alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 248 (Friday, December 28, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67318-67319]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-28327]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice 
of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Neurological Sciences Training Initial 
Review; Group NST-1 Subcommittee.
    Date: January 28-29, 2019.
    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Washington Marriott Georgetown, 1221 22nd Street NW, 
Washington, DC 20037.
    Contact Person: William C. Benzing, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural 
Activities, NINDS/NIH/DHHS, NSC, 6001 Executive Blvd., Suite 3204, 
MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, (301) 496-0660, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0341666d796a6d6474436e626a6f2d6d6a6b2d646c75"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7e3c1b1004171019093e131f17125010171650191108">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders 
and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel; Neuroscience Development for 
Advancing the Careers of a Diverse Research Workforce.
    Date: February 4, 2019.
    Time: 11:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

[[Page 67319]]

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 
Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Deanna Lynn Adkins, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural 
Activities, NINDS/NIH/DHHS, NSC, 6001 Executive Blvd., Bethesda, MD 
20892-9529, (301) 496-9223, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#315554505f5f501f50555a585f42715f58591f565e47"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="731716121d1d125d1217181a1d00331d1a1b5d141c05">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, 
Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, 
Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 21, 2018.
Sylvia L. Neal,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-28327 Filed 12-27-18; 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>
### §20941. Federal assistance with respect to violations of registration requirements

#### (a) In general

The Attorney General shall use the resources of Federal law enforcement, including the United States Marshals Service, to assist jurisdictions in locating and apprehending sex offenders who violate sex offender registration requirements. For the purposes of section 566(e)(1)(B) of title 28, a sex offender who violates a sex offender registration requirement shall be deemed a fugitive.

#### (b) Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2007 through 2009 to implement this section.

(Pub. L. 109–248, title I, §142, July 27, 2006, 120 Stat. 604.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 16941 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
EXHIBIT
32.1





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 Superior Oil & Gas Co. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about
the date hereof (the “Report”), I, B.J. Sparks, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge:





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





(2)           Information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:  August
18, 2009





/s/
      B.J. SparksB.J.
      SparksChief
      Executive Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Superior Oil & Gas Co. and will be retained by Superior Oil & Gas Co.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
§ 847.802 Who may elect to use NAFI service to qualify for immediate retirement under CSRS or FERS? CSRS and FERS employees may elect to credit NAFI service for retirement purposes under this subpart if: ( a ) They separate for retirement on or after December 28, 2001;
( b ) They do not otherwise qualify for immediate retirement; and
( c ) They have enough otherwise creditable civilian service to qualify for deferred retirement.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6043

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DACEY MAURICE JONES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:13-cr-00405-TDS-1; 1:16-

cv-00198-TDS-LPA)

Submitted: May 28, 2019 Decided: June 5, 2019

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dacey Maurice Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Dacey Maurice Jones appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate 

judge’s recommendation to dismiss Jones’ 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and deny his 

motions to amend. In its order, the court stated that Jones failed to object to the report 

and recommendation. On appeal, Jones claims that he never received the report and 

recommendation. 

A party who fails to timely object in writing to a magistrate judge’s proposed 

findings of fact and conclusions of law is not entitled to de novo review of the magistrate 

judge’s determinations by the district court and is barred from contesting those 

determinations on appeal. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2012). However, the waiver of appellate rights for failing to 

object is a prudential rule, not a jurisdictional requirement. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 

154 (1985). And, when a litigant is proceeding pro se, he must be accorded fair notice of 

the consequences of failing to object before he is barred from appellate review. Wright, 

766 F.2d at 846-47. 

From the present record, we cannot conclusively determine whether Jones 

received a copy of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. Accordingly, we 

vacate the district court’s order and remand for the court to make this determination in 

the first instance. If the court find Jones’ claim to be credible, it should provide him with 

a copy of the report and recommendation and accord him an opportunity to object. If, 

however, the court finds that Jones received the report and recommendation, it may 

reenter its original order, with any necessary modifications.
3

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.

