alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY ELEV

 1,901.75

 1,901.50

 1,901.54

 1,901.59

 1,901.63

 1,901.66

 1,901.50

 1,901.71

 1,901.71

 1,901.78

 1,901.66

 1,901.51

 1,901.30

 1,901.67

 1,901.55

 1,901.53

 1,901.25

 1,901.33

 1,901.30

 1,901.24

 1,901.08

 1,900.91

 1,901.26

 1,901.25

 1,901.29

 1,901.10

 1,901.30

 1,901.47

 1,901.37

 1,901.19

 1,901.30

 14,472

 14,285

 14,315

 14,352

 14,382

 14,405

 14,285

 14,442

 14,442

 14,494

 14,405

 14,292

 14,135

 14,412

 14,322

 14,307

 14,098

 14,158

 14,135

 14,091

 13,971

 13,845

 14,105

 14,098

 14,128

 13,986

 14,135

 14,263

 14,188

 14,053

 14,135

STORAGE

+180

-187

+30

+37

+30

+23

-120

+157

+0

+52

-89

-113

-157

+277

-90

-15

-209

+60

-23

-44

-120

-126

+260

-7

+30

-142

+149

+128

-75

-135

+82

CHANGE

424

463

589

359

626

354

501

391

597

600

563

256

233

1,294

279

314

551

371

327

377

305

698

728

535

555

439

387

607

565

798

787

INFLOW

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

POWER

 188

 174

 186

 187

 184

 183

 183

 166

 160

 166

 166

 165

 166

 172

 178

 177

 176

 174

 173

 236

 278

 276

 279

 279

 278

 277

 277

 278

 227

 167

 165

SPILL

 134

 134

 134

 134

 134

 134

 134

 134

 134

 134

 134

 134

 134

 134

 134

 134

 134

 134

 134

 68

 24

 24

 24

 24

 24

 24

 24

 24

 78

 134

 134

OUTLETS

 0

 0

 0

 6

 0

 4

 0

 0

 1

 2

 2

 2

 0

 0

 1

 0

 0

 2

 2

 3

 0

 1

 2

 0

 2

 2

 3

 3

 4

 4

 1

C.F.S.

 .01

 .00

 .00

 .27

 .01

 .16

 .00

 .08

 .06

 .10

 .11

 .09

 .02

 .01

 .05

 .01

 .00

 .11

 .08

 .13

 .02

 .04

 .11

 .00

 .08

 .08

 .14

 .13

 .17

 .12

 .09

INCHES

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MARCH 2018 LEWISTON LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: April 18, 2018

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

C.F.S. FRANCIS CARR

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS -157 15,873 0 3,152 6,341 47 2.28

ACRE-FEET -157 31,484 0 6,252 12,577 93

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

(1) OUTLET RELEASE INCLUDES FISH RELEASE.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

TOTAL POWER 0

TOTAL RIVER 18,829 31,547

 14,292

 12,718

RIVER

JUDGE FRANCIS CARR POWERPLANT

TOTAL RELEASE

JUDGE (2)

(1) POWERPLANT

 11

 249

 254

 13

 293

 21

 244

 12

 302

 272

 306

 12

 12

 848

 11

 11

 346

 31

 30

 92

 63

 461

 292

 236

 236

 208

 8

 237

 294

 561

 446

 6,412

 12,718

Table 6
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 3(i).5

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                       OF

                      RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                                       OF

                                    GHS, INC.


GHS, INC., a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the
General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware,

         DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

         FIRST: That the Board of Directors of said corporation, by the
unanimous written consent of its members, filed with the minutes of the Board,
adopted a resolution proposing and declaring advisable the following amendment
to the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of said corporation:

                  RESOLVED, that the Restated Certificate of Incorporation of
                  GHS, INC. dated March 6, 1986, as amended, be amended by
                  striking out Article FIRST thereof and substituting in lieu of
                  said Article FIRST the following new Article:

                            "FIRST: The name of the corporation (hereinafter
                                    called the "Corporation") is dreamlife,
                                    inc."

         SECOND: That in lieu of a meeting and vote of stockholders, the
stockholders have given written consent to said amendment in accordance with the
provisions of Section 228 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware and written notice of the adoption of the amendment has been given as
provided in Section 228 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware
to every stockholder entitled to such notice.

