alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 239 (Friday, December 11, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 80159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27240]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. DEA-748]


Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Sterling 
Pharma USA, LLC

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.

ACTION: Notice of application.

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

SUMMARY: Sterling Pharma USA, LLC has applied to be registered as a 
bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer 
to Supplemental Information listed below for further drug information.

DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), 
and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to 
the issuance of the proposed registration on or before February 9, 
2021. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the 
application on or before February 9, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement 
Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 
8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this 
is notice that on August 24, 2020, Sterling Pharma USA, LLC, 1001 
Sheldon Drive, Suite 101, Cary, North Carolina 27513-2079, applied to 
be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) 
of controlled substance(s):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Drug
          Controlled substance             code          Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tetrahydrocannabinols..................     7370  I
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to manufacture in bulk drug code 7370 
(Tetrahydrocannabinols) exclusively from hemp extract, for distribution 
and sale to its customers. No other activities for this drug code is 
authorized for this registration.

William T. McDermott,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-27240 Filed 12-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7983

JOSE ALBERTO OSORIO,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, 

District Judge. (1:12-cv-00134-LMB-JFA)

Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 22, 2013

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jose Alberto Osorio, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jose Alberto Osorio seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Osorio has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
### Mesozoic formations in the Comobabi and Roskruge Mountains, Papago Indian Reservation, Arizona

By: L. A. Heindl

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1194H

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (1151 pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Angela Moltzon, Appellant, v Computer Associates et al., Respondents. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

[834 NYS2d 369]—

Mugglin, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed September 21, 2005, which ruled that the death of claimant’s decedent was not causally related to his employment.

Decedent, claimant’s husband, was at LaGuardia Airport in New York City for business-related travel when he suffered a fatal heart attack. Following hearings, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge determined that work-related stress was a precipitating cause of decedent’s death and awarded claimant workers’ compensation benefits. That decision was reversed by the Workers’ Compensation Board which, based on its finding that testimony offered by the employer’s medical expert was more credible than that offered by claimant’s consulting physician, concluded that the record lacked sufficient evidence to support a determination of causally related death. Claimant now appeals, asserting that the employer failed to overcome the presumption of compensability afforded her under Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (1) and, thus, the Board’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence.

We disagree, affirm and note initially that, inasmuch as both a death certificate and autopsy report list the cause of decedent’s death, which was witnessed, as atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (1) is inapplicable and claimant must establish a causally related death *(see Matter of Crapo v City of Buffalo,*24 AD3d 838, 839 [2005]). Although claimant’s medical expert, Marc Fames, opined that decedent’s myocardial infarction was the result of work-induced stress, the employer’s medical expert, Carl Friedman, testified *1054in direct contrast to that opinion, stating that “[t]here is no indication[ ] that the acute myocardial infarction [was] associated with stress.” Notably, Friedman’s diagnosis was based upon his observation that decedent was a heavy smoker who had suffered six episodes of chest pain in the three months immediately preceding his death, none of which was alleged to have been brought about by work-related stress, while Parnes’s diagnosis partially relied upon facts that were unsubstantiated—or contradicted—in the record. Inasmuch as it is within the province of the Board to resolve conflicting medical evidence, we decline to disturb its determination *(see Matter of Wallas v Mastic Beach Excavation, Inc.,*18 AD3d 1107, 1108 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 712 [2005]).

Peters, J.P, Spain, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
### §1421k–1. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–186, title II, §224(2), Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1752

Section, act Aug. 1, 1950, ch. 512, §35, as added May 27, 1975, Pub. L. 94–26, §1, 89 Stat. 94, related to clerk hire allowance and reimbursement for transportation expenses of the Delegate from Guam to the House of Representatives.
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2012-1327 Directorate Identifier: 2012-NE-47-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Inspection 38 $3,230.0

0

$0 $3,230.00 56 $180,880.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $180,880