VACATED AND REMANDED
§ 919.145 Does this part address persons who are disqualified, as well as those who are excluded from nonprocurement transactions? Except if provided for in Subpart J of this part, this part— ( a ) Addresses disqualified persons only to— ( 1 ) Provide for their inclusion in the *EPLS;* and
( 2 ) State responsibilities of Federal agencies and participants to check for disqualified persons before entering into covered transactions.
( b ) Does not specify the— ( 1 ) OPM transactions for which a disqualified person is ineligible. Those transactions vary on a case-by-case basis, because they depend on the language of the specific statute, Executive order, or regulation that caused the disqualification;
( 2 ) Entities to which the disqualification applies; or
( 3 ) Process that the agency uses to disqualify a person. Unlike exclusion, disqualification is frequently not a discretionary action that a Federal agency takes.
EMPLOYER STATUS DETERMINATION

Tyson Railroad, Inc.

This is the determination of the Railroad Retirement Board 

concerning the status of Tyson Railroad, Inc. (BA No. 5526) (Tyson)

as an employer under the Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. §231 et

sea.) (RRA) and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (45 U.S.C.

§351 et sea.) (RUIA).

In a decision issued on March 24, 1995, the United States Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the decision 

of the Board that Tyson was a carrier employer under the RRA and

the RUIA. Cheney Railroad Company, Inc, v. Railroad Retirement 

Board. 50 F.3d 1071 (D.C. Cir. 1995). In the Statement of Facts

that Tyson included in the Brief which it filed with the Court in

that case, Tyson stated that effective July 31, 1992, Tyson had

discontinued rendering service and abandoned its 1.61-mile segment

of track. Tyson had operated its railroad under the feeder line

provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act (49 U.S.C. §10910).

Because it had elected, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §10910(g)(1), to

exempt itself from most regulation by the Interstate Commerce 

Commission (ICC), Tyson stated that it neither sought nor obtained 

ICC authorization for the abandonment of its rail line. Tyson 

stated further in its Brief that the abandoned line was acquired by 

CSX Transportation (BA No.1524), which has operated the property

since Tyson abandoned it.

On October 30, 1995, Mr. Fritz R. Kahn, the attorney who

represented Tyson in the employer status litigation, confirmed that

Tyson ceased its railroad operations and abandoned its railroad 

line effective July 31, 1992.

Based upon the information summarized above, the Board finds that

Tyson ceased to be an employer under the RRA and the RUIA effective 

July 31, 1992.

Glen L. Bower

V. M.^Speakman, J

BCD 1996-1 BA # 5526
§ 843.314 Amount of survivor annuity where service includes credit for service with a nonappropriated fund instrumentality. ( a ) The survivor annuity based on service that includes service with a nonappropriated fund instrumentality made creditable by an election under 5 CFR part 847, subpart D, is computed under 5 CFR part 847, subpart F.
( b ) The survivor annuity based on service that includes service with a nonappropriated fund instrumentality made creditable by an election under 5 CFR part 847, subpart H, is computed under 5 CFR part 847, subpart I.
[68 FR 2178, Jan. 16, 2003]
PRIVATIZATION IN ARMENIA

----
### **CHAPTER 71—BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS**

Sec.
7101.
Composition of Board of Veterans' Appeals.
7101A.
Members of Board: appointment; pay; performance review.
7102.
Assignment of members of Board.
7103.
Reconsideration; correction of obvious errors.
7104.
Jurisdiction of the Board; decisions; notice.
7105.
Filing of appeal.
7105A.
Simultaneously contested claims.
[7106.
Repealed.]
7107.
Appeals: dockets; hearings.
7108.
Rejection of applications.
[7109.
Repealed.]
[7110.
Repealed.]
7111.
Revision of decisions on grounds of clear and unmistakable error.
7112.
Expedited treatment of certain claims.
7113.
Evidentiary record before the Board of Veterans' Appeals.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2022**—Pub. L. 117–300, §2(a)(2)(B), Dec. 27, 2022, 136 Stat. 4380, added item 7112 and struck out former item 7112 "Expedited treatment of remanded claims".

Pub. L. 117–168, §1(b)(2), title VIII, §807(a)(5)(A), Aug. 10, 2022, 136 Stat 1759, 1806, inserted "; decisions; notice" after "Board" in item 7104.

