alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6295

AZANIAH BLANKUMSEE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

RICKY FOXWELL, Warden of ECI; ROBERT TROXELL, CDM; DALE 

CHILDERS, Correctional Officer; ANTOINETTE PERRY, CPT at ECI; MEDICAL 

DEPARTMENT AT ECI,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:18-cv-00106-PWG)

Submitted: July 23, 2020 Decided: July 28, 2020

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Azaniah Blankumsee, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Conrad Meister, Gina Marie Smith, 

MEYERS, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, PA, Riverdale Park, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

In his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2018) action, Azaniah Blankumsee appeals the district 

court’s orders (1) granting summary judgment to Defendants Ricky Foxwell, Robert 

Troxell, Dale Childers, and Antoinette Perry; and (2) dismissing the claims against the 

Medical Department at ECI, but granting Blankumsee 28 days to file a more definite 

statement providing the names of the individuals or parties that allegedly harmed him.*

 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Blankumsee v. Foxwell, No. 8:18-cv-00106-PWG (D. 

Md. Jan. 10, 2019; filed Feb. 7, 2020 & entered Feb. 10, 2020). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* The district court entered a final judgment dismissing Blankumsee’s complaint on 

April 7, 2020. Although Blankumsee’s appeal was interlocutory at the time he filed his 

notice of appeal, we now have jurisdiction to consider the appeal under the doctrine of 

cumulative finality. See Houck v. Substitute Tr. Servs., Inc., 791 F.3d 473, 479 (4th Cir. 

2015).
### §160g. Designation by Secretary of recreational fishing zones; consultation with appropriate State agency; continuation of seining of fish to secure eggs for propagation

(a) The Secretary shall permit recreational fishing on lands and waters under his jurisdiction within the boundaries of the park in accordance with applicable laws of the United States and of the State of Minnesota, except that the Secretary may designate zones where and establish periods when no fishing shall be permitted for reasons of public safety, administration, fish and wildlife management, or public use and enjoyment. Except in emergencies, any regulations of the Secretary pursuant to this section shall be put into effect only after consultation with the appropriate agency of the State of Minnesota.

(b) The seining of fish at Shoepac Lake by the State of Minnesota to secure eggs for propagation purposes shall be continued in accordance with plans mutually acceptable to the State and the Secretary.

(Pub. L. 91–661, §302, Jan. 8, 1971, 84 Stat. 1972.)
Order entered April 15, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01476-CR

JOSE FRANCISCO ORTEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F01-52273-M

ORDER

Appellant has informed the Court that he wishes to file a pro se response to the Anders

brief filed by appellate counsel. Accordingly, we ORDER appellate counsel Matthew Kita to 

provide appellant with copies of the clerk’s record and the complete reporter’s records. We 

further ORDER Mr. Kita to provide this Court, within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order, 

with written verification that the record has been sent to appellant.

Appellant’s pro se response is due by JULY 5, 2013.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send a copy of this order, by electronic transmission, to the 

Honorable Ernest White, Presiding Judge, 194th Judicial District Court, and to Matthew Kita.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send a copy of this order, by first-class mail, to Jose Francisco 

Ortez, No. 12049367, Dallas County Jail, P.O. Box 660334, Dallas, Texas 75266-0334.
/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
#### Sylvia K. Heumann, Appellant, v Old Forge Properties, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[824 NYS2d 700]

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Herkimer County (Michael E. Daley, J), entered January 9, 2006. The judgment, inter alia, declared defendant Old Forge Properties, Inc. the owner of a disputed parcel of real property.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of Supreme Court that, inter alia, declared defendant Old Forge Properties, Inc. the owner of a disputed parcel of real property. The court properly found that defendants met the common-law and statutory requirements of adverse possession *(see*RPAPL 521, 522). Defendants established by clear and convincing evidence that the character of their possession was “hostile and under a claim of right, actual, open and notorious, exclusive and continuous ... for the statutory period of 10 years” *(Snyder v Fabrizio, 2*AD3d 1464, 1465 [2003], *lv denied 2*NY3d 703 [2004] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Because there was no written instrument describing the boundaries of the disputed property, defendants were required to establish cultivation or improvement of the property, or that it has been protected by a substantial inclosure *(see*RPAPL 522; *Ray v Beacon Hudson Mtn. Corp.,*88 NY2d 154, 159 [1996]). Defendants established cultivation and improvement of the property by showing that, on the disputed property, they expanded a sandpit, improved a snowmobile trail for use as a road and constructed a shop and garage, a septic tank, and a well pump. Present—Gorski, J.P, Martoche, Smith and Pine, JJ.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 9, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40132

