alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 45867]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20990]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Office of the Secretary; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Muscular Dystrophy 
Coordinating Committee.
    The meeting will be open to the public and accessible by 
teleconference and live WebEx. Members of the public who wish to 
participate using WebEx should contact the Contact Person listed on 
this notice for the WebEx details. Individuals who plan to participate 
and need special assistance, such as reasonable accommodations, should 
notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    Name of Committee: Muscular Dystrophy Coordinating Committee.
    Type of meeting: Open Meeting.
    Date: December 5, 2017.
    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. *Eastern Time*
    Agenda: The purpose of this meeting is to bring together 
committee members, representing government agencies, patient 
advocacy groups, other voluntary health organizations, and patients 
and families to update one another on progress relevant to the 
Action Plan for the Muscular Dystrophies.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6001 Executive Boulevard, 
Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Call-In Number: 1-650-479-3208.
    Public Access Code: 622 734 375.
    Contact Person: Glen Nuckolls, Ph.D., Program Director, National 
Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, NIH, 6001 Executive 
Boulevard, Room 2203, Rockville, MD 20892, Phone: (301) 496-5876, 
Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#117f64727a7e7d7d76517f787f75623f7f78793f767e67"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b3ddc6d0d8dcdfdfd4f3dddaddd7c09ddddadb9dd4dcc5">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Prior to the meeting, an agenda will be posted to the MDCC Web 
site: www.mdcc.nih.gov.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, 
Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, 
Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 26, 2017.
Sylvia L. Neal,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-20990 Filed 9-29-17; 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>
#### In re George Brooks SHEFFER and Karla Jean Sheffer, Debtors. Brandon Edward Landas, Plaintiff, v. George Brooks Sheffer and Karla Jean Sheffer, Defendant.

Bankruptcy No. 08-11881-RGM.

Adversary No. 09-1117.

United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division.

Dec. 3, 2009.

George Brooks Sheffer, pro se.

Karla Jean Sheffer, pro se.

*MEMORANDUM OPINION*

ROBERT G. MAYER, Bankruptcy Judge.

THIS CASE was before the court on December 1, 2009, on Brandon E. Landas’ motion for default judgment.

This case was filed on May 13, 2009. On May 14, 2009, the clerk issued a summons to the plaintiff to be served by him. The summons required an answer to be filed by June 14, 2009. Mr. Landas filed a letter together with his proof of service on July 17, 2009. (Docket Entry 6). In the cover letter, he states that he mailed the summons on May 23, 2009. Mr. Landas also attached a United States Postal Service mailing receipt showing a mailing on May 23, 2009. The May 23, 2009 mailing shows that the item was mailed by certified mail. The proof of service shows that he again mailed the summons and complaint on July 8, 2009. It is clear that the debtors received one or the other summons and complaint because they filed an answer on September 21, 2009. (Docket Entry 7).

*122There is some confusion as to the proper means of service, the time of service, and the time for filing a response. It does not appear that the initial summons was properly served by Mr. Landas. *See In re Frazier*394 B.R. 399 (Bankr.E.D.Va.2008). The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure permit service by first class mail on debtors. First class mail, however, is not the same as certified mail. Certified mail imposes additional obligations and the mail may not be received timely by the named recipient. Here, while it is clear that the complaint was received by the defendants, it is not clear when it was received.

The parties are clearly at issue and the matter is set for trial on January 21, 2010. All parties have filed the exhibits that they wish to use and may produce witnesses. No subpoenas have been issued for witnesses. If subpoenas are desired, they should be requested promptly. Witnesses may appear voluntarily without a subpoena, but the party takes the risk of nonappearance if they are not subpoenaed.

In these circumstances, where both parties are representing themselves, it is preferable to resolve the matter on the merits not on a default, particularly when the default is unclear. Notwithstanding that the answer may have been late, it provided enough time for both parties to file exhibits by December 1, 2009, and be prepared for trial on January 21, 2010. For the foregoing reasons, the motion for default judgment will be denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7560

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ZAMAN ASHRAF, a/k/a Pop,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior

District Judge. (3:03-cr-00458-REP-3)

Submitted: July 22, 2013 Decided: August 2, 2013

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Zaman Ashraf, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Zaman Ashraf appeals the district court’s order 

denying his motion for reduction of sentence, 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. United States v. Ashraf, No. 

