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 Transportation

###### Surface Transportation Board 

          - [STB Finance Docket No. 33997] 

                    Texas Central Business Lines Corporation (TCB) has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to provide nonexclusive switching service over approximately 5.0 miles of yard and switching track located entirely within the MidTexas International Center, Inc. (Inland Port).[1]                                          The track generally is located north of State Highway 287 and east of U.S. Highway 67 in Midlothian, TX.                 

                    The transaction is expected to be consummated on or after March 1, 2001.[2] 

                    If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void                     *ab initio.*                     Petitions to reopen the proceeding to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the transaction.                 

An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 33997, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on David D. Watson, P.O. Box 665, Waxahachie, TX 75168. 

Board decisions and notices are available on our website at “WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.” 

Decided: February 5, 2001.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings. 

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                             TCB and Inland Port have negotiated an agreement for TCB's services, the initial term of which is 10 years.                    
        Back to Citation      

2.                             TCB simultaneously filed a petition to dismiss the verified notice of exemption. The Board will address the jurisdictional issue raised by the petition to dismiss in a subsequent decision.                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 01-3392 Filed 2-8-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
DARNELL WEBSTER,Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent. ORDERDISMISSINGAPPEAL BY No. 85472 

# FILE OCT Z4 2021 HA. BF:OWN UPREME COURT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA Wu 19-17A DEP CLERK This is a pro se notice of appeal from a district court order denying a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Tierra Danielle Jones, Judge.

Thiscourt's review ofthisappeal reveals ajurisdictional defect. Specifically, the district court entereditsorder denying appellant'spetition on June 27, 2022. The district court served notice ofentry ofthat order on appellant on June 29, 2022. Appellant did not file the notice of appeal, however, until October 4, 2022, well after the expiration of the 30-day appeal period prescribed by NRS 34.575. See NRAP 4(b); Lozada v. State, 110 Nev. 349, 352, 871 P.2d 944, 946 (1994) (explaining that an untimely notice of appeal fails to vest jurisdiction in this court). Accordingly, this court ORDERS this appealDISMISSED.'



# abog,

, J. Cadish

, J. Sr.J.
'The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in this matter under a general order ofassignment.


# - '3371

### cc: Hon.Tierra Danielle Jones, District Judge Darnell Webster Attorney General/Carson City Clark CountyDistrictAttorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA I947A •,4gAt4
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 23

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
GST Telecommunications, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Nos.
33-94072, 333-07237 and 333-53981) on Form S-8, (Nos. 33-95324, 33-94096,
333-1538 and 333-76405) on Form F-3, and (Nos. 333-15699, 333-16141, 333-32137,
333-21729, 333-19339, 333-45013 and 333-52437) on Form S-3 of GST
Telecommunications, Inc. of our report dated March 1, 1999 relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of GST Telecommunications, Inc. and subsidiaries as
of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, shareholders' (deficit) equity, and cash flows and related schedule
for the year ended December 31, 1998, the three-month period ended December 31,
1997 and each of the years in the two-year period ended September 30, 1997,
which reports appear in the December 31, 1998 Amendment No. 1 to Form 10K of
GST Telecommunications, Inc.

                            /s/ KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

Portland, Oregon
August 3, 1999
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to
U.S.C. Section 1350 As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Carl Spana, President and Chief
Executive Officer of Palatin Technologies, Inc., hereby certify, to my knowledge, that the
annual report on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2005 of Palatin Technologies,
Inc. (the Form 10-K) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form
10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Palatin Technologies, Inc.

|Dated:  September 13, 2005 | /s/ Carl SpanaCarl SpanaPresident and Chief Executive
     Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
|-------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Mervin L. GARDNER and Myrtle G. Gardner, his wife, Appellees.

No. 15291.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

May 23, 1957.