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SAUL VILLEDA-TAVERA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:04-CR-595-ALL

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

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Saul Villeda-Tavera (Villeda) appeals following his

guilty-plea conviction for being found in the United States after

a previous deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Villeda

contends that his sentence should be vacated and remanded because

the district court sentenced him under the mandatory guidelines

scheme held unconstitutional in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.

220 (2005).
No. 05-40132

-2-

As the district court sentenced Villeda under a mandatory

guidelines regime, it committed Fanfan error. See United States

v. Valenzuela-Quevado, 407 F.3d 728, 733 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 126 S. Ct. 267 (2005). When a defendant has preserved a

Fanfan challenge in the district court, this court reviews for

harmless error. United States v. Walters, 418 F.3d 461, 463 (5th

Cir. 2005); Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d at 732-33. Villeda’s

Fanfan challenge was preserved by his objection in the district

court under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). See

United States v. Reyes-Celestino, 443 F.3d 451, 453 (5th Cir.

2006).

We conclude that the Government has not met its burden of

showing beyond a reasonable doubt that the district court would

have imposed the same sentence absent the error. See id.; United

States v. Garza, 429 F.3d 165, 170-71 (5th Cir. 2005), cert.

denied, 126 S. Ct. 1444 (2006). We therefore vacate Villeda’s

sentence and remand for resentencing.

Villeda also challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)

in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). 

Villeda’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although

Villeda contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided

and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule

Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi, we have repeatedly

rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres
No. 05-40132

-3-

remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268,

276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Villeda

properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of

Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to

preserve it for further review. Therefore, Villeda’s conviction

is affirmed.

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.
### §430s. Authorization of appropriations

There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary, but not more than $3,525,000 for the acquisition of lands and interests in lands, and not to exceed $500,000 for the development of essential public facilities. Within three years from October 21, 1976, the Secretary shall develop and transmit to the Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs of the United States Congress a final master plan for the full development of the battlefield consistent with the preservation objectives of sections 430j to 430m and 430o to 430s of this title, indicating:

(1) the facilities needed to accommodate the health, safety, and interpretive needs of the visiting public;

(2) the location and estimated cost of all facilities; and

(3) the projected need for any additional facilities within the battlefield.

No funds authorized to be appropriated pursuant to this section shall be available prior to October 1, 1977.

(June 21, 1934, ch. 694, §10, 48 Stat. 1200; Pub. L. 94–578, title III, §319(9), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2739.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1976—Pub. L. 94–578 substituting provisions authorizing appropriations of not more than $3,525,000 for the acquisition of lands and interests in lands, and not to exceed $500,000 for development of essential public facilities for provisions which authorized appropriation of $50,000 to carry out sections 430j to 430m and 430o to 430s of this title and inserted provisions for development and transmittal within three years from Oct. 21, 1976, of a final master plan for full development of the battlefield.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Change of Name

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the Senate abolished and replaced by Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate, effective Feb. 11, 1977. See Rule XXV of Standing Rules of the Senate, as amended by Senate Resolution No. 4 (popularly cited as the "Committee System Reorganization Amendments of 1977"), approved Feb. 4, 1977.

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives changed to Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives on Jan. 5, 1993, by House Resolution No. 5, One Hundred Third Congress.

