alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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. Appendix 2), 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 Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel Small Grants Program for Cancer Epidemiology and Cancer Prevention Research.                    

*Date:*                         March 6-7, 2001.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Hilton Gaithersburg, 620 Perry Parkway, Gaithersburg, MD 20877.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Mary Jane Slesinski, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Special Review and Resources Branch, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6116 Executive Boulevard, Room 8045, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301/594-1566.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: February 2, 2001.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 01-3458  Filed 2-9-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 173

To eliminate the Medicare peer review system.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. DUNCAN introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the

Committees on Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To eliminate the Medicare peer review system.

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

3 SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF PEER REVIEW SYSTEM.

4 Part B of title XI of the Social Security Act (42

5 U.S.C. 1320c et seq.) is repealed.

Æ
#### Anna L. BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The FLORIDA BAR, The Supreme Court of Florida, R. Fred Lewis, Charles T. Wells, Harry Lee Anstead, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-12459

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Dec. 28, 2010.

Brett Alan Geer, The Geer Law Firm, LC, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Barry Richard, Mary Hope Keating, Karusha Y. Sharpe, Greenberg, Traurig, et al., Tallahassee, FL, Yvette Acosta MacMillan, Bill McCollum, Office of the Attorney General, Tampa, FL, for DefendantsAppellees.

Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Anna L. Brown appeals the district court’s denial of her claim that the Florida courts’ requirement that practicing attorneys be members of the Florida Bar violates her Freedom of Association and her Equal Protection Rights. But Brown concedes that Circuit precedent forecloses her suit, *see Kaimowitz v. The Florida Bar,*996 F.2d 1151 (11th Cir.1993), and she presents no compelling reason for overturning Kaimowitz’s holding that mandatory bar membership does not violate the Constitution. *See also Keller v. State Bar of California,*496 U.S. 1, 14, 110 S.Ct. 2228, 110 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990) (upholding over First Amendment challenge mandatory Bar dues so long as their use was limited to furthering the goals of “regulating the legal profession or improving the quality of legal services”); *Railway Employees’ Dep’t v. Hanson,*351 U.S. 225, 238, 76 S.Ct. 714,100 L.Ed. 1112 (1956) (upholding compelled union membership as “no more an infringement or impairment of First Amendment rights than there would be in the case of a lawyer who by state law is required to be a member of an integrated bar”). Thus, the court did not err in dis*435missing her suit.1 Nor did the court err in concluding a trial judge’s membership in the Florida Bar did not require recusal.

AFFIRMED.

1

. Having rejected the appeal on the merits, and no Judge in active service having requested that the court be polled on hearing the case en banc, we deny the Petition for Hearing En Banc as moot.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION



Certification of Principal Accounting Officer



I, Wm. Lee Popham, Principal Accounting Officer, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Admiral Financial Corp.;



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(s) 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) 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(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing 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.



Dated: November 6, 2008



/s/ Wm. Lee Popham

Wm. Lee Popham, Principal Accounting Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1726 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1726

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require the Internal 
  Revenue Service to pay interest on late refunds of certain required 
payments made by entities electing not to have a required taxable year.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 20, 1993

   Mr. Bachus of Alabama (for himself and Mr. Bevill) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require the Internal 
  Revenue Service to pay interest on late refunds of certain required 
payments made by entities electing not to have a required taxable year.

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

SECTION 1. INTEREST PAYABLE ON LATE REFUNDS OF CERTAIN REQUIRED 
              PAYMENTS BY ENTITIES ELECTING NOT TO HAVE REQUIRED 
              TAXABLE YEAR.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 7519(f) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to required payments for entities 
electing not to have required taxable year) is amended by inserting 
before the period ``if such refund is made on or before the date the 
refund is payable under subsection (c)(3)''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect as if included in the amendments made by section 10206 of 
the Revenue Act of 1987.