Charles K. Rice, Asst. Atty. Gen., Marvin Weinstein, A. F. Prescott, Helen A. Buckley, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., Franklin Rit-tenhouse, U. S. Atty., Las Vegas, Nev., Stanley H. Brown, Asst. U. S. Atty., Reno, Nev., for appellant.

Stewart & Horton, Royal A. Stewart, Richard W. Horton, Reno, Nev., for ap-pellees.

Before HEALY, BARNES, and HAMLEY, Circuit Judges.

*953PER CURIAM.

This case is here on appeal from a summary judgment granted by the trial court in favor of appellees. The latter, who were plaintiffs below, will hereafter be referred to as Gardner or as appellee.

Gardner was president of the Gardner Supply Company. The suit involves the validity of a penalty assessed against and collected from him by the United States on the grounds of an asserted willful failure on his part properly to collect, account for, and pay over to the government certain withholding taxes collected by Gardner Supply Company from its employees. The prime issue in the case was whether or not Gardner’s conduct in this respect was willful.

After the government had answered his complaint Gardner moved for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., the motion being supported by his affidavit. The government thereupon filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on the ground that certain admissions made in Gardner’s affidavit entitled it to such judgment. In this motion it was stated that the government was not conceding that there were no material issues of fact involved. Its motion was supported by the affidavit of one For-rester, Chief of Delinquent Accounts and Returns Bureau of the local Internal Revenue agency. Gardner’s motion for summary judgment was thereupon granted.

In its answer to Gardner’s complaint the government had squarely denied his allegation of lack of willfulness. Likewise, in the affidavit in support of its cross-motion for summary judgment Gardner’s claim of lack of willfulness was controverted on circumstantial and other grounds.

It is our view that in this posture of the case the parties should have been put upon their proof, and that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. The cause is therefore remanded to the district court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
EXHIBIT 31.4
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-Q/A of QLT Inc.; and2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
the period covered by this report.
  /s/ Cameron R. NelsonCameron R. NelsonVice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-50534 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus FRANKLIN ROLLIN JOHNSTON, also known as Johnny Johnston, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-95-CR-154-2

- - - - - - - - - - March 12, 1999 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Franklin Rollin Johnston appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment on jurisdictional grounds pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(2) after a timely notice of appeal had been filed. Johnston’s timely notice of appeal divested the district court of its jurisdiction to address the motion. United States v. 4,970 Acres of Land , 130 F.3d 712, 714 (5th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’sNo. 98-50534 -2- denial of the motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that

the district court was without jurisdiction to consider the motion. Johnston’s outstanding motions are DENIED. AFFIRMED. MOTIONS DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                           JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                             JUN-27-1999
<CASH>                                         6,269
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 33,718
<ALLOWANCES>                                     442
<INVENTORY>                                   19,910
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              61,344
<PP&E>                                        63,212
<DEPRECIATION>                                33,672
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               129,637
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         25,620
<BONDS>                                      105,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                           7
<OTHER-SE>                                    (9,010)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 129,637
<SALES>                                      116,936
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             116,936
<CGS>                                         95,247
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                104,983
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  75
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             5,467
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                6,486
<INCOME-TAX>                                   2,721
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            3,765
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                   3,765
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0


</TABLE>
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

STEVEN KELLER , Appellant ,

v. Case No. 5D 17

- 635 5D17

- 639

OLIN RAMSEYER o/b/o A.R. and B.R., MINORS , Appellee

. ________________________________/ Opinion filed February 9, 2018 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Br evard County , Kenneth Friedland , Judge. Patrick M. Megaro , Robert L. Hughes and Joseph G. Easton , of Halscott Megaro, P

. A

. , Orlando, for Appellant.

