alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 20, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 10890]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4129]


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

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA-3160-EM]


Michigan; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency for the State of 
Michigan, (FEMA-3160-EM), dated January 10, 2001, and related 
determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 2, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madge Dale, Response and Recovery 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, 
(202) 646-3772.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of an emergency for the State of 
Michigan is hereby amended to include the following areas among those 
areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe 
declared an emergency by the President in his declaration of January 
10, 2001:

    Branch, Berrien, Gladwin, Hillsdale, Huron, Ingham, Ionia, 
Jackson, Mecosta, Osceola, Sanilac, and Shiawassee Counties for 
emergency protective measures under the Public Assistance program 
for a period of 48 hours.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 83.537, Community 
Disaster Loans; 83.538, Cora Brown Fund Program; 83.539, Crisis 
Counseling; 83.540, Disaster Legal Services Program; 83.541, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 83.542, Fire Suppression 
Assistance; 83.543, Individual and Family Grant (IFG) Program; 
83.544, Public Assistance Grants; 83.545, Disaster Housing Program; 
83.548, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

Lacy E. Suiter,
Executive Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate.
[FR Doc. 01-4129 Filed 2-16-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
#### Kasean Damont BRYSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sid HARKLEROAD, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 10-6622.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 16, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 27, 2010.

*774Kasean Damont Bryson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kasean Damont Bryson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. ' 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bryson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
Exhibit 10.1


    
      

    

    EXHIBIT
      10.1

     

    TERMINATION
      AGREEMENT


     

    This
      Termination Agreement is entered into by and between Core F.G. Co. Ltd. ("CFG"),
      Rexahn Pharmaceuticals ("Rexahn"), Inc. and Future System, Inc. ("FSI")
      (collectively referred to as the "Parties") on this 7 day of June, 2006, with
      regard to the Management Agreement, Share Subscription Agreement, and
      Intellectual Property Assignment & License Agreement (collectively referred
      to as the "Agreements") entered into by and between the Parties on 19 day of
      April, 2006. 

     

    The
      Parties now desire to provide for the termination of the Agreements entered
      into
      by and between the Parties on 19 day of April, 2006, and agree as
      follows:

     

    1.
      The
      Parties agree and acknowledge that all or any rights and obligations under
      the
      Agreements and any other agreements, written or oral, executed by the Parties
      in
      the course of negotiating the Agreements, have been terminated pursuant to
      rejection of proposed transactions at FSI's shareholder's meeting held on the
      7th day of June, 2006.

     

    2.
      The
      Parties hereby release, discharge and waive any claims, whether civil, criminal
      or any other complaints, against each other arising out or in any way connected
      with the termination of the Agreements.

     

    3.
      The
      Parties agree and acknowledge confirm that each party shall bear its own costs
      and expenses incurred in relation to the execution and delivery of the
      Agreements including but not limited to attorney fees, consulting services
      fees
      and due diligence expenses.

     

    
      	
              Core
                F.G. Co. Ltd.: 

            	
              Representative
                Director /s/ Mr. In-Young Oh

            
	
              Rexahn
                Pharmaceuticals, Inc.:

            	
              Representative
                Director /s/ Mr. Chang-Ho Ahn

            
	
              Future
                Systems, Inc.:

            	
              Representative
                Director /s/ Mr. Kwang-Tae Kim
EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, William J. Eckert, IV, certify that:

1. I have  reviewed  this  quarterly  report on Form  10-Q of Pruco  Life of New
Jersey Variable Contract Real Property Account;

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

4. The  registrant'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)) for the registrant and we have:

a) Designed such disclosure  controls and procedures,  or caused such disclosure
controls and  procedures to be designed  under our  supervision,  to ensure that
material  information  relating to the  registrant,  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  registrant'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 registrant's internal control over
financial  reporting that occurred  during the  registrant's  most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected,  or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying  officer(s) and I have disclosed,  based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,  to the
registrant's  auditors  and the audit  committee  of the  registrant'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  registrant'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 registrant's  internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: May 14, 2004

/s/ William J. Eckert, IV
-------------------------
William J. Eckert, IV
Chief Accounting Officer

                                       27
#### Van Anthony ROSE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 10-7440.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 13, 2011.

Decided: Jan. 20, 2011.

Van Anthony Rose, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Van Anthony Rose seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the dis*730trict court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rose has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
window.addEventListener("load", (event) => {
    const urlParams = new URLSearchParams(window.location.search);
    if (urlParams.has("content")) {
        let keywordParams = urlParams.getAll("content");
        let keywords = keywordParams.join(' ');
        if (keywords.length > 0) {
            document.querySelector("#search-title, .fsrd-article__title").innerHTML = `Showing results for: ${keywords}`;
        }
    }
  });
  
  /**
   * Checks the URL query to see if there are any search parameters with values.
   * @returns boolean Whether there are any search parameters with values in the URL query
   */
  function hasSearchParams() {
    let r = false;
    let queryString = window.location.search;
    let urlParams = new URLSearchParams(queryString);
    for(let entry of urlParams.entries()) {
        if (entry[1].length > 0) {
            if (entry[0] != 'page') {
                r = true;
            }
        }
    }
    return r;
  }
  