#### Authorization of Appropriations for Additional Land Acquisition

Pub. L. 102–202, §1, Dec. 10, 1991, 105 Stat. 1634, provided that: "There are authorized to be appropriated up to $20,000,000 for acqusition [sic] of lands and interests in lands for purposes of the Monocacy National Battlefield, Maryland; such sums shall be in addition to other funds available for such purposes."
§ 630.1010 Significant projects. ( a ) A significant project is one that, alone or in combination with other concurrent projects nearby is anticipated to cause sustained work zone impacts (as defined in § 630.1004) that are greater than what is considered tolerable based on State policy and/or engineering judgment.
( b ) The applicability of the provisions in §§ 630.1012(b)(2) and 630.1012(b)(3) is dependent upon whether a project is determined to be significant. The State shall identify upcoming projects that are expected to be significant. This identification of significant projects should be done as early as possible in the project delivery and development process, and in cooperation with the FHWA. The State's work zone policy provisions, the project's characteristics, and the magnitude and extent of the anticipated work zone impacts should be considered when determining if a project is significant or not.
( c ) All Interstate system projects within the boundaries of a designated Transportation Management Area (TMA) that occupy a location for more than three days with either intermittent or continuous lane closures shall be considered as significant projects.
( d ) For an Interstate system project or categories of Interstate system projects that are classified as significant through the application of the provisions in § 630.1010(c), but in the judgment of the State they do not cause sustained work zone impacts, the State may request from the FHWA, an exception to §§ 630.1012(b)(2) and 630.1012(b)(3). Exceptions to these provisions may be granted by the FHWA based on the State's ability to show that the specific Interstate system project or categories of Interstate system projects do not have sustained work zone impacts.
>¡-:ë-2±-:ß-9Ü0<-2+-Ð.ß:ß-Ñ`Ü-Uë9-:<-y/-,ÜÊ

a è+-97 Ü-> ¡-: ë7 Ü-9 Ü0<-2+-7+ Ü-:<-#+ ë$-: è,-7/+-, Ü-+$Ê #5,-0 Ü-2 ±-: ß-8$-9 Ü0<-2+-7+ Ü-0 Ü-7# ë-, Ü7 Ü-+ ë,-:<-,,-),-7/+-+# ëÊ

aè+-97Ü->¡-:ë-2±-9Ü0<-2+-`Ü-7oá0-^,-/Yè,-+#ëÊ #,<-U/<-

9Ü0<-2+-`Ü-”/-z/<-+-2-9ß$Ê :ë#-»¥-:<-,+-#5Ü-7+Ü-:<-rá$-

þë/-7/+-,Ü-:ß-.,-*ë#-8ë+ý->Ü,Ê 9Ü0<-2+-`Ü-7oá0-^,-[-#)

ë9-Ð1Ó<¡:->è<ý9èÑ2±-8$-7*ë/-2±/ý->Ü,Ê 

>¡-:ë-,+ý-2±-uë-z/<-+-9$-#Ü-[/-dÜ-+$-»¥,-ý-2±7Ü-,$-]è-7/+-+#ëÊ r/-

»¥,-2±-7+Ü-7n:-:<-d#-CÜ#<-`Ü-[ë+-,$-,$-#8ß#-+#ëÊ #:-rÜ+-r/-

»¥,-2±-0è+ý-7l7ß-%Ü#-]è-/-%Ü,-9$-#Ü-:#ý-#Ü<-”-+$-T#-ý-2±-/!#-5Ü0-+-uëz/<-,Ü-2±-/y/-#<ë-7/+-+#ëÊ

>¡-:ë-2±-,+-9Ü0<-8ë+-0Ü-0Ü-#5,-2±-:<-*#-9Ü$0-]è-Zë+-,Ü7Ü-+ë,-

:<-/y/-e-Yë,-+#ëÊ

>¡-:ë-2±-:ß-:ë#-%Ü-9-:#ý-2±-&±7ß-+-u$-:è/-Ð<ëýÑ+$-&±-2-)ë$0-bÜU9-&--¿Ã-+$-À3⁄4-bÜ-/9-,-&±-&±-,Ü-+$Ê 9$-#Ü<-8$-:#ý-&±-&±-5Ü0-+-