David A. Baker and Mark A. Cavins , of The Law Office of David A. Baker, P

. A

. , Rockledge, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM

. In this consolidated appeal, Appellant (the step father of the alleged minor victims) challenges final judgments of injunction for protection against sexual violence filed by Appellee (the father of the alleged minor victims ). Although the children denied the allegations during the video taped interview with the Child Protection Team and there were2 no eyewitnesses to t he alleged abuse , the trial judge granted the injunction primarily based on Appellee’s testimony about what his c hildren allegedly told him. Appellant’s threshold claim of error relates to the admissibility of this testimony under section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes (2017). We need not address th is evidentiary issue here because we conclude that Appellant’s other claim of error based on section 784.046(4)(a) , Florida Statutes ( 2017), is dispositive. In this case , there were no eyewitnesses, affidavits from eyewitnesses , or direct physical evidence of the allege d abuse to support the allegation s

. Accordingly, there was a lack of substantial , competent evidence to support the injunction. See T.B. v. R.B. (In re A.B.) , 186 So. 3d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (holding that m other failed to meet requirements of section 784.046(4)(a) fo r obtaining injunction against f ather where she was not eyewitness to alleged acts and failed to introduce physical evidence or affidavit from eyewitness to alleged acts). The

f inal j udgments are reversed.

REVERSED.

TORPY, BERGE R and EDWARDS , JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 173 Introduced in House (IH)]

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.

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

SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF PEER REVIEW SYSTEM.

    Part B of title XI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320c et 
seq.) is repealed.

                                 <all>
```
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

      ( print page 9728)    
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting.

*Name:*                         Special Emphasis Panel in Electrical and Communications Systems (1196).                    

*Date and Time:*                         February 22-23, 2001; 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Place:*                         Room II-575, Stafford II Conference Center, National Science Foundation, 4121 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Closed.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dr. Filbert Bartoli, Program Director, Room 675, Division of Electrical and Communications Systems, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 292-8339.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate Unsolicited proposals submitted in response to the program announcement (NSF 00-2).                    

*Reason for Closing:*                         The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: February 5, 2001.

Karen J. York,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 01-3337  Filed 2-8-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
Exhibit 99.2


                            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 Wilder Richman Historic Properties
II, L.P. (the "Registrant") on Form 10-Q for the period ending May 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Neal Ludeke, Chief Financial Officer of Wilder Richman Historic
Corporation, general partner of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
(S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 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 Registrant.



/s/ Neal Ludeke
------------------------------------------
Neal Ludeke
Chief Financial Officer of Wilder Richman
Historic Corporation, general partner of the Registrant
July 15, 2003
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theAnnual Report of West Suburban Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kevin J. Acker,Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/ Kevin J. Acker                    |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Kevin J. Acker                        |   |
| Chairman and Chief  Executive Officer |   |
| March 11, 2009                   |   |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to West SuburbanBancorp, Inc. and will be retained by West Suburban Bancorp, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1695

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase and make

permanent the deduction for the health insurance costs of self-employed

individuals.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 5, 1993

Mr. CARR 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 increase

and make permanent the deduction for the health insurance costs of self-employed individuals.

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

3 SECTION 1. DEDUCTION FOR THE HEALTH INSURANCE

4 COSTS OF SELF-EMPLOYED INDIVIDUALS IN5 CREASED AND MADE PERMANENT.

6 (a) DEDUCTION INCREASED.—Paragraph (1) of sec7 tion 162(l) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating

8 to special rules for health insurance costs of self-employed
2

•HR 1695 IH

1 individuals) is amended by striking ‘‘25 percent’’ and in2 serting ‘‘100 percent’’.

3 (b) DEDUCTION MADE PERMANENT.—Subsection (l)

4 of section 162 of such Code is amended by striking para5 graph (6).

6 (c) REPEAL OF TRANSITION RULE.—Subsection (a)

7 of section 110 of the Tax Extension Act of 1991 is

8 amended by striking paragraph (2).

9 (d) EFFECTIVE DATES.—

10 (1) The amendment made by subsection (a)

11 shall apply to taxable years beginning after Decem12 ber 31, 1992.

13 (2) The amendments made by subsections (b)

14 and (c) shall apply to taxable years ending after

15 June 30, 1992.

Æ