alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 22, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76770-76771]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27957]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice

[[Page 76771]]

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: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel, Brain Dopamine III.
    Date: January 5, 2005.
    Time: 12 p.m. to 3 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Gateway Building, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Bita Nakhai, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Scientific Review Office, National Institute on 
Aging, Gateway Bldg., 2C212, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 
20814, 301-402-7701, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c8a6a9a3a0a9a1aa88a6a1a9e6a6a1a0e6afa7be"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ff919e94979e969dbf91969ed1919697d1989089">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel, Age and Hearing Loss.
    Date: January 12, 2005.
    Time: 12 p.m. to 3 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: William Cruce, PhD, Health Scientist 
Administrator, Scientific Review Office, National Institute on 
Aging, National Institutes of Health, Room 2C212, 7201 Wisconsin 
Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814, 301-402-7704; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bcdfcec9dfd9cbfcd2d5dd92d2d5d492dbd3ca"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="31524344525446715f58501f5f58591f565e47">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 15, 2004.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 04-27957 Filed 12-21-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 273

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the cap on the 

cover over of tax on distilled spirits to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 6, 2005

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 

the cap on the cover over of tax on distilled spirits 

to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF CAP ON COVER OVER OF TAX ON 

4 DISTILLED SPIRITS TO PUERTO RICO AND 

5 VIRGIN ISLANDS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 7652 of the Internal Rev7 enue Code of 1986 (relating to limitation on cover over 

8 of tax on distilled spirits) is amended by striking sub9 section (f) and by redesignating subsections (g) and (h) 

10 as subsections (f) and (g), respectively. 
2

•HR 273 IH 

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 7652(f) of 

2 such Code (as so redesignated) is amended by striking 

3 ‘‘subsection (f) of this section’’ in paragraph (1)(B) and 

4 inserting ‘‘section 5001(a)(1)’’. 

5 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

6 this section shall take effect on January 1, 2005.

Æ
### §§5118 to 5118e. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–235, title I, §131, Oct. 3, 1996, 110 Stat. 3088

Section 5118, Pub. L. 93–247, title III, §301, as added Pub. L. 101–645, title VI, §661(b), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4755, related to demonstration grants for prevention of inappropriate separation from family and for prevention of child abuse and neglect.

Section 5118a, Pub. L. 93–247, title III, §302, as added Pub. L. 101–645, title VI, §661(b), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4757, related to joint training of appropriate service personnel with respect to certain subjects and additional authorized activities for which a grantee may expend grant funds.

Section 5118b, Pub. L. 93–247, title III, §303, as added Pub. L. 101–645, title VI, §661(b), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4757, related to additional agreements required of agencies, evaluations of effectiveness of demonstration programs, report to Congress, and restriction on use of grant to purchase or improve real property.

Section 5118c, Pub. L. 93–247, title III, §304, as added Pub. L. 101–645, title VI, §661(b), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4759, related to required submission of description of intended uses of grant.

Section 5118d, Pub. L. 93–247, title III, §305, as added Pub. L. 101–645, title VI, §661(b), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4759, related to requirement of submission of application for grant.

Section 5118e, Pub. L. 93–247, title III, §306, as added Pub. L. 101–645, title VI, §661(b), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4760; amended Pub. L. 102–295, title I, §131, May 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 199, related to authorization of appropriations for carrying out this subchapter.
-1- CASE NO. C 08-05770 MEJ

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

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

SF/1560318v1

SEDGWICK, DETERT, MORAN & ARNOLD LLP

REBECCA A. HULL Bar No. 99802

rebecca.hull@sdma.com

One Market Plaza

Steuart Tower, 8th Floor

San Francisco, California 94105

Telephone: (415) 781-7900

Facsimile: (415) 781-2635

Attorneys for Defendant

Citigroup Long Term Disability Plan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Whereas, the Court by Order dated on January 7, 2010 has changed the date of the 

hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions to January 21, 2010 at 10:00 a.m.;

Whereas counsel for Defendant has a hearing on a Motion for Summary Judgment in this 

Court and a private mediation session on January 21, 2010; 

Whereas both parties have agreed to continue the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Sanctions to January 28, 2010 at 10:00 a.m.

Whereas neither party is prejudiced by the proposed changes to the dates of the hearing on 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions;

Therefore, the parties stipulate as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions will be heard on January 28, 2010 at 10:00 a.m.

HANNA ZEWDU,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITIGROUP LONG TERM DISABILITY 

PLAN,

Defendant.

CASE NO. C 08-05770 MEJ

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING 

ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

SANCTIONS

Case 3:08-cv-05770-MMC Document 56 Filed 01/08/10 Page 1 of 2
-2- CASE NO. C 08-05770 MEJ

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

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

SF/1560318v1

IT IS SO AGREED AND STIPULATED.