         THIRD: That the aforesaid amendment was duly adopted in accordance with
the applicable provisions of Sections 242 and 228 of the General Corporation Law
of the State of Delaware and Article Nine of the Restated Certificate of
Incorporation.
<PAGE>

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said GHS, INC. has caused this certificate to be signed this
10th day of December, 1999.


                                        By: /s/ Beth Polish
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Beth Polish
                                           President and Chief Operating Officer


                                       2
#### § 19.651 Liability for distilled spirits tax.

The distilled spirits excise tax imposed by 26 U.S.C. 5001 must be paid on any distilled spirits produced in, or removed from, the premises of a vinegar plant in violation of law or regulations.

(26 U.S.C. 5505)
(No. 73—CC—292

#### Stop and Shop, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

*Opinion filed June 15, 1973.*

Stop and Shop, Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

REGINALD CLARENCE HOWARD,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

HOWARD SKOLNIK, Director (NDOC); DWIGHT NEVEN, Warden; ISIDRO BACA, Warden; JULIO CALDERIN, Chaplain; DWAYNE DEA L, Caseworker; AWP J. HENSON,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 16

- 15679

D.C. No. 2:08

- cv

- 00728

- GMN

GWF

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge, Presiding

April 19 , 2 018 * *

Before: TROTT, SILVERMAN and TALLMAN , Circuit Judges

.

Reginald Clarence Howard , a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that

defendants violated his right to th e free exercise of religion

. We have jurisd iction

* 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

APR 23 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 15679 under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo both summary judgment and an

officer’ s entitlement to qualified immunity. Hughes v. Kisela , 841 F.3d 1081,

1084 (9th Cir. 2016). We may affirm on any basis supp orted by the record.

Hartmann v. California Dept. of Corr. & Rehab. , 707 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.

2013). W e affirm.

An inmate’s First Amendment right of the free exercise of religion is subject

to certain limitations. As the Supreme Court said in O’Lon e v. Estate of Shabazz

,

482 U.S. 342 (1987),

[I] ncarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights, a retraction justified by the considerations underlying our penal system. The limitations on the exercise of co nstitutional rights arise both from the fact of incarceration and from valid penological objectives including

-- deterrence of crime, rehabilitation of prisoners, and institutional security.

Id. at 348 (citations and quotations omitted).

The unchallenged factual reason for the Nevada Department of Correction’s

cancellation of Nation of Islam services at High Desert State Prison was

institutional security. There wa s no dispute about the legitimacy of this reason

sufficient to generate a genuine controversy requir ing resol ution by a trial

.

AFFIRMED.
Editorial Note on Part 478
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 478 appear by T.D. ATF-411, 64 FR 17291, Apr. 9, 1999, T.D. ATF-487, 68 FR 3750, Jan. 24, 2003, and ATF-11F, 73 FR 57240, Oct. 2, 2008.

§ 478.111 General. ( a ) Section 922(a)(3) of the Act makes it unlawful, with certain exceptions not pertinent here, for any person other than a licensee to transport into or receive in the State where the person resides any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by the person outside of that State. However, section 925(a)(4) provides a limited exception for the transportation, shipment, receipt or importation of certain firearms and ammunition by certain members of the United States Armed Forces. Section 922(1) of the Act makes it unlawful for any person knowingly to import or bring into the United States or any possession thereof any firearm or ammunition except as provided by section 925(d) of the Act, which section provides standards for importing or bringing firearms or ammunition into the United States. Section 925(d) also provides standards for importing or bringing firearm barrels into the United States. Accordingly, no firearm, firearm barrel, or ammunition may be imported or brought into the United States except as provided by this part.
( b ) Where a firearm, firearm barrel, or ammunition is imported and the authorization for importation required by this subpart has not been obtained by the person importing same, such person shall: ( 1 ) Store, at the person's expense, such firearm, firearm barrel, or ammunition at a facility designated by U.S Customs or the Director of Industry Operations to await the issuance of the required authorization or other disposition; or
( 2 ) Abandon such firearm, firearm barrel, or ammunition to the U.S. Government; or
( 3 ) Export such firearm, firearm barrel, or ammunition.
( c ) Any inquiry relative to the provisions or procedures under this subpart, other than that pertaining to the payment of customs duties or the release from Customs custody of firearms, firearm barrels, or ammunition authorized by the Director to be imported, shall be directed to the Director of Industry Operations for reply.
[T.D. ATF-270, 53 FR 10498, Mar. 31, 1988]
No. 21239.