**2017**—Pub. L. 115–55, §2(q)(2), (s)(2), (u)(3), (w)(3), Aug. 23, 2017, 131 Stat. 1112, 1113, 1115, substituted "Filing of appeal" for "Filing of notice of disagreement and appeal" in item 7105, struck out items 7106 "Administrative appeals" and 7109 "Independent medical opinions", and added item 7113.

**2003**—Pub. L. 108–183, title VII, §707(b)(2), Dec. 16, 2003, 117 Stat. 2673, added item 7112.

**1997**—Pub. L. 105–111, §1(b)(2), Nov. 21, 1997, 111 Stat. 2272, added item 7111.

**1994**—Pub. L. 103–446, title II, §201(a)(2), Nov. 2, 1994, 108 Stat. 4656, added item 7101A.

Pub. L. 103–271, §§6(b), 7(a)(2), (b)(3), July 1, 1994, 108 Stat. 742, 743, substituted "Reconsideration; correction of obvious errors" for "Determinations by the Board" in item 7103, substituted "Appeals: dockets; hearings" for "Docketing of appeals" in item 7107, and struck out item 7110 "Traveling sections".

**1991**—Pub. L. 102–40, title IV, §402(c)(1), May 7, 1991, 105 Stat. 239, renumbered items 4001 to 4010 as 7101 to 7110, respectively.

**1988**—Pub. L. 100–687, div. A, title II, §207(b), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4112, added item 4010.

**1962**—Pub. L. 87–671, §3, Sept. 19, 1962, 76 Stat. 557, added item 4009.

Pub. L. 87–666, §2, Sept. 19, 1962, 76 Stat. 554, added item 4005A, and substituted "Filing of notice of disagreement and appeal" for "Applications for review on appeal" in item 4005, "Administrative appeals" for "Docketing of appeals" in item 4006, and "Docketing of appeals" for "Simultaneously contested claims" in item 4007.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 96-3777NE

_____________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Nebraska.

*

Harlan Dwaine Porter, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

_____________

 Submitted: December 3, 1997

Filed: December 17, 1997

_____________

Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Following the revocation of Harlan Dwaine' Porter's supervised release, the

district court sentenced Porter to a term of imprisonment followed by a new term of

supervised release. On appeal, Porter contends the district court improperly added a

new term of supervised release as part of Porter's revocation sentence. A discussion

of the issue will serve no useful purpose because Porter's contention is foreclosed by

the holdings of this court. See United States v. St. John, 92 F.3d 761, 766-67 (8th Cir.

1996). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### MANILA SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 15 *v.*Charolette WAGNER, Jimmy White, Harold Lee Evans, and E.A. Shaneyfelt

03-755

155 S.W.3d 1

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered March 11, 2004

*Michael Lee Gibson*and *Walter Paul Blume,*for petitioner.

*William H. Williams, Jr.,*for respondent Charolette Wagner.

*422
      *Michael R. Bearden,*for respondent Jimmy White.

Per Curiam.

Petitioner Manila School District asks this court to stay proceedings in the Mississippi County Circuit Court regarding an *ex parte*injunction issued on behalf of Respondents Jimmy White, Harold Lee Evans, and E.A. Shaneyfelt, three taxpayers who intervened in a wrongful-termination suit brought by Respondent Charolette Wagner against the District. We recently directed the trial court in this case to dissolve a preliminary injunction issued on behalf of Wagner, which prohibited the District from hiring anyone to replace her as superintendent. *See Manila Sch. Dist. No. 15 v. Wagner,*356 Ark. 149, 148 S.W.3d 244 (2004). The mandate in that case was issued on March 9.

Prior to the issuance of the mandate, on March 5, 2004, the Respondents-Intervenors filed a complaint in the trial court seeking an *ex parte*order of injunction. Like the previous one, this injunction was sought to prohibit the District from hiring anyone to replace Wagner as superintendent until her suit could be heard on the merits. Also on March 5, the trial court entered an order granting the *ex parte*injunction.