3:03-cr-00458-REP-3 (E.D. Va. Aug. 22, 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
* 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. 96-11542

Summary Calendar

 

JERRY C. SMITH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

FRANK POHLMEIER, Captain; 

JOHN SIMMS, Dr.; ARYN HALE,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:95-CV-317

- - - - - - - - - -

November 19, 1997

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jerry C. Smith, Texas prisoner #620930, appeals the

dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state

a claim upon which relief can be granted and frivolousness. 

Smith argues that the defendants used excessive force and

forcefully medicated him with a drug to which he is allergic. 
2

We have reviewed the record and Smith’s brief and AFFIRM the

district court’s dismissal for essentially the same reasons

adopted by the district court. Smith v. Pohlmeier, No. 2:95-CV317 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 27, 1996).

AFFIRMED.
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 Braintech, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the nine month period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Edward
A. White, the Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:




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




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






/s/ Edward A.
White




Edward A.
White




Principal
Financial Officer and Accounting Officer




Dated:
November 14, 2008
EXHIBIT 23.1**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 33-71276, 33-94370,333-83089, 333-84183, 333-38094, 333-108716, 333-125743, and 333-144221 on Form S-8 andRegistration Statements No. 33-49082, 33-76094, 333-24549, 333-76641, 333-77925, 333-31442,333-32776, 333-34958, 333-35934, 333-107820, 333-111680, 333-114389, 333-123867, 333-124230 and333-125979 on Form S-3 of our report dated December 15, 2006, relating to the financial statements,before the effects of retrospective adjustments for discontinued operations (not presented herein),of AVANIR Pharmaceuticals (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes anexplanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting StandardsNo. 123(R), *Share-based Payment,*and the change in method of accounting for certain patent relatedcosts, effective October 1, 2005), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of AVANIRPharmaceuticals for the year ended September 30, 2007./s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLPCosta Mesa, California
EXHIBIT 32.2

                     CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
   PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)


I, Gary R. Smith,  Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of Coronado Industries,
Inc. (the  "Company"),  have executed this  certification in connection with the
filing with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  of the  Company's  Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the  "Report").  The
undersigned hereby certifies 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.

IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the undersigned have executed this certificate on the 29th
day of March, 2004.

                                           /s/ Gary R. Smith
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Gary R. Smith
                                           Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT
32.2





ICONIX
BRAND 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 Iconix Brand Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008 (the “Report”), I, Warren
Clamen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/
      Warren ClamenWarren
      ClamenChief
      Financial Officer





February
27, 2009
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on August 23, 2017, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), DVD Copy Control Association (“DVD CCA”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Elässer GmbH, Horb, GERMANY; NovoDisc Midia Digital Ltda, Sao Paulo, BRAZIL; Signature Media Services, Valencia, CA; and Zheijang Tianle Digital Electric, Shengzhou, Zhejiang, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and DVD CCA intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On April 11, 2001, DVD CCA filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on August 3, 2001 (66 FR 40727).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on May 25, 2017. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on June 20, 2017 (82 FR 28093).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2017-20881 Filed 9-28-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE P
**Exhibit 23.2**

**CONSENT OF REGISTERED INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the inclusion of ourreport dated March 1, 2007 included in Transcend Services, Inc.’s Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2007 as well as the incorporation by reference of such report into the Company’s previously filed RegistrationStatements File Nos. 333-106454, 333-106446, 033-59115, 333-116911, 333-116910 and 333-131059. 

/s/ Miller Ray Houser & Stewart LLP 

Atlanta, Georgia 

April 15, 2008
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

TERRY LEE MORRIS

, Ap p ellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 16

- 00153

- CR

Appeal from the

396th District Court

of Tarrant County, Texas

(TC#1382399D)



### O R D E R

Appel lant has filed three pro se requests for hybrid representation (representation by both counsel

and himself). In accordance with well

- established law, the Court has twice informed Appellant by letter

that it will not allow hybrid representation. See Ex pa rte Taylor , 36 S.W.3d 883, 887 (Tex.Crim.App.