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): N/A
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
§ 252.5 Information to be made available to affected States. ( a ) The BOEM Director shall prepare an index of OCS information (see 30 CFR 556.10). The index shall list all relevant actual or proposed programs, plans, reports, environmental impact statements, nominations information, environmental study reports, lease sale information, and any similar type of relevant information, including modifications, comments, and revisions prepared or directly obtained by the Director under the Act. The index shall be sent to affected States and, upon request, to any affected local government. The public shall be informed of the availability of the index.
( b ) Upon request, the Director shall transmit to affected States, affected local governments, and the public a copy of any information listed in the index which is subject to the control of BOEM, in accordance with the requirements and subject to the limitations of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C.552) and implementing regulations. The Director shall not transmit or make available any information which he determines is exempt from disclosure in accordance with this part.
```
**EXHIBIT 10.35**Board of Directors  resolution  approving an increase in the additional  retainer paid to the audit committee members and to
the chairs of the committees:**RESOLVED**,  that the Board hereby (i) increases the additional  annual  retainer for the Chair of the Audit Committee
from $6,000 to $12,000,  (ii) increases the additional  annual retainer for the Chairs of the Committee on  Compensation  and
Governance and the Finance  Committee from $6,000 to $9,000 and (iii) pay an additional  annual retainer of $3,000 to members
of the Audit Committee, all such actions to be effective April 1, 2003.

                                                             E-7
```
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Homeland Security Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2020-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-2070]
 AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency; DHS.
 ACTION: Notice; correction.
 SUMMARY: FEMA published a document in the 
                        **Federal Register**
                         of October 6, 2020, concerning a proposed flood hazard determination. The document contained an erroneous table.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) 
                        *patrick.sacbibit@fema.dhs.gov;*
                         or visit the FEMA Mapping and Insurance eXchange (FMIX) 
                        *online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/​fhm/​fmx_​main.html.*


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Correction In the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     of October 6, 2020, in FR Doc 2020-22084, on page 63132, correct the table containing data for Louisa County, Iowa and Incorporated Areas to read: Community
Community map repository address**Louisa County, Iowa and Incorporated Areas****Project: 15-07-0720S Preliminary Date: January 31, 2020**City of Columbus Junction
City Hall, 232 2nd Street, Columbus Junction, IA 52738.City of Fredonia
Louisa County Courthouse, 117 South Main Street, Wapello, IA 52653.City of Letts
City Hall, 125 East Iowa Street, Letts, IA 52754.City of Morning Sun
City Hall, 11 East Division Street, Morning Sun, IA 52640.City of Oakville
City Hall, 601 2nd Street, Oakville, IA 52646.City of Wapello
City Hall, 335 North Main Street, Wapello, IA 52653.Unincorporated Areas of Louisa County
Louisa County Courthouse, 117 South Main Street, Wapello, IA 52653.
 Michael M. Grimm, Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.


[FR Doc. 2020-26486 Filed 11-30-20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
§ 903.12 What are the streamlined Annual Plan requirements for small PHAs? ( a ) *General.* PHAs with less than 250 public housing units (small PHAs) and that have not been designated as troubled (see § 902.67(c) of this chapter) or that are not at risk of being designated as troubled (see § 902.67(b)(4)) under section 6(j) of the 1937 Act may submit streamlined Annual Plans in accordance with this section.
( b ) *Streamlined Annual Plan requirements for fiscal years in which its 5-Year Plan is also due.* For the fiscal year in which its 5-Year Plan is also due, the streamlined Annual Plan of the small PHA shall consist of the information required by § 903.7(a), (b), (c), (d), (g), (h), (k), (o) (r), and (s). The information required by § 903.7(a) must be included only to the extent it pertains to the housing needs of families that are on the PHA's public housing and Section 8 tenant-based assistance and project-based assistance waiting lists. The information required by § 903.7(k) must be included only to the extent that the PHA participates in homeownership programs under Section 8(y) of the 1937 Act. The information required in *§ 903.7(r)* must be included only to the extent that the PHA participates in the project-based assistance program.
( c ) *Streamlined Annual Plan requirements for all other fiscal years.* For all other fiscal years, the streamlined Annual Plan must include: ( 1 ) The information required by § 903.7(g) and (o) and, if applicable, § 903.7(b)(2) with respect to site-based waiting lists, § 903.7(k)(1)(i) with respect to homeownership programs under Section 8(y) of the 1937 Act, and § 903.7(r) with respect to participation in the project-based assistance program;
( 2 ) A certification from the PHA that lists the policies and programs covered by § 903.7(a), (b), (c), (d), (h), (k), and (s) that the PHA has revised since submission of its last Annual Plan and provides assurance by the PHA that: ( i ) The Resident Advisory Board had an opportunity to review and comment on the changes to the policies and programs before implementation by the PHA;
( ii ) The changes were duly approved by the PHA board of directors (or similar governing body); and
( iii ) The revised policies and programs are available for review and inspection at the principal office of the PHA during normal business hours.
[68 FR 37671, June 24, 2003, as amended at 89 FR 38292, May 7, 2024]
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2892 

