bank having the same name or function on the same day. For meetings that are held by telephone or
other remote communications equipment, the meeting fees are half the amount described above, or if less, $350. One annual retainer fee is also paid to each director who serves as Chairman of the Audit Committees, the Compensation Committees and the
Governance and Nominating Committees of Mercantile’s and the Bank’s Boards of Directors. The annual retainer is, for the Chairman of the Audit Committees - $7,000, for the Chairman of the Compensation Committees - $5,000, and for the
Chairman of the Governance and Nominating Committees - $5,000. 
 The director who serves as Facilitator for executive sessions
of the Board of Directors of the Bank receives a fee of $400 for each executive session of the Bank’s Board of Directors for which the director serves as Facilitator. The Facilitator is also paid the same amount for executive sessions of
Mercantile’s Board of Directors when there is not also an executive session of the Bank’s Board of Directors on the same day. 
 The same persons currently serve on the Boards of Directors of Mercantile and the Bank. Under the Bank’s deferred compensation plan for non-employee directors, directors may elect to defer the
receipt of the annual retainer and meeting fees until they are no longer serving on the Board or until specific dates that they select. Directors are eligible to receive stock-based awards under the Stock Incentive Plan of 2006.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Ant onio, Texas

December 6, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00231

- CR

Patrick Thomas CHILDERS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. A17313

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The Appellant ’ s Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief is hereby GRANTED.

The appellant ’ s reply brief is due on December 30, 2019.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on t his 6th day of December, 2019

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
1

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 11-069V

(Not to be published)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

JESSICA NICOLE YOUNG, *

*

Petitioner, * 

* Filed: January 27, 2014

v. *

* Decision on Attorneys’

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * Fees and Costs

HUMAN SERVICES *

*

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

DECISION1(ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS)

In this case under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,2Special 

Master Zane issued a Decision on August 30, 2013. On January 16, 2014, the parties 

filed a stipulation concerning attorney’s fees and costs in this matter. The parties’ 

stipulation requests a total payment of $9, 271.74, representing attorney’s fees and costs. 

In accordance with General Order #9, Petitioner’s counsel noted that Petitioner incurred 

$161.31 in litigation costs out of this total amount.

 

1

The undersigned intends to post this decision on the United States Court of 

Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 

107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note 

(2006)). As provided by Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 days within which to 

request redaction “of any information furnished by that party (1) that is trade secret or 

commercial or financial information and is privileged or confidential, or (2) that are 

medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, “the entire” decision 

will be available to the public. Id.

2

The applicable statutory provisions defining the program are found at 42 U.S.C. 

§ 300aa-10 et seq. (2006). 
2

The undersigned finds that this petition was brought in good faith and that there 

exists a reasonable basis for the claim. Therefore, an award for fees and costs is 

appropriate, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(b) and (e)(1). The undersigned finds said 

stipulation reasonable and adopts it as the decision of the Court in awarding attorneys’ 

fees and costs, on the terms set forth therein.

I hereby award a lump sum of $9,110.43, in the form of a check payable jointly to 

Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Katherine M. Gonyea, Esq. I additionally award the 

amount of $161.31, in the form of a check made payable to Petitioner.

In the absence of a timely-filed motion for review filed pursuant to Appendix B of 

the Rules of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the clerk of the court shall enter judgment 

in accordance herewith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Lisa D Hamilton-Fieldman. 

Lisa D Hamilton-Fieldman

Special Master
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 Infinite Group, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Michael S. Smith, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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




August
      12, 2010
              /s/ Michael S. SmithMichael
      S. SmithChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)




A signed
original of this certification has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.2


                  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) and
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


        In connection with the filing by Rush Financial Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending
September 30, 2005 (the "Report"), I, Randy Rutledge, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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) and
        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  esults of operation of the
        Company.


Dated:  October 27, 2005


                                                     /s/ Randy Rutledge
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Randy Rutledge
                                                     Chief Financial Officer



This certification shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by
reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent as shall be expressly set forth by
specific reference in such filing.




                                       32
Exhibit 10.1 Consulting Agreement


Exhibit 10.1



































































7.17

Proper Law. This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the law of British Columbia. The parties hereby attorn to the jurisdiction of the Courts in the Province of British Columbia. 







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Agreement as of the day and year firs above written. 




APPIPHANY TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS CORP. 










/s/ Jesse Keller                        

Jesse Keller - Director, President & CEO










/s/ Jon Trump                          

Jon Trump
## In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 13

- 00118

- CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

V.

JORGE LOUIS VERDE, Appellee

On Appeal from the 336th District Court

Fannin County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR

- 12

- 24362

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION

The State has appealed the trial court’s grant of Jorge Louis Verde’s motion to suppress

evidence. Based on the reasoning and analysis in our opinion in cause number 06

- 1 3

- 001 1 5

- CR,

issued on even date herewith, we affirm the trial court ’ s ruling

.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: March 5, 2014

Date Decided: April 23 , 2014

Do Not Publish