DATED: January 7, 2010 SPRINGER-SULLIVAN & ROBERTS LLP

By: Michelle Roberts (as authorized 1/7/10) 

Michelle Roberts

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Hanna Zewdu

DATED: January 7, 2010 SEDGWICK, DETERT, MORAN & ARNOLD LLP

By: Rebecca A. Hull 

Rebecca A. Hull

Attorneys for Defendant

Citigroup Long Term Disability Plan

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _____________________________________

Hon. Maria-Elena James

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

January 8, 2010

Case 3:08-cv-05770-MMC Document 56 Filed 01/08/10 Page 2 of 2
§ 518.51 Monitoring and reporting program performance. ( a ) Recipients are responsible for managing and monitoring each project, program, subaward, function or activity supported by the award. Recipients shall monitor subawards to ensure subrecipients have met the audit requirements as delineated in § 518.26.
( b ) The Federal awarding agency shall prescribe the frequency with which the performance reports shall be submitted. Except as provided in § 518.51(f), performance reports shall not be required more frequently than quarterly or, less frequently than annually. Annual reports shall be due 90 calendar days after the grant year; quarterly or semi-annual reports shall be due 30 days after the reporting period. The Federal awarding agency may require annual reports before the anniversary dates of multiple year awards in lieu of these requirements. The final performance reports are due 90 calendar days after the expiration or termination of the award.
( c ) If inappropriate, a final technical or performance report shall not be required after completion of the project.
( d ) When required, performance reports shall generally contain, for each award, brief information on each of the following. ( 1 ) A comparison of actual accomplishments with the goals and objectives established for the period, the findings of the investigator, or both. Whenever appropriate and the output of programs or projects can be readily quantified, such quantitative data should be related to cost data for computation of unit costs.
( 2 ) Reasons why established goals were not met, if appropriate.
( 3 ) Other pertinent information including, when appropriate, analysis and explanation of cost overruns or high unit costs.
( e ) Recipients shall not be required to submit more than the original and two copies of performance reports.
( f ) Recipients shall immediately notify the Federal awarding agency of developments that have a significant impact on the award-supported activities. Also, notification shall be given in the case of problems, delays, or adverse conditions which materially impair the ability to meet the objectives of the award. This notification shall include a statement of the action taken or contemplated, and any assistance needed to resolve the situation.
( g ) Federal awarding agencies may make site visits, as needed.
( h ) Federal awarding agencies shall comply with clearance requirements of 5 CFR part 1320 when requesting performance data from recipients.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Josie E. SINEGAL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-30704

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 20, 2007.

Camille Ann Domingue, Stephanie A. Finley, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Rebecca L. Hudsmith, Federal Public Defender, Joseph R. Streva, Jr., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The district court revoked Josie E. Sine-gal’s probation and sentenced her to serve four years in prison. Sinegal appeals her sentence. She argues that her sentence is unreasonable because it exceeded the advisory guideline range, because her viola*292tions did not warrant such a harsh sentence, and because the district court failed to provide sufficient reasons for the sentence. She requests that this court vacate her sentence and remand the case for re-sentencing.

We have yet to decide whether revocation sentences imposed following the release of *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), should be reviewed under the reasonableness standard or the plainly unreasonable standard. *See United States v. Hinson,*429 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir.2005), *cert. denied,*547 U.S. 1083, 126 S.Ct. 1804, 164 L.Ed.2d 540 (2006). Nevertheless, resolution of this issue is not needed to dispose of this appeal because Sinegal has not shown that she should prevail under either standard. *See id.*Sinegal’s sentence exceeded the recommended guidelines sentence but not the pertinent statutory maximum sentence. Further, a review of the record demonstrates that the district court considered the relevant sentencing factors. *See United States v. Smith,*440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir.2006). Consequently, the sentence was neither unreasonable nor plainly unreasonable, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.-
#### Addison *v.*Edwards.

August 19, 1912.

Complaint for land. Before Judge Edwards. Haralson superior court. June 20, 1911.

*Bobinson & Edwards*and *G. FL. Hutchens,*for plaintiff in error.

*Griffith & Matthews,*contra.

Lumpkin, J.

1. The plaintiff and the defendant each owned a land lot i Haralson county, one adjoining the other. The dividing line was in controversy. The plaintiff sued the defendant for a strip of land which was in the possession of the latter. The land lots were intended to contain forty acres each. It appeared that within the boundaries surrounding the two lots there were several acres more than eighty. After instructing the jury as to finding a disputed line by agreement, acquiescence, marked trees, etc., the judge charged: “Now that is the rule in case you find that an acquiesced line, one that has been by acts and declarations treated by both sides as the dividing line; if that does not settle the case and it comes to the question of being settled as to where the original land line is or should be, then you will determine first as to natural landmarks, and if no natural landmarks, then ancient marks, such as corner, station, or marked trees, and if you have not those in evidence, it is not disclosed there are any stations or marked trees to enable you to determine where the true line is, then you would resort to courses and distances, and the land would be divided between them, showing an equal portion on each side.” *Seld,*that the last part of this charge was harmful error. The burden was on the plaintiff to establish that he was entitled to recover the land for which he sued, or some definite part of it. In the absence of higher proof, courses and distances are resorted to (Civil Code, § 3820). But a resort thereto did not require the jury, as a matter of law, to divide the aggregate amount of land contained in the two lots so as to give one equal portion to each side, regardless of any agreement or acquiescence of the parties. One lot may have contained an excess over the normal amount, and not the other.