To amend section 255 of the National Housing Act to remove the limitation 

on the number of reverse mortgages that may be insured under the 

FHA mortgage insurance program for such mortgages. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 14, 2005 

Mr. FITZPATRICK of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mr. MATHESON, Mrs. KELLY, 

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California, Ms. 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida, Mr. MCHENRY, Mr. PRICE of North 

Carolina, and Ms. HARRIS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend section 255 of the National Housing Act to remove the limitation on the number of reverse mortgages 

that may be insured under the FHA mortgage insurance 

program for such mortgages. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Reverse Mortgages to 

5 Help America’s Seniors Act’’. 
2 

•HR 2892 IH 

1 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF CAP ON NUMBER OF MORTGAGES 

2 INSURED. 

3 Section 255 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 

4 1715z–20) is amended— 

5 (1) in subsection (g), by striking the first sen6 tence; and 

7 (2) in subsection (i)(1)(C), by striking ‘‘limita8 tions’’ and inserting ‘‘limitation’’. 

Æ
§ 1290.109 How do I request an extension of time? ( a ) If you are a party to an appeal under this part, and you need additional time after the appeal commences under 43 CFR 4.904 for any purpose: ( 1 ) You may obtain an extension of time under this section; and
( 2 ) You must submit a written request for an extension of time to: ( i ) The office or official with whom you must file a document before the required filing date; or
( ii ) If you are not seeking an extension of time to file a document, to the office or official before whom the appeal is pending.
( b ) If you are an appellant, and if your appeal involves monetary or nonmonetary obligations under Federal oil and gas leases, you must agree in writing in your request to extend the period in which the Department must issue a final decision in your appeal under 30 U.S.C. 1724(h) and 43 CFR 4.906, by the amount of time for which you are requesting an extension.
( c ) If you are any other party to an appeal involving monetary or nonmonetary obligations under Federal oil and gas leases, the office or official with whom you must file the request may require you to submit a written agreement signed by the appellant to extend the period in which the Department must issue a final decision in the appeal under 43 CFR 4.906, by the amount of time for which you are requesting an extension.
( d ) The office or official with whom you must file your request may decline any request for an extension of time.
( e ) You must serve your request on all parties to the appeal.
[64 FR 26257, May 13, 1999, as amended at 78 FR 30206, May 22, 2013]
Editorial Note on Part 982
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 982 appear at 64 FR 26640, May 14, 1999, and at 89 FR 38293, May 7, 2024.

§ 982.504 Payment standard for family in restructured subsidized multifamily project. ( a ) This section applies to HCV assistance if all the following conditions are applicable: ( 1 ) Such HCV assistance is provided to a family pursuant to 24 CFR 401.421 when HUD has approved a restructuring plan, and the participating administrative entity has approved the use of tenant-based assistance to provide continued assistance for such families. Such tenant-based voucher assistance is provided for a family previously receiving project-based assistance in an eligible project (as defined in § 401.2 of this title) at the time when the project-based assistance terminates.
( 2 ) The family chooses to remain in the restructured project with HCV assistance under the program and leases a unit that does not exceed the family unit size;
( 3 ) The lease for such assisted tenancy commences during the first year after the project-based assistance terminates.
( b ) The initial payment standard for the family under such initial lease is the sum of the reasonable rent to owner for the unit plus the utility allowance for tenant-paid utilities. (Determination of such initial payment standard for the family is not subject to paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of § 982.505. Except for determination of the initial payment standard as specifically provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the payment standard and housing assistance payment for the family during the HAP contract term shall be determined in accordance with § 982.505.)
[64 FR 26649, May 14, 1999, as amended at 80 FR 8247, Feb. 17, 2015]