alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 167 (Wednesday, August 30, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 41277]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18337]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy And Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, 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 contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel NIAID Peer Review Meeting,
    Date: September 27, 2017.
    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Kelly Y. Poe, Ph.D., Scientific Review Program, 
Division of Extramural Activities, Room 3F40B, National Institutes 
of Health, NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC 9823, Bethesda, MD 20892-
9823, (240) 669-5036,<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#65150a000e1c2508040c094b0b0c0d4b020a13"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="02726d67697b426f636b6e2c6c6b6a2c656d74">[email protected]</span></a>.
(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 24, 2017.
Natasha M. Copeland,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-18337 Filed 8-29-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 910.

#### Van Horn *v.*Ragen, Warden.

May 27, 1946.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Clay County, Illinois, denied.
#### CHUAN ZHI YU, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-1732.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 10, 2008.

Decided: Jan. 29, 2008.

Winston Wen-Hsiung Tsai, Bethesda, Maryland, for Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Russell J.E. Verby, Shelley R. Goad, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Depai’tment of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Chuan Zhi Yu, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s order pretermitting her application for adjustment of status and ordering her removal from the United States. We deny her petition for review.

Yu entered the United States on a K-l nonimmigrant fiancé visa. She did not marry the sponsor of that visa, and now seeks adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i) (2000) based on an approved labor certification. Relying on its interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1255(d) (2000), and our decision in *Markovski v. Gonzales,*486 F.3d 108 (4th Cir.2007), the Board found Yu ineligible for adjustment of status on any basis other than marriage to the K-l sponsor within ninety days of entry. We conclude that the Board correctly applied the cited authority. Therefore, we deny Yu’s petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*
### Bureau of Labor Statistics U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Fastest Growing Occupations **Fastest growing occupations:** 20 occupations with the highest percent change of employment between 2022-32. *Click on an occupation name to see the full occupational profile.* OCCUPATION
                GROWTH RATE, 2022-32
                2023 MEDIAN PAYWind turbine service technicians
		45% Growth Rate45%			
			
			
				
		$61,770         per yearNurse practitioners
		45% Growth Rate45%			
			
			
				
		$126,260         per yearData scientists
		35% Growth Rate35%			
			
			
				
		$108,020         per yearStatisticians
		32% Growth Rate32%			
			
			
				
		$104,110         per yearInformation security analysts
		32% Growth Rate32%			
			
			
				
		$120,360         per yearMedical and health services managers
		28% Growth Rate28%			
			
			
				
		$110,680         per yearEpidemiologists
		27% Growth Rate27%			
			
			
				
		$81,390         per yearPhysician assistants
		27% Growth Rate27%			
			
			
				
		$130,020         per yearPhysical therapist assistants
		26% Growth Rate26%			
			
			
				
		$64,080         per yearSoftware developers
		26% Growth Rate26%			
			
			
				
		$132,270         per yearOccupational therapy assistants
		24% Growth Rate24%			
			
			
				
		$67,010         per yearActuaries
		23% Growth Rate23%			
			
			
				
		$120,000         per yearComputer and information research scientists
		23% Growth Rate23%			
			
			
				
		$145,080         per yearOperations research analysts
		23% Growth Rate23%			
			
			
				
		$83,640         per yearSolar photovoltaic installers
		22% Growth Rate22%			
			
			
				
		$48,800         per yearHome health and personal care aides
		22% Growth Rate22%			
			
			
				
		$33,530         per yearTaxi drivers
		21% Growth Rate21%			
			
			
				
		$34,680         per yearPersonal care and service workers, all other
		21% Growth Rate21%			
			
			
				
		$36,980         per yearVeterinary technologists and technicians
		21% Growth Rate21%			
			
			
				
		$43,740         per yearVeterinary assistants and laboratory animal caretakers
		20% Growth Rate20%			
			
			
				
		$36,440         per year **Last Modified Date:**
                        Wednesday, April 17, 2024


**U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics**
Office of Occupational Statistics and Employment Projections 
PSB Suite 2135 
2 Massachusetts Avenue NE  
Washington, DC 20212-0001 Telephone:1-202-691-5700 

www.bls.gov/ooh
Contact OOH
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 788 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 788

    To require the termination of any employee of the Department of 
      Veterans Affairs who is found to have retaliated against a 
                             whistleblower.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 18, 2015

Mrs. McCaskill introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To require the termination of any employee of the Department of 
      Veterans Affairs who is found to have retaliated against a 
                             whistleblower.