#### Jean M. Wattenburg *v.*James H. Wattenburg.

(398 P.2d 977)

Decided February 8, 1965.

*350Marks and Zelinger, for plaintiff in error.

No appearance for defendant in error.

*En Banc.*

Mr. Justice Day

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Plaintiff in error has challenged the correctness of the trial court’s order reducing child support payments below the amount ordered in the original decree of divorce. Defendant in error has not appeared and has filed no answer brief.

The order modifying the divorce decree finds no support either in the findings of the court or in the evidence. Actually the court did not find a change in circumstances warranting a reduction in child support payments. As a substitute for such a necessary finding of fact, there was merely a court comment made to the effect that the defendant in error was a poor manager; that he had not properly allotted the approximately $500.00 a month he was earning toward the discharge of his obligations. The evidence adduced on the question of change showed that the defendant in error had improved his financial situation in the years since the decree. At the time of the final decree of the court he was in farming, and since then had held salaried jobs. He had experienced some periods of unemployment, but at the time of the hearing he was gainfully employed with more income than when he was farming.

The basis of the court’s order was that because *351the defendant in error had failed to comply with the order for child support payments and had allowed an arrearage of more than $2400.00 to accumulate, plaintiff in error would be better off, in the long run, if the payments were reduced to a figure that defendant in error *might*“keep up,” rather than to continue the order for child support payments at a figure which he had shown no inclination to meet. There is an old proverb that “half a loaf is better than none,” but such an observation in effect made by the court cannot form any legal basis for a change in a child support order.

That the trial court has no power to modify previous orders in the absence of proof and a finding of change of circumstances is such a fundamental rule of the domestic relations case law of this state that citation of authorities would be deemed superfluous.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court to vacate the order of modification and to reinstate the original support order.

Mr. Justice Moore not participating.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

DAY ELEV

 3,462.37

 3,462.50

 3,462.46

 3,462.42

 3,462.37

 3,462.31

 3,462.25

 3,462.17

 3,462.06

 3,462.01

 3,461.99

 3,461.81

 3,461.76

 3,461.70

 3,461.63

 3,461.51

 3,461.45

 3,461.34

 3,461.30

 3,461.20

 3,461.08

 3,460.95

 35,657

 35,736

 35,711

 35,687

 35,657

 35,621

 35,585

 35,537

 35,471

 35,441

 35,429

 35,322

 35,292

 35,256

 35,214

 35,143

 35,107

 35,042

 35,018

 34,958

 34,887

 34,810

STORAGE

-79

+79

-25

-24

-30

-36

-36

-48

-66

-30

-12

-107

-30

-36

-42

-71

-36

-65

-24

-60

-71

-77

CHANGE

-9.2

75.3

11.4

10.3

8.5

6.0

11.6

-1.6

5.2

17.4

26.3

-16.5

18.3

9.8

13.4

0.7

17.5

2.7

29.4

18.3

11.5

1.2

INFLOW

 29

 33

 23

 20

 21

 21

 26

 19

 34

 28

 28

 33

 31

 24

 31

 33

 31

 31

 37

 45

 43

 39

CONDUIT

 .0

 .0

 .0

 .0

 .0

 .0

 .0

 .0

 .0

 .0

 .0

 .0

 .0

 .0

 .0

 .0

 .0

 .0

 .0

 .0

 .0

 .0

SPILL

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

 1.0

PK CR

 0.6

 1.5

 0.0

 1.4

 1.6

 2.1

 2.7

 2.6

 3.5

 3.5

 3.3

 3.4

 1.4

 2.9

 2.6

 2.5

 3.6

 3.5

 3.5

 2.5

 3.3

 0.0

C.F.S.

 .029

 .076

 .000

 .071

 .082

 .110

 .138

 .133

 .178

 .179

 .171

 .175

 .072

 .150

 .135

 .127

 .188

 .181

 .182

 .129

 .170

 .000

INCHES

 .12

 2.10

 .01

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .07

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

SEPTEMBER 2000 JENKINSON LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: 10/02/2000

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS -926 267.5 660 22.0 0.0 52.0 2.676 2.30

ACRE-FEET -926 530.6 1,309 43.6 0.0 103.1

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

DATA BASED ON 24 HOUR PERIOD ENDING 0800.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

CAMINO-CONDUIT 1,309.1

SLY PARK CREEK

SPILL

 43.6

 0.0

 0.0

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

JULY 1, 2000 TO DATE = 2.32

 35,736

 1,309.1 2.30

CAMINO SLY

CAMP

CREEK

C.F.S.