>¡-:ë-2±-:ß-+cë+-Yë,-7/+-+#ëÊ 

,+-#5Ü-7*è/-0Ü->¡-:ë-2±-:¡-<-+$-yë/-”$-,$-0-#)$-ý9-aÜ0-,-

/5#-+#ëÊ :è#<-5Ü0-]è-0-l#ý-2±,-2ì+-0Ü-#5,-:<-*#-

9Ü$0-]è-Zë+-,Ü7Ü-/y/-Yë,-7/+-+#ëÊ

CS 217339/2010 1

>Ü,-.ß:è,37-Ð.ß:ßÑ >¡-:ë-2±-:ß-9Ü0<-2+-Ð.ß:ß-Ñ`Ü-Uë9-:<-y/-,ÜÊ

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
2

8ß->è<---¬Üý¡a--0è,a--->ë.--1⁄4â-0¡,----<¡9-/Ü<-

<è,a9----.ë9---¬Ü<Ü<---!,aë9:--->è,--ýÜ94è,;,--

>Ü,-.ß:è,37-Ð.ß:ßÑ >¡-:ë-2±-:ß-9Ü0<-2+-Ð.ß:ß-Ñ`Ü-Uë9-:<-y/-,ÜÊ

7+ Ü-# Ü-U ë9-:<-{<ý-] è-”-ý9->$-i$<---< Ü¬ Ü< Ü--> Ü,. ë---> èa--¿---Æ3⁄43⁄4-- ----< Ü¬ Ü< Ü--> Ü,. ë---ÐÀÁÀ--ÂÄÁÄÑ-8$-,---l-{----

¬/: ß¬/: ß¬/: ß----< Ü¬ Ü< Ü--# ë/---< è: è;--. ß: ß--:<-7* ë/-> Ü,Ê www.cdc.gov/flu.

7n ë+-/Y è,-b Ü- ́ ¥,-₫ ë+-Ê#1$-ˆ-] è-/67-, Ü-+$Ê#( Ü+-:$0-] è-” ß#-, Ü-+$Ê: ß<-I ë:-2 ±-] è-, Ü7 Ü-/y/-Y ë,-7/+-+# ëÊ

> ¡-: ë-2 ±-: ß-7l Ü-/-8 ë+-ý-% Ü,-+ è7 Ü-V ë-U/<-: è,-5 Ü0-+Ê” ë$-2 ±-: ß-9 Ü0<-2+-` Ü-,+-7/ ßý-\$-*/<-+$-0 Ü-#5,-: ß-0 Üa/-, Ü7 Ü-:0-Y ë,-7/+-+# ëÊ
§ 79.21 Definitions. ( a ) The definitions listed in § 79.11 (a) through (e) and (i) apply to this subpart.
( b ) *Indication of disease* means any medically significant information that suggests the presence of a disease, whether or not the presence of the disease is later confirmed.
( c ) *Leukemia, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, multiple myeloma, lymphomas, Hodgkin's disease, primary cancer of the thyroid, primary cancer of the male breast, primary cancer of the female breast, primary cancer of the esophagus, primary cancer of the stomach, primary cancer of the pharynx, primary cancer of the small intestine, primary cancer of the pancreas, primary cancer of the bile ducts, primary cancer of the gallbladder, primary cancer of the salivary gland, primary cancer of the urinary bladder, primary cancer of the brain, primary cancer of the colon, primary cancer of the ovary, primary cancer of the liver, and primary cancer of the lung* mean the physiological conditions that are recognized by the National Cancer Institute under those names or nomenclature, or under any previously accepted or commonly used names or nomenclature.
( d ) *Specified compensable diseases* means leukemia (other than chronic lymphocytic leukemia), provided that initial exposure occurred after the age of 20 and that the onset of the disease was at least two years after first exposure, and the following diseases, provided onset was at least five years after first exposure: multiple myeloma; lymphomas (other than Hodgkin's disease); and primary cancer of the thyroid, male or female breast, esophagus, stomach, pharynx, small intestine, pancreas, bile ducts, gallbladder, salivary gland, urinary bladder, brain, colon, ovary, liver (except if cirrhosis or hepatitis B is indicated), or lung.
### §410ii–2. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–333, div. I, title VIII, §814(d)(1)(B), Nov. 12, 1996, 110 Stat. 4196

Section, Pub. L. 96–550, title V, §503, Dec. 19, 1980, 94 Stat. 3228, related to additions and deletions to Chaco Culture Archeological Protection Sites.
Exhibit 32.1

                   Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
                        the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001.