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

SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
              AFFAIRS WHO RETALIATE AGAINST WHISTLEBLOWERS.

    (a) In General.--Subject to chapter 12 of title 5, United States 
Code, including the right of an employee to obtain judicial review 
under section 1215(a)(4) of that title, and notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, any employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs 
who is determined under section 1215 of that title to have violated 
paragraph (8), (9), or (13) of section 2302(b) of that title shall be 
terminated.
    (b) Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall apply to an act committed 
before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Michael HITT, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Amy ENBE, Head Nurse-Technician at Perry Correctional Institution; Stephen Claytor, Associate Warden of Perry Correctional Institution, sued for injunction officially and damages in individual capacities, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 07-6662.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 7, 2008.

Decided: Jan. 17, 2008.

Jeffrey W. Newman, Dowse B. Rustin, IV, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Steven M. Pruitt, McDonald Patrick Baggett Poston & Hemphill, L.L.P., Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Hitt appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Hitt v. Enloe,*No. 2:04-cv21999-TLW, 2007 WL 904395 (D.S.C. Mar. 22, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
**REPORT OF REGISTERED INDEPENDENT PUBLIC  ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

To the Shareholders and Board of Trustees  Saturna Investment Trust

We have audited the accompanying statements    of assets and liabilities of the Sextant Short-Term Bond Fund, Sextant Bond    Income Fund,    Sextant Growth Fund and Sextant International Fund, each a series of the    Saturna Investment Trust, including the schedules of investments as of November    30, 2005, and the related statements of operations for the year then ended,    and the statements of changes in net assets for each of the two years in    the period then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the five    years in the period then ended. These financial statements and financial    highlights are the responsibility 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    the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States).    Those standards    require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance    about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are free    of material misstatement. We were not engaged to perform an audit of the    Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Our audit included    consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for    designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but    not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the    Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we    express no such opinion. 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, 2005, 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 of Sextant Short-Term Bond Fund, Sextant Bond Income Fund, Sextant    Growth Fund, and Sextant International Fund, as of November 30, 2005, the    results of their operations for the year then ended, and the changes in their    net assets for each of the two years in the period then ended and their financial    highlights for each of the five years in the period then ended, in conformity    with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  January 3, 2006

 

/s/signature

**TAIT, WELLER&  BAKER**
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 165 (Monday, August 28, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40767-40768]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18108]


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

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the 
Receivership of 10258--Mainstreet Savings Bank, FSB, Hastings, Michigan

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation (FDIC) as Receiver for Mainstreet Savings Bank, FSB, 
Hastings, Michigan (``the Receiver'') intends to terminate its 
receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed Receiver of 
Mainstreet Savings Bank, FSB on July 16, 2010. The liquidation of the 
receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by 
available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making 
a final dividend payment to proven creditors.
    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the 
continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. 
Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be 
terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date 
of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the 
termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing 
and sent within thirty days of the date of

[[Page 40768]]

this notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of 
Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight 
Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.
    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be 
considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Date: August 22, 2017.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-18108 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Universal Hospital Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Gary D. Blackford, President and Chief Executive 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) 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.



/s/ Gary D. BlackfordGary D. Blackford President and Chief Executive Officer November 12, 2003
Exhibit 31.1


                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Russell G. Cole, certify that:

(1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of First Ipswich
Bancorp;

(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;

(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 company as of,
and for, the periods presented in this report;

(4) The company's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and we 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 company, including its
      consolidated 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 company'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; and

      c) Disclosed in this report any change in the company's internal control
      over financial reporting that occurred during the company's most recent
      fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
      materially affect, the company's internal control over financial
      reporting; and

(5) The company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
company's auditors and the audit committee of the company's board of directors
(or persons performing the 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 company's ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial information; and

      b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the company's internal control
      over financial reporting.