  /**
   * Creates the search reset link.
   */
  Drupal.behaviors.fsSearchReset = {
    attach: function (context, settings) {
        once('fsSearchReset', '#search-reset', context).forEach(
            function (element) {
                if (hasSearchParams()) {
                    let resetLink = document.createElement('a');
                    resetLink.setAttribute('href', location.href.replace(location.search, ''));
                    resetLink.innerText = "Clear all search filters";
                    element.appendChild(resetLink);
                }
            }
          );
    }
  };
Certification

I, Cheng Shui San, certify that: 

1.     I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Great China International Holdings, Inc. for theperiod ended March 31, 2006; 

2.     Based on my knowledge, thisreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis report; 

3.     Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cashflows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4.     The small business issuer'sother certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: 

(a)     Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b)     Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

(c)     Disclosedin this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financialreporting 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) thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small businessissuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.     The small business issuer'sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors andthe audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): 

(a)     Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect thesmall business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

(b)     Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1990

To authorize a project to demonstrate the feasibility of voting by telephone.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 5, 1993

Mr. RICHARDSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on House Administration

A BILL

To authorize a project to demonstrate the feasibility of voting

by telephone.

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

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

4 The Congress finds that—

5 (1) perfecting voting by telephone would greatly

6 enhance voter participation; and

7 (2) the national laboratories have the tech8 nology to monitor the results of telephone voting and

9 to ensure the security of the process.
2

•HR 1990 IH

1 SEC. 2. DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.

2 The Federal Election Commission shall make a grant

3 to a consortium described in section 4 for the purpose of

4 conducting a project to demonstrate the feasibility of vot5 ing by telephone.

6 SEC. 3. MATTERS TO BE ADDRESSED.

7 A demonstration project under section 2 shall explore

8 the following areas of interest:

9 (1) Ensuring that each voter votes only once

10 and that the vote is tallied, stored, and reported

11 correctly.

12 (2) Ensuring the anonymity of the voter by

13 means of a confidential but simple method to iden14 tify each voter.

15 (3) Ensuring that the system cannot be

16 accessed by outsiders or insiders for the purpose of

17 changing votes.

18 (4) Ensuring that the system remains accessible

19 and secure to callers throughout the voting period.

20 (5) Ensuring the encryption of voters’ choices

21 to minimize fraud.

22 (6) Exploring future security options, such as

23 the use of voice biometrics for voter identification.

24 (7) Studying the effect of telephone voting on

25 participation rates.
3

•HR 1990 IH

1 SEC. 4. CONSORTIUM.

2 A consortium referred to in section 2 is a consortium

3 that includes a State government and one or more of the

4 national laboratories.

5 SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

6 There are authorized to be appropriated $2,000,000

7 to carry out this Act.

Æ
V

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2115

For the relief of Gorsha Michaelovich Sur.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 12, 1993

Mr. HEFLEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Gorsha Michaelovich Sur.

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

3 SECTION 1. WAIVER OF CERTAIN NATURALIZATION RE4 QUIREMENTS FOR GORSHA MICHAELOVICH

5 SUR.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the inability of

7 Gorsha Michaelovich Sur to meet the requirements of sec8 tion 316 of the Immigration and Nationality Act that re9 late to residence and physical presence in the United

10 States, he shall be deemed eligible for naturalization upon

11 the filing of the appropriate application if otherwise quali12 fied for naturalization under such Act.
2

•HR 2115 IH

1 (b) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

2 FEES.—Subsection (a) shall apply only if the application

3 for naturalization is filed with appropriate fees within 2

4 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

LUIS DOMINGUEZ, JR.,

 Appellant,

v.

STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

'

'

'

'

'

'

No. 08-13-00143-CR

Appeal from the

243rd District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20080D03880)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s out of time motion for extension of time to file the 

brief until October 23, 2013. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

FILE THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Joseph D. Vasquez, the Appellant’s Attorney, 

prepare the Appellant’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before October 23, 2013.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of October, 2013.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera and Rodriguez, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7001

MICHAEL ALLEN GUY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-96-1361)

Submitted: November 6, 1997 Decided: November 25, 1997

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Allen Guy, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief

Deputy Attorney General, Robert F. Daley, Jr., Assistant Attorney

General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. Guy v. South Carolina, No. CA-96-1361 (D.S.C. Apr. 3, 1997).

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.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 10.76

Cornell Capital Partners, LP

101 Hudson Street, Suite 3700

Jersey City, New Jersey 07302

April 23, 2007

Lithium Technology Corporation

5115 Campus Drive

Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462



| | Re: | Outstanding Convertible Debentures
| | --- | ----------------------------------

Dear Amir:

This letter will confirm our verbal agreement to extend the maturity of all outstanding Convertible Debentures owed by Lithium Technology Corporation to
Cornell Capital Partners, L.P. to July 1, 2007.

Cornell expressly reserves all rights and remedies under the Convertible Debentures
and all other contracts between the respective parties.

Sincerely,

Cornell Capital Partners, LP

By:
Yorkville Advisors, LLC, its Investment Management



By:

/s/ Troy J. RilloName:  Troy J. RilloIts:        Managing Director