2001). The Court has determined it will not reconsider its decision refusing to permit hybrid

representation in this case. Further, the Court will not respond to any further pro se letters or motions

requesti ng hybrid representation.

IT IS SO ORDERED THI S 6TH DAY OF DECEMBE R, 2017.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox , JJ.
J - A12016- 19 NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. EMELIA M. SEGRETI Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

No. 572 WDA 2018 Appeal from the Order Entered April 18, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at No(s): CP- 02 - SA - 0000233 - 2018 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED MAY 8, 2019 Appellant, Emelia M. Segretti, appeals pro se from the April 18, 2018 Judgment of Sentence entered in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas following her conviction of Disorderly Conduct, 18 Pa.C. S. § 5503(a)(1). We dismiss this appeal. The pro se Brief Appellant has submitted to this Court fails to conform to the basic requirements of appellate advocacy. Appellant’s Brief does not include: (1) the text of the order in question; (2) statements of the scope and standard of review; and (3) a copy of her Rule 1925(b) Statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a). Most notably, the argument section of Appellant’s Brief contains only one sentence and is devoid of any citation to case law or to the record. See A ppellant’s Brief at 7. “The Rules of Appellate Procedure state unequivocally that each question an appellant raises is to be supported by discussion andJ - A12016 - 19

- 2 - analysis of pertinent authority.” Eichman v. McKeon , 824 A.2d 305, 319 (Pa. Super. 2003). Furthermore, “[w]hen issues are not properly raised and developed in briefs, when the briefs are wholly inadequate to present specific issues for review[,] a Court will not consider the merits thereof.” Branch Banking and Trust v. Gesiorski , 904 A.2d 939, 942 - 43 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted) . “While this court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, we note that appellant is not entitled to any particular advantage because she lacks legal training. As our supreme court has expl ained, any layperson choosing to represent herself in a legal proceeding must, to some reasonable extent, assume the risk that her lack of expertise and legal training will prove her undoing.” Id. at 942 (citation omitted). In the present case, even a li beral construction of Appellant’s Brief cannot remedy the serious inadequacies. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal due to the substantial briefing defects in Appellant’s Brief, which hampered our ability to conduct meaningful appellate review. See Pa.R.A .P. 2101. Appeal dismissed. Jurisdiction relinquished. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 5/8/2019
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 Braintech, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the six month period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Edward A. White,
the Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:




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




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




/s/ Edward A.
White


Edward A.
White


Principal
Financial Officer and Accounting Officer


Dated:
August 19, 2008
Three Months EndedMarch 31,2009
    
    
    2008(In thousands, except per share data)BASICNet income (loss) available to common
    
    $
    (1,594
    )
    
    $
    240Shareholder / Weighted Average Shares
    
    
    3,735
    
    
    
    3,726Basic Earnings (loss) per Share
    
    $
    (0.43
    )
    
    $
    0.06DILUTEDNet income (loss) available to common
    
    $
    (1,594
    )
    
    $
    240Shareholder / Weighted Average Shares
    
    
    3,735
    
    
    
    3,730Diluted Earnings (loss) per Share
    
    $
    (0.43
    )
    
    $
    0.06
 39
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                      CORNELL CORRECTIONS, INC.
         STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
               (IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                            THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31,
                                                                --------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         2002                            2001
                                                                ------------------------        ------------------------
                                                                  BASIC         DILUTED           BASIC          DILUTED
                                                                ------------------------        ------------------------
<S>                                                             <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>
Net earnings (loss)                                             $   (330)       $   (330)       $    824        $    824
                                                                ========================        ========================

Shares used in computing net earnings per share:
    Weighted average common shares and
      common share equivalents                                    14,062          14,062          10,182          10,182


    Less treasury shares                                          (1,110)         (1,110)           (955)           (955)

    Effect of shares issuable under stock options
      and warrants based on the treasury stock method                  0               0               0             201
                                                                ------------------------        ------------------------

                                                                  12,952          12,952           9,227           9,428
                                                                ------------------------        ------------------------


 Net earnings (loss) per share                                  $  (0.03)       $  (0.03)       $   0.09        $   0.09
                                                                ========================        ========================

</TABLE>