/s/ Russell G. Cole
------------------------------------------
Russell G. Cole, Chief Executive Officer

August 14, 2006
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 96-20687 Summary Calendar

_____________________

SPHERE DRAKE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

D. S. STERLING PROPERTIES, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants,

D. S. STERLING PROPERTIES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(95-CV-4810)

_________________________________________________________________ April 29, 1997 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Sphere Drake Insurance Company filed a declaratory ju dgment

action against its insured, D. S. Sterling Properties, Inc.,

claiming that it was not obligated to defend or indemnify Sterling

in a state court wrongful death a ction by the mother of a tenant

killed by another tenant in an apartment complex owned by Sterling.- 2 -

The district court granted summary judgment for Sphere Drake; that

judgment became final when the coverage i ssues were severed from

the remaining issues.

Sterling contends that (1) Sp here Drake is not entitled to

enforce the insurance contract’s covera ge exclusions because its

violations of the surplus-lines requirements of the Texas Insurance

Code disqualified it from being an eligible surplus-lines insurer;

(2) even if Sphere Drake is an eligible surplus-lines insurer, the

coverage exclus ions for assault and battery and punitive damages

are unenforceable; and (3) the district court erred by granting

summary judgment on issues Sphere Drake did not address until its

reply to Sterling’s cross-motion for summary judgment.

Pursuant to our de novo review, we AFFIRM for essentially the

reasons stated by the district court. S phere Drake Ins. Co. v. D.

S. Sterling Properties, Inc., et al.

, No. H-95-4810 (S.D. Tex. May

7, 1996). Sterling’s contentions regarding procedural

irr egularities in the summary judgment proceedings are without

merit.

AFFIRMED
**CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C 1350)**

 

  I, **Nicholas Kaiser**, certify that:

This certification is being furnished pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in connection with the filing of the Registrant’s Semi-Annual Report on Form N-CSRS for the period ended May 31, 2015 (the “Report”).

 I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge:

1. 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(a) or 78o(d)); and

  Date: 08/04/2015  /s/ *Nicholas Kaiser*  President 

**CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C 1350)**

  I, **Christopher Fankhauser**, certify that:

This certification is being furnished pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in connection with the filing of the Registrant’s Semi-Annual Report on Form N-CSRS for the period ended May 31, 2015 (the “Report”).

I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge:

1. 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(a) or 78o(d)); and

Date: 08/04/2015

/s/ *Christopher Fankhauser*Treasurer, Chief Compliance Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jason R. Hogabone, Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 435]

Rose, J.

After defendant made incriminating statements about a number of burglaries, he was indicted for burglary in the third degree (four counts), grand larceny (one count) and petit larceny (three counts). When County Court denied suppression of his statements to police and the items found during a search of his car, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of burglary in the third degree in satisfaction of the indictment and waived his *1028right to appeal. County Court sentenced defendant, as a second felony offender, to 3 to 6 years in prison, prompting this appeal.

Defendant acknowledged and waived his right to appeal orally and in a detailed writing following a thorough advisement of his rights by County Court during the plea colloquy. The court specifically told defendant that his waiver would mean that there would be no appellate review of its suppression rulings. Also, in the written waiver, defendant acknowledged that he had discussed the consequences of his waiver with his counsel. Thus, defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal *(see People v Ramos,*7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]; *People v Fludd,*33 AD3d 1124, 1125 [2006], *lv denied*9 NY3d 843 [2007]). Accordingly, defendant’s challenges to County Court’s suppression rulings are precluded *(see People v Kemp,*94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]; *People v Hunt,*29 AD3d 1081, 1083 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 813 [2006]), and his challenge to the admission of evidence at the *Huntley/Mapp*hearing and to the severity of the sentence imposed are foreclosed *(see People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]; *People v Romano,*45 AD3d 910, 912 [2007]).

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Carpinello and Malone Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.