alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 198 (Monday, October 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 48105]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22247]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Drug Abuse; 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 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 Institute on Drug Abuse Special 
Emphasis Panel; NIDA Medications Development.
    Date: November 1, 2017.
    Time: 8:00 a.m. 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate cooperative agreement 
applications.
    Place: Hilton Garden Inn Bethesda, 7301 Waverly Street, 
Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Ivan K. Navarro, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Office of Extramural Policy and Review, Division of 
Extramural Research, National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, 
6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 4242, MSC 9550, Bethesda, MD 20892, 
301-827-5833, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8ae3fcebe4a4e4ebfcebf8f8e5cae4e3e2a4ede5fc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d2bba4b3bcfcbcb3a4b3a0a0bd92bcbbbafcb5bda4">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos.: 93.279, Drug 
Abuse and Addiction Research Programs, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 10, 2017.
Natasha M. Copeland,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-22247 Filed 10-13-17; 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>
NUMBER 13-07-00586-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

________________________________________________ __________

BELEN VARGAS, DECEASED, Appellant,

v.

MARIANO VARGAS, Appellee. 

____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 24th District Court

of De Witt County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Benavides, and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Pro se appellant, Belen Vargas, perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by

the 24th District Court of De Witt County, Texas, in cause number 07-01-20,545. The

record was filed and appellant’s brief became due, but no appellant’s brief has been filed.

On March 30, 2009, this Court was advised by appellant’s sister, Linda Perez (Perez), that

appellant died on October 5, 2008. 
2

On June 8, 2009, the Clerk of this Court spoke with Perez regarding the

administration of appellant’s estate. Perez indicated that she was in the process of

seeking legal counsel to appoint a legal representative for appellant’s estate and determine

if the representative, if any, and/or her heirs desire to prosecute the appeal. Perez stated

that appellant had no children, was divorced, and that appellant’s siblings are the closest

living relatives. The Clerk of the Court sent a letter to Perez requiring her to inform the

Court by July 31, 2009, whether there would be an administration of appellant’s estate and

whether there would be a legal successor to appellant who would be prosecuting the

appeal to conclusion. Perez was advised that if the Court did not receive a response, the

appeal would be subject to dismissal for want of prosecution. To date, the Court has not

received any information regarding the administration of appellant’s estate. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(b).

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered 

and filed this the 15 day of October, 2009. th
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2913 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.2913

                      One Hundred Eleventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the sixth day of January, two thousand and nine

                                 An Act

 
To designate the United States courthouse located at 301 Simonton Street 
    in Key West, Florida, as the ``Sidney M. Aronovitz United States 
                              Courthouse''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.
    The United States courthouse located at 301 Simonton Street in Key 
West, Florida, shall be known and designated as the ``Sidney M. 
Aronovitz United States Courthouse''.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES.
    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Sidney M. 
Aronovitz United States Courthouse''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Exhibit 31.2
SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, Steve M. Hanni, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of Emergency Filtration Products,
Inc.;

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 small
business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer'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 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 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 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; and
 (c) 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 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 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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: August 13, 2004

/s/Steve M. Hanni
Steve M. Hanni, Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

|I, David C. Nolan, certify that:
|--------------------------------
|                                
|1.                              
|                                
|2.                              
|                                
|3.                              
|                                
|4.                              
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|5.                              
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                

|Date: |  | May 7, 2007 |  | /s/ David C. Nolan                                  
|----- |  | ----------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|      |  |             |  | David C. Nolan                                      
|      |  |             |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Corey Jackson, Appellant.

[665 NYS2d 876]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Sudolnik, J.), rendered December 19, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based upon legally sufficient evidence. There was ample evidence of a physical nexus between the undercover officer and the radio sufficient to establish that the radio was taken from his person (Penal Law § 155.30 [5]). Nor was the verdict against the weight of the evidence *{People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495). The issues relating to the credibility of witnesses were properly presented for the jury’s consideration, and the record provides no basis for disturbing its determinations. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Williams, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.
##### 



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
    PARAGON REAL ESTATE EQUITY and INVESTMENT TRUSTBy:
    
    /s/ James C. MastandreaDate: March 16, 2006
    
    
    
    James C. MastandreaChairman, Chief Executive Officer and PresidentPARAGON REAL ESTATE EQUITY and INVESTMENT TRUSTBy:
    
    /s/ John J. DeeDate: March 16, 2006
    
    
    
    John J. DeeChief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3055 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to continue Medicaid spousal 

impoverishment protections for spouses of beneficiaries receiving home 

and community based services under a current waiver parallel to protections afforded spouses of nursing home residents. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 25, 2009 