                                 <all>
```
CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
               PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      In  connection with the accompanying Annual Report on  Form
10K  of  Admiral  Financial Corp. for the  fiscal  quarter  ended
September  30,  2004, Wm. Lee Popham, Chairman, CEO  and  CFO  of
Admiral  Financial Corp. hereby certifies pursuant to  18  U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley  Act  of  2002,  to the best of his knowledge  and  belief,
that::

     1.   Such  Annual  Report on Form 10Q for the  period  ended
          September   30,   2004,   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 such Annual Report on Form
          10Q  for  the  period ended September 30, 2004,  fairly
          presents,  in  all  material  respects,  the  financial
          condition   and  results  of  operations   of   Admiral
          Financial Corp.

                                   ADMIRAL FINANCIAL CORP.


Date:  November 13, 2004           By: /s/ Wm. Lee Popham
                                      ---------------------------
                                      Wm. Lee Popham, Chairman,
                                      CEO and CFO
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-2150

VANCE DONNELL HESTER, Plaintiff – Appellant,

v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:07-cv-00125-D)

Submitted: April 17, 2009 Decided: June 9, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry Clifton Hester, HESTER GRADY & HESTER, P.L.L.C, Elizabethtown, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Karen J. Aviles, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Vance Donnell Hester appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for judgment on the pleadings and granting the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in his action seeking review of the Commissioner’s decision to deny him disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income under the Social Security Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court, Hester v. Astrue , No. 7:07-cv-00125-D (E.D.N.C. Aug. 12, 2008), and our decision

in Mickles v. Shalala , 29 F.3d 918 (4th Cir. 1994). 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
Exhibit 21
 Subsidiaries of the Registrant
 Subsidiary
    

State of IncorporationGEOMET Technologies, LLC
    
    MarylandVersar International, Inc.
    
    DelawareVersar of Ohio, Inc.
    
    OhioVersar Risk Management, Inc.
    
    New YorkVersar Laboratories, Inc.
    
    DelawareSCIMAN Corp.
    
    DelawareVEC Corp.
    
    PennsylvaniaVersar Global Solutions, Inc.
    
    VirginiaSBIS, Inc.
    
    DelawareAdvent Environmental, Inc.
    
    KentuckyProfessional Protection Systems, Inc.
    
    United Kingdom
 36
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.15

                         ENVIRONMENTAL POWER CORPORATION

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

                            INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT
                               --------------------

         AGREEMENT made this 12th day of February, 2002, between Environmental
Power Corporation (the "Corporation"), and Joseph Cresci, Donald Livingston and
William D. Linehan, and their successors (each, an "Indemnified Person", and,
collectively, the "Indemnified Persons") in their capacities as either
fiduciaries or agents of all employee welfare benefit plans of the Corporation,
employee pension benefit plans of the Corporation and benefit plans of the
Corporation (the "Plans") as defined in Section 3(1), Section 3(2) and Section
3(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as follows:

         The Corporation shall indemnify the Indemnified Persons against any
loss, liability, cost or other expense, including, but not limited to, the
payment of reasonable attorneys' fees, that may be incurred in the future or may
have been incurred at any time in the past in connection with the Plans, unless
such loss, liability, cost or other expense (whether direct or indirect) arises
or arose from the willful and gross negligence, malfeasance or misfeasance of an
Indemnified Person.

         The Corporation shall indemnify the Indemnified Persons against any
loss, liability, cost or other expense, including, but not limited to, the
payment of reasonable attorneys' fees, because of any investment action or other
action taken or omitted by the Indemnified Persons including investment
decisions and governmental filings, taken in their capacities as fiduciaries of
the Plans in accordance with any direction of the Corporation or a plan
participant of the Plans; any investment action taken or omitted by the
Indemnified Persons in such capacities in accordance with any direction of a
participant, former participant or beneficiary with respect to assets of the
Plans subject to such direction; or any investment action taken or omitted by
the Indemnified Persons in such capacities in the absence of

<PAGE>

directions from the Corporation or the Administrator of the Plans, or from a
participant, former participant or beneficiary with respect to assets of the
Plans subject to such direction; unless such loss, liability, cost or other
expense arises from the willful and gross negligence, malfeasance or misfeasance
by the Indemnified Persons.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed effective as of the day and year first above written.

                                         ENVIRONMENTAL POWER CORPORATION