 3

 16

 8

 5

 3

 3

 3

 2

 2

 2

 2

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 60

 119

E.I.D. PROJECT

E.I.D. WATER RIGHTS
#### Elizabeth M. Miller, an Infant, etc., Appellant, v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company and Another, Defendants. Magdelena Miller, Respondent.

Motion denied on condition that the appellant perfect her appeal, place the case on the December calendar, and be ready for argument when reached; otherwise, motion granted, with costs. Present — Burr, Thomas, Rich, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY ELEV

 1,901.63

 1,901.56

 1,901.80

 1,901.52

 1,901.27

 1,901.80

 1,901.56

 1,901.36

 1,901.74

 1,901.58

 1,901.18

 1,901.24

 1,901.17

 1,901.23

 1,901.01

 1,901.50

 1,901.38

 1,901.38

 1,901.46

 1,901.54

 1,901.61

 1,901.54

 1,900.86

 1,901.55

 1,901.52

 1,901.77

 1,901.56

 1,901.44

 1,901.45

 1,901.26

 1,901.29

 14,382

 14,330

 14,509

 14,300

 14,113

 14,509

 14,330

 14,180

 14,465

 14,345

 14,046

 14,091

 14,038

 14,083

 13,918

 14,285

 14,195

 14,195

 14,255

 14,315

 14,367

 14,315

 13,808

 14,322

 14,300

 14,487

 14,330

 14,240

 14,248

 14,105

 14,128

STORAGE

+314

-52

+179

-209

-187

+396

-179

-150

+285

-120

-299

+45

-53

+45

-165

+367

-90

+0

+60

+60

+52

-52

-507

+514

-22

+187

-157

-90

+8

-143

+23

CHANGE

3,002

2,546

2,231

1,760

1,785

2,635

2,223

2,178

2,303

2,005

1,958

2,095

2,170

2,287

2,481

2,471

2,353

2,306

2,287

2,190

2,231

2,493

2,040

2,505

2,306

2,350

3,091

2,830

1,698

1,145

1,657

INFLOW

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 35

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 62

 10

 50

POWER

 376

 380

 378

 381

 380

 379

 365

 316

 312

 316

 311

 308

 309

 308

 308

 309

 316

 319

 315

 316

 315

 314

 303

 290

 295

 466

 1,510

 916

 325

 323

 317

SPILL

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 60

 78

 130

 90

OUTLETS

 8

 7

 9

 9

 7

 8

 7

 6

 6

 7

 7

 5

 4

 7

 7

 7

 6

 6

 5

 4

 7

 6

 7

 7

 7

 7

 7

 6

 6

 5

 6

C.F.S.

 .35

 .33

 .39

 .40

 .31

 .36

 .30

 .28

 .27

 .31

 .33

 .23

 .20

 .34

 .30

 .32

 .28

 .26

 .22

 .19

 .33

 .29

 .33

 .31

 .30

 .33

 .30

 .29

 .28

 .22

 .28

INCHES

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

AUGUST 2007 LEWISTON LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: October 17, 2007

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

C.F.S. FRANCIS CARR

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS +60 69,612 1,837 1,978 12,076 203 9.23

ACRE-FEET +60 138,075 3,644 3,923 23,953 403

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

(1) OUTLET RELEASE INCLUDES THE CONTINUOUS FISH RELEASE OF 75 C.F.S.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

TOTAL POWER 3,644

TOTAL RIVER 31,520 137,609

 14,068

 106,089

RIVER

JUDGE FRANCIS CARR POWERPLANT

TOTAL RELEASE

JUDGE (2)

(1) POWERPLANT

 2,400

 2,125

 1,694

 1,415

 1,432

 1,988

 1,846

 1,792

 1,701

 1,602

 1,651

 1,619

 1,744

 1,809

 2,109

 1,830

 1,936

 1,841

 1,797

 1,700

 1,743

 2,059

 1,846

 1,809

 1,875

 1,643

 1,513

 1,813

 1,223

 749

 1,182

 53,486

 106,089

Table 6
Opinion issued June 27, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-24-00200-CV

———————————

BRANDON GEOFFREY SCOTTIE WEED AS REPRESENTATIVE OF 

THE ESTATE OF SCOTTIE WEED, CHRIS DUDLEY, INDIVIDUALLY 

AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ANA WEED, AND 

VIRGINIA MONTALVO, Appellants

V.