Mr. ENGEL (for himself and Mr. KING of New York) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to continue 

Medicaid spousal impoverishment protections for spouses 

of beneficiaries receiving home and community based 

services under a current waiver parallel to protections 

afforded spouses of nursing home residents. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HR 3055 IH

1 SECTION 1. CONTINUATION OF MEDICAID SPOUSAL IMPOV2 ERISHMENT PROTECTIONS FOR CERTAIN 

3 SPOUSES OF BENEFICIARIES RECEIVING 

4 HOME AND COMMUNITY BASED SERVICES 

5 UNDER A CURRENT WAIVER PARALLEL TO 

6 PROTECTIONS AFFORDED SPOUSES OF NURS7 ING HOME RESIDENTS. 

8 Section 1915(c) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

9 1396(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following 

10 new paragraph: 

11 ‘‘(10) In the case of a State waiver which was effec12 tive under this subsection as of December 31, 2008, and 

13 which provided as of such date and in connection with 

14 such waiver for income and resource protections for 

15 spouses of individuals receiving home and community 

16 based services pursuant to this subsection equivalent to 

17 such protections authorized for spouses of institutionalized 

18 individuals under section 1924, the Secretary shall author19 ize the continuation of such income and resource protec20 tions for the duration of such waiver (including any exten21 sions thereof).’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
Exhibit 31.2

I, Steven Careaga, principal financial officer for the Company, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Reality Wireless
Networks, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

      a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

      b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

      c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

      a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

      b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


Dated:  May 15, 2005        /s/ Steve Careaga
                            ----------------------
                            Its:  Chief Executive Officer, Principal Financial
                            Officer/Acting Chief Financial Officer, Director
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 48542]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22587]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1): October 18, 
2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
October 13, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail & 
First-Class Package Service Contract 60 to Competitive Product List. 
Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2018-12, CP2018-
19.

Elizabeth A. Reed,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2017-22587 Filed 10-17-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
* 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. 08-50020

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GUADALUPE SOTO-CERVANTES, also known as Jose Morales Estrada

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:07-CR-1482-ALL

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Guadalupe Soto-Cervantes

raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty

provision and not a separate criminal offense. United States v. PinedaArrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 872 (2008).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 4, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-50020

2

The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer
                     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 Mattson Technology, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), David
Dutton, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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) 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 the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|Date: March 11, 2011 | /s/ DAVID DUTTON
                      David DuttonPresident and Chief Executive Officer
|-------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







---
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without **

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TAJINDER SINGH,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 06-71484

Agency No. A095-585-996

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 10, 2009** 

San Francisco, California

Before: HUG, SKOPIL and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.

Tajinder Singh petitions for review of the board of immigration appeals’s

(“BIA”) order rejecting his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and

protection under the Convention Against Torture. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s

FILED

DEC 29 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

decision without issuing an opinion, so “we review the IJ’s decision as the final

agency determination.” Chen v. BIA, 435 F.3d 141, 144 (9th Cir. 2006).

We review questions of law de novo and findings of fact for substantial

evidence. Brezilien v. Holder, 565 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2009). 

“[A]dministrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator

would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). We

will uphold the IJ’s credibility determination if it is “supported by a specific,

cogent reason.” Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004). We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny Singh’s petition.

The facts of this case are known to the parties. We do not repeat them.

I

An alien seeking asylum must establish both a subjective and an objective

fear of persecution through credible testimony. Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 338

(9th Cir. 1995). The IJ’s adverse credibility finding is well supported by the

material inconsistencies and omissions in Singh’s testimony and documents. See

Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1258–59 (9th Cir. 2003). Singh points out no

evidence in the record that compels a contrary result. 

II
3

Because Singh failed to establish his eligibility for asylum, he also failed to

meet the higher burden required for withholding of removal. See Kumar v.

Gonzales, 439 F.3d 520, 525 (9th Cir. 2006).

III

The Convention Against Torture prevents the forcible return of “any person

to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would

be in danger of being subjected to torture.” Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186,

1188 (9th Cir. 2003). The alien bears the burden of proving “that it is more likely

than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of

removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). Singh presents no additional evidence to

support this claim and fails to meet his burden of proof. See Farah v. Ashcroft,

348 F.3d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 2003) (denying an alien’s claim under the

Convention Against Torture when that alien relies on statements found to be not

credible and offers no additional evidence).

DENIED.
[No. 65214-1-I.

Division One.

October 22, 2012.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. James ONeil Wiggin, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Snohomish County, No. 10-1-00078-4, Michael T. Downes, J., entered March 30, 2010. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per

Lau, J.,

concurred in by Leach, C.J., and Dwyer, J.