                                         By:  /s/ Joseph E. Cresci
                                           -------------------------------------
                                               Joseph E. Cresci, Chief Executive
                                               Officer

ATTEST:

William D. Linehan
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-1892

___________

Maria Rosa Paz, *

*

Petitioner, *

*

v. * Petition for Review of 

* an Order of the Immigration

Immigration and Naturalization * and Naturalization Service.

Service; John Ashcroft, Attorney * [UNPUBLISHED]

General, *

*

Respondents. *

___________

 Submitted: March 4, 2003

 Filed: March 10, 2003 

___________

Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Guatemalan citizen Maria Paz petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of

her application for asylum and withholding of removal. Paz argues that the IJ erred

in concluding she had not been persecuted on account of her political opinion, that

State Department reports suggest conditions in Guatemala have not changed, that she

showed a well-founded fear of future persecution, and that she was denied due

process because the attorneys who represented her before the IJ and the BIA were
-2-

ineffective and have since been suspended and disbarred. After careful review, we

deny the petition.

We agree with the BIA that Paz did not show past persecution, a well-founded

fear of future persecution, or a basis for withholding of removal, as there was no

evidence that when guerrilla forces solicited food and attempted to recruit her in

1994, they did so on account of her political opinion or affiliation or any other

characteristic that provides a basis for asylum. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.

478, 482-83 (1992); Lopez-Zeron v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, INS, 8 F.3d 636, 638 (8th

Cir. 1993) (per curiam). We also conclude that, although respondent was not required

to show improved country conditions because Paz did not establish past persecution,

see Kratchmarov v. Heston, 172 F.3d 551, 553 (8th Cir. 1999), it did so by

introducing evidence that since Paz arrived in the United States, Guatemala’s civil

war has ended, and the guerrillas have disbanded and renounced violence, and are

participating in the political process, see Regalado-Garcia v. INS, 305 F.3d 784, 788

(8th Cir. 2002). The evidence Paz cites of general conditions does not support her

claim of a well-founded fear of persecution, because there is no indication that she

would be targeted for mistreatment in the future on account of her political opinion

or any other protected characteristic. Cf. Bradvica v. INS, 128 F.3d 1009, 1013 (7th

Cir. 1997) (evidence of generalized conditions of strife did not support asylum claim

because it did not show applicant would be singled out for persecution).

Finally, we conclude that Paz’s due process claim is not reviewable because

she has not exhausted her administrative remedies. See Valadez-Salas v. INS, 721

F.2d 251, 252 (8th Cir. 1983) (per curiam).

The petition is denied.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALEX FRANCISCO TICUN

- COLOC,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 73415 Agency No. A088

- 769

- 667

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 4, 2020 * *

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Alex Francisco Ticun

- Coloc , a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal
and relief under the Convention Against Tortu re (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

FEB 6 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 16

- 73415

findings. Garcia

- Milian v. Holder , 755 F.3d 1026, 103 1 (9th Cir. 2014) . We deny
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Ticun

- Coloc

failed to establish that the harm he experienced or fears in Guatemala was or would

be on account of a protected ground, including membership in a particular social

group or a politi cal opinion

. S ee Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir.
2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by
theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”) ;

s ee also Ayala v. Holder , 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) ( even if membership
in a particular social group is established , an applicant must still show that
“persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group ”) ; Barrios

v. Holder , 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding a political opinion claim
failed where petitioner did not present sufficient evidence of political or
ideological opposition to the gang’s ideals or that the gang imputed a particular
political belief to t he petitioner) . Thus, Ticun

- Coloc ’s withholding of removal

claim fail s

. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Ticun

- Coloc failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or3 16

- 73415

with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See

Aden v. Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009)

.
PETITION FOR REV IEW DENIED.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Joseph C. Cahill, Director and CFO of PowerCold Corporation (the Company) do hereby 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.  This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q /A
 of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.





Date: June 23
, 2005



/s/ Joseph C. Cahill

Joseph C. Cahill

Director and CFO