The District asks us to stay any further proceedings on the *ex parte*injunction, as it contends that the current injunction was based upon the same harm that this court has already concluded was not irreparable. The District also asks us to remove the circuit judge, the Honorable Victor Hill, from the case. The District asserts that the fact that the same circuit judge has issued a second injunction against it demonstrates that he is attempting to flout this court’s authority and that he cannot be impartial in this matter. Additionally, the District asks that its motions be heard on an emergency or expedited basis.

We grant the District’s motion to stay any further proceedings in this matter. We further grant the motion to expedite this matter and order the parties to submit simultaneous briefs within seven days from the date of this opinion addressing the following three issues:

> 1. Whether Respondents-Intervenors have standing to seek an injunction in this matter.

> 2. Whether the irreparable harm referenced in the *ex parte*order of injunction is the same as that relied upon to issue the first injunction.

> *4233. Whether this court may, at this stage of the proceedings, act on the motion to remove Judge Hill from the case.

Upon receipt of the parties’ briefs, we will render a decision in this matter forthwith.

It is so ordered.

Thornton, J., not participating.
### §50102. Organization

(a) Federal Charter.—Daughters of Union Veterans of the Civil War 1861–1865 (in this chapter, the "corporation"), a nonprofit corporation incorporated in Ohio, is a federally chartered corporation.

(b) Expiration of Charter.—If the corporation does not comply with any provision of this chapter, the charter granted by this chapter expires.

(Pub. L. 105–225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1341.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 50102(a) | 36:3701. | Dec. 9, 1985, Pub. L. 99–172, §§1, 16, 99 Stat. 1020, 1023. |
| 50102(b) | 36:3715. | |

Section

In subsection (a), the words "incorporated in Ohio" are substituted for "organized under the laws of the State of Ohio" for consistency in the revised title and to eliminate unnecessary words.
### §152904. Membership

(a) Eligibility.—Except as provided in this chapter, eligibility for membership in the corporation and the rights and privileges of members are as provided in the constitution and bylaws of the corporation.

(b) Nondiscrimination.—The terms of membership may not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.

(Pub. L. 105–225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1420.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 152904(a) | 36:2905 (words before 3d comma). | Oct. 30, 1984, Pub. L. 98–561, §5 (words before 3d comma, words after 3d comma related to discrimination in membership), 98 Stat. 2911. |
| 152904(b) | 36:2905 (words after 3d comma related to discrimination in membership). | |

Section
( k 4 • •

EMPLOYER STATUS DETERMINATION

Nicolet Badger Northern Railroad, Inc.

This is the determination of the Railroad Retirement Board concerning the continued status of

Nicolet Badger Northern Railroad, Inc. (NBNR), B.A. No. 3645, as an employer under the

Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. §231 et_secp)(RRA) and the Railroad Unemployment

Insurance Act (45 U.S.C. §351 et_seg.)(RUIA).

Information regarding NBNR was provided by Ms. Roxanne Brewer, an agent for NBNR.

According to Ms. Brewer, NBNR ceased rail operations and last compensated its employees on

December 30, 1994. She also stated that NBNR has not sold all of its assets. She stated that

NBNR has not made any employee protective payments. NBNR has not been formally dissolved 

as a corporation. •

Section 202.11 (20 CFR §202.11) of the Board’s regulations states:

The employer status of any company or person shall terminate whenever such 

company or person loses any of the characteristics essential to the existence of an

employer status.

According to Ms. Brewer, NBNR ceased operations and last compensated its employees on

December 30, 1994. NBNR no longer has the capability to conduct rail operations.

Accordingly, under section 202.11 of the Board’s regulations, NBNR is no longer a covered 

employer under the RRA and the RUIA.

Effective with the close of business December 30, 1994, Nicolet Badger Northern Railroad, Inc.

v^Jerome F. Kever

BCD 1996-6 BA # 3645
.

2

BA # 3397
**Exhibit        32.2 **

**CERTIFICATION        PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO **

**SECTION        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 **

|   | 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. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                 |                                                                          |                                                             |
|--------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                            |                                                                     |                                                        |
| Date:                  July 24, 2007 | By:                                                                 | /s/                  Lawrence A. Taylor      |
|                                 | Name:                   Lawrence                  A. Taylor              |
|                                 | Title:                     Chief                  Financial Officer |

----