2. None of the other grounds of the motion for a new trial require a reversal. *Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VOLTERRA SEMICONDUCTOR CORP.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

PRIMARION, INC., ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

No. C-08-05129 JCS

ORDER TO FILE UNDER SEAL

TRANSCRIPT OF JANUARY 27, 2010

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING

The Court hereby ORDERS that the transcript of the January 27, 2010 Claim Construction

hearing shall be filed under seal. The Court intends to unseal the hearing transcript thirty days from

the date of this order. If any party believes that the hearing transcript contains any confidential

information entitled to protection, that party shall file with the Court a declaration establishing such

entitlement and any proposed redactions not later than twenty-one days from the date of this Order. 

The Court Reporter may release the transcript of the January 27, 2010 hearing to counsel in this

action. Pending the Court’s unsealing of the transcript, counsel shall adhere to the terms of the

stipulated Protective Order in this case governing material designated “Confidential – Outside

Counsel’s Eyes Only” with respect to those portions of the hearing transcript in which principals of

either party were asked to leave the courtroom.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2010

_________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-05129-JCS Document 680 Filed 01/27/10 Page 1 of 1
Case 3:08-mc-80144-MHP   Document 24   Filed 07/28/10   Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1997,
WHICH INCLUDES THE UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANICAL STATEMENTS OF THE
REGISTRANT, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                          <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                      13,233,067
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,803,030
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,083,115
<PP&E>                                      41,066,875
<DEPRECIATION>                              12,260,491
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              48,575,623
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,288,612
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        87,019
<OTHER-SE>                                  39,065,297
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                48,575,623
<SALES>                                      2,481,815
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,485,075
<CGS>                                          512,825
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,278,005
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              71,871
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,664,839)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,246,045)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,418,794)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,418,794)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.28)
        

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

FOURTH DISTRICT

MAVIS McBRIDE, MAVIS McBRIDE, AS TRUSTEE OF THE MAVIS 

McBRIDE REAL PROPERTY REVOCABLE TRUST and CHRISTOPHER 

WENTWORTH VIRTUE a/k/a CHRISTOPHER VIRTUE,

Appellants,

v.

DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC f/k/a GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC,

Appellee.

No. 4D16-3118

[September 20, 2017]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Joel T. Lazarus, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2015-CA-020812 

(11).

Bruce K. Herman of The Herman Law Group, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for 

appellants.

Kimberly Hopkins of Shapiro, Fishman & Gaché, LLP, Tampa, for 

appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, CIKLIN and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### § 192.30 Eligibility for benefits.

A person designated as a captive or family member of a captive under subpart A of this subchapter, shall be eligible for benefits under this subpart.
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

1

[Proposed] Order Granting Def.’s Mot. Stay Disc. (C 08-2222 MMC (PR))

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

JERRY M. FREDERICK,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION,

Defendant.

C 08-2222 MMC (PR)

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A STAY 

OF DISCOVERY PENDING RULING ON 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendant California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) filed a motion 

for an order staying discovery pending the Court’s ruling on CDCR’s fully briefed motion for 

summary judgment.

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, CDCR’s motion to stay discovery is GRANTED, and 

discovery, including all discovery motions, is stayed pending the Court’s ruling on CDCR’s

motion for summary judgment.

Dated: _______________ ____________________________________________

THE HONORABLE MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

July 14, 2010 Vaughn R. Walker for

Case 3:08-cv-02222-MMC Document 78 Filed 07/14/10 Page 1 of 1
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

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of TS&B Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period
ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report),the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

| |  | TS&B Holdings, Inc.BY: /S/ James V. Sadrianna
James V. SadriannaChief Financial OfficerFebruary 11, 2005
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### Jennifer Kennedy, Respondent, v. Robert J. Remack, Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and medical expenses based upon the alleged negligence of the defendant in the operation of his motor vehicle, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the City Court of Yonkers, entered October 13, 1960 upon the verdict of the jury in favor of plaintiff, after trial. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. Under all the circumstances, we believe the trial court’s answers to the several specific questions put by the jury foreman -were inadequate and rendered the charge as a whole confusing to the jury. In the interests of justice there should be a new trial. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.