FARMERS TEXAS COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Appellee

On Appeal from 295th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2022-36231

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants, Brandon Geoffrey Scottie Weed as Representative of the Estate 

of Scottie Weed, Chris Dudley, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of 
2

Ana Weed, and Virginia Montalvo, filed their notice of appeal on March 11, 2024. 

Appellants did not pay their appellate filing fee or establish indigence for purposes 

of appellate costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 20.1. The Clerk of this Court notified 

Appellants that unless they paid the appellate filing fee by May 2, 2024, her appeal 

could be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b). To date, Appellants have not paid 

the appellate filing fee nor established indigence for purposes of appellate costs. 

Appellants also failed to pay, or make arrangements to pay, the fee for 

preparing the clerk’s record. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 145; TEX. R. APP. P. 34.1. We 

notified Appellants that their appeal could be dismissed for want of prosecution if 

the clerk’s record was not filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(a), (b). We directed 

Appellants to submit written evidence from the trial court clerk by May 13, 2024, 

reflecting she paid, or made arrangements to pay, the fee for preparing the clerk’s 

record. To date, Appellants have not responded to this Court’s notice and the clerk’s 

record has not been filed. 

We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), 

42.3(b)–(c). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Hightower, Rivas-Molloy, and Farris.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 20720]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8797]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Advisory Panel for Integrative Activities; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:
    Name: Committee of Visitors Panel for the Experimental Program to 
Stimulate Competitive Research Science and Technology Centers (STC) 
<greek-i>1373.
    Dates: May 16, 2011; 6 p.m.-8 p.m. May 17, 2011; 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m. 
May 18, 2011; 8 a.m.-4 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, 
VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Partially Open.
    Contact Person: Dr. Dragana Brzakovic, Senior Staff Associate, 
Office of Integrative Activities, National Science Foundation, Suite 
935, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230, (703) 292-8040.
    Purpose of Meeting: To carry out Committee of Visitors (COV) 
review, including examination of decisions on proposals, reviewer 
comments, and other privileged materials.

Agenda

May 16, 2011

    6 p.m.-8 p.m. Open Session; Welcome, overview of STC program.

May 17, 2011

    8:30 a.m.-5 p.m. Closed Session; Review and Evaluation of Program.

May 18, 2011

    8 a.m.-3 p.m. Closed Session; Review, evaluation, and report 
writing.
    3 p.m.-4 p.m. Open Session; Presentation of report.
    Reason for Closing: Certain sessions of the meeting are closed to 
the public because the Committee is reviewing proposal actions that 
will include privileged intellectual property and personal information 
that could harm individuals if they are disclosed. If discussions were 
open to the public, these matters that are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 
552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act would be 
improperly disclosed.

    Dated: April 8, 2011.
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011-8797 Filed 4-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
###### Editorial Note on Part 44

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 44 appear by T.D. ATF-464, 66 FR 43480, Aug. 20, 2001, and T.D. ATF-480, 67 FR 30801-30803, May 8, 2002.

#### § 44.105 Transfer of ownership.

If a transfer is to be made in ownership of the business of an export warehouse proprietor (including a change in the identity of the members of a partnership or association), such proprietor shall give notice, in writing, to the appropriate TTB officer, naming the proposed successor and the desired effective date of such transfer. The proposed successor shall, before commencing operations, qualify as a proprietor, in accordance with the applicable provisions of subpart D of this part: *Provided,* That where a diagram has been furnished by the proprietor in accordance with the provisions of § 44.88, the proposed successor may adopt such diagram. The proprietor shall give such notice of transfer, and the proposed successor shall make application for permit and file bond, as required, in ample time for examination and approval thereof before the desired date of such change. The predecessor shall make a closing inventory and closing report, in accordance with the provisions of §§ 44.146 and 44.151, respectively, and surrender, with such inventory and report, his permit, and the successor shall make an opening inventory, in accordance with the provisions of § 44.144.

(72 Stat. 1421, 1422; 26 U.S.C. 5712, 5713, 5721, 5722)