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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of OSK CAPITAL II CORP.(the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, George
Metrakos , Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2001, that:

The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: May 17, 2006

                                    /s/ George Metrakos
                                    -----------------------
                                    George Metrakos ,
                                    Chief Executive Officer
From: Rufa, Nathan P. [mailto:Nathan.Rufa@alcoa.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 3:01 PM

To: Boyd, Rochelle

Cc: Parent, Jordan J.

Subject: RE: RE: Recent Dioxin Test Reports

Rochelle,

Pease see the attached Dioxin test summary from our latest SMACT testing campaign. Please let me 

know if you have any questions.

Nathan Rufa

Staff Environmental Engineer

Alcoa Primary Metals

Massena Operations

Park Avenue East / PO Box 150

Massena, NY 13662

Tel: 315-764-4285

Fax: 315-764-4460

nathan.rufa@alcoa.com

From: Boyd, Rochelle [mailto:Boyd.Rochelle@epa.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 4:19 PM

To: Parent, Jordan J.

Cc: Rufa, Nathan P.

Subject: EXT: RE: Recent Dioxin Test Reports

Is there anyway that you can send us the preliminary test summary numbers until the 

report is complete? We want to re-rank the top ten facilities this week and we have the 

other data for the other facilities. Thanks

Rochelle Boyd, Environmental Engineer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Sector Policies and Programs Division

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711

Mail Drop D243-02

Ph: (919) 541-1390 Fax: (919) 541-3207

From: Parent, Jordan J. [mailto:Jordan.Parent@alcoa.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 3:48 PM

To: Boyd, Rochelle

Cc: Rufa, Nathan P.

Subject: RE: Recent Dioxin Test Reports

Rochelle,

We did some testing this summer and the preliminary results are lower than the 6 ug TEQ/Mg. Nate is 

in the process of finalizing the test report with the testing contractor and should be able to provide a 

PDF by 9/20 at the latest. My phone number is 315-764-4737 and my cell phone number is 315-250-

6803. Thanks, Jordan
From: Boyd, Rochelle [mailto:Boyd.Rochelle@epa.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 10:56 AM

To: Parent, Jordan J.

Subject: EXT: Recent Dioxin Test Reports

Hi Jordan, as you know we are working on the RTR rule and we are looking to see if 

there is any additional dioxins and furans test data available for your facility in NY. Your 

facility is currently a high risk facility based on the data submitted in the ICR. The 

industry average for D/F emissions are around 2 ug TEQ/Mg feed and your results 

using the average with the 3rd party scrap was around 6. We are assuming that you ran 

another compliance test. Please submit any new data via email in pdf format, as soon 

as possible, so that we can average the tests from each furnace. Please let us know 

which tests represents the furnaces not tested. Please call if you have any questions. I 

tried to call the number on the ICR, but there was no answer. Thanks

Rochelle Boyd, Environmental Engineer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Sector Policies and Programs Division

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711

Mail Drop D243-02

Ph: (919) 541-1390 Fax: (919) 541-3207
### §470x–4. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–287, §7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3272

Section, Pub. L. 89–665, title IV, §405, as added Pub. L. 102–575, title XL, §4022, Oct. 30, 1992, 106 Stat. 4767, related to preservation grants. See section 305304 of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs.
### §460l–22. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–287, §7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3272

Section, Pub. L. 90–401, §5, July 15, 1968, 82 Stat. 356; Pub. L. 98–506, §2, Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2338, related to conveyance of property and interests in property in national park system and miscellaneous areas. See sections 100903 and 102901 of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 16433]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6866]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Center for Complementary & Alternative Medicine; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), 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 contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Center for Complementary and 
Alternative Medicine Special Emphasis Panel; SBIR Contract 
Proposals.
    Date: April 5, 2011.
    Time: 12 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 
Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Peter Kozel, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
NCCAM, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 401, Bethesda, MD 20892-5475, 
301-496-8004, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#42292d38272e32022f232b2e6c2c2b2a6c252d34"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="395256435c5549795458505517575051175e564f">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.213, 
Research and Training in Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: March 17, 2011.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-6866 Filed 3-22-11; 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>