alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 6 (Monday, January 11, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 1983]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00223]



[[Page 1983]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The 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 of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Emergency Awards: Rapid 
Investigation of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 
(SARS-CoV-2) and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).
    Date: February 8-9, 2021.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3F21B, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Maryam Feili-Hariri, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3F21B, 
Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 669-5026, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#274f46554e554e4a4167494e464e4309494e4f09404851"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0f676e7d667d6662694f61666e666b2161666721686079">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 5, 2021.
Tyeshia M. Roberson,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-00223 Filed 1-8-21; 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>
#### § 770.42 Background.

Naval Submarine Base New London maintains and operates facilities to support training and experimental operations of the submarine force including providing support to submarines, submarine rescue vessels, and assigned service and small craft; within capabilities, to provide support to other activities of the Navy and other governmental activities in the area; and to perform such other functions as may be directed by competent authority.
### §4903. Issuance of plans

To effectuate the declared policy of this chapter, the Secretary shall, under the provisions of this chapter, issue, and from time to time may amend, orders (applicable to producers, handlers, and importers of watermelons) authorizing the collection of assessments on watermelons under this chapter and the use of such funds to cover the costs of research, development, advertising, and promotion with respect to watermelons under this chapter. Any plan shall be applicable to watermelons produced in the United States or imported into the United States.

(Pub. L. 99–198, title XVI, §1644, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1623; Pub. L. 103–189, §§3(b), 8(b), Dec. 14, 1993, 107 Stat. 2259, 2261.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1993—Pub. L. 103–189, in first sentence, substituted ", handlers, and importers" for "and handlers", struck out after first sentence "Any order issued by the Secretary under this chapter shall hereinafter in this chapter be referred to as a 'plan'.", and in last sentence, struck out "the forty-eight contiguous States of" after "watermelons produced in", and inserted "or imported into the United States" before period at end.
#### Peter Macchia, Respondent, v Joseph Liggett et al., Appellants.

Appeal by defendants from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered February 15, 1977, which (a) granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and (b) denied their cross motion to be relieved from an order of preclusion entered upon their failure to serve a bill of particulars, and (2) a judgment of the same court dated February 15,1977, entered upon the foregoing order in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $6,158. Appeal from order dismissed, without costs or disbursements (see *Matter of Abo,*39 NY2d 241, 248). Judgment reversed, without costs or disbursements, motion to be relieved from an order of preclusion dated April 21, 1976, granted and said order vacated and motion for summary judgment denied. Under the circumstances of this case Special Term improvidently exercised its discretion in denying defendants’ motion to be relieved from the order of preclusion. Furthermore, it is our opinion that summary judgment was improperly granted to plaintiff in this case. This is an action to recover the balance due under a contract in which the plaintiff agreed to perform certain plumbing installations. The contract specifically provides that as a condition precedent to the payment of the balance due thereunder, plaintiff must obtain a "Plumbing Completion Certificate from the proper N.Y.C. Agency.” The record is silent as to whether such certificate was obtained by the plaintiff. He should be required to prove full compliance with the terms of the contract. The record establishes that defendant Joseph Liggett was not a signatory of the contract upon which the plaintiff has sued. Therefore, the plaintiff may not have judgment against him on the cause of action pleaded in the complaint. However, it appears from the papers submitted in this action that Joseph Liggett is one of the owners of the premises upon which the plaintiff performed the work pursuant to the contract. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s submissions have made out a cause of action against Joseph Liggett in *quantum meruit*(see 50 NY Jur, Restitution and Implied Contracts, §73 *et seq.).*We have declined to search the record and grant summary judgment to Joseph Liggett because, as the Court of Appeals recently stated in the case of *Alvord & Swift v Muller Constr. Co.*(46 NY2d 276, 279): "Modern principles of procedure do not permit an unconditional grant of summary judgment against a plaintiff who, despite defects in pleading, has on his submissions made out a cause of action.” Mollen, P. J., O’Connor, Rabin and Gulotta, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

Cardenas,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

Grozdic et al,

Defendant(s).

Case No. 12 c 292

Judge Virginia M. Kendall

ORDER

Bench trial stricken. Bench trial ends. Case has settled. This case is hereby dismissed without 

prejudice and to become with prejudice on 12/31/2014. Parties to work out the details of 

settlement on or before 11/19/2014. 

Date: November 12, 2014

Virginia M. Kendall

United States District Judge

Case: 1:12-cv-00292 Document #: 113 Filed: 11/12/14 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:1228
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             SEP-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                  SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                        46,064
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 150,669
<ALLOWANCES>                  3,071
<INVENTORY>                   124,325
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              322,745
<PP&E>                        277,423
<DEPRECIATION>                174,862
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                505,114
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         95,581
<BONDS>                       45,255
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      457
<OTHER-SE>                    356,734
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  505,114
<SALES>                       624,743
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              624,743
<CGS>                         360,730
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 360,730
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              147,210
<LOSS-PROVISION>              922
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            5,643
<INCOME-PRETAX>               112,441
<INCOME-TAX>                  40,587
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           71,854
<DISCONTINUED>                1,899
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  69,955
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 0.77
<EPS-DILUTED>                 0.77
<FN>
All amounts in this exhibit have been restated to reflect the disposal of the
company's network products business, as well as a three-for-two stock split for
stockholders of record on February 21, 1996 and a three-for-two stock split for
stockholders of record on February 25, 1997
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
### §7a–3. Repealed. Pub. L. 111–203, title VII, §734(a), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1718

Section, act Sept. 21, 1922, ch. 369, §5d, as added Pub. L. 106–554, §1(a)(5) [title I, §114], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–401, related to exempt boards of trade.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective on the later of 360 days after July 21, 2010, or, to the extent a provision of subtitle A (§§711–754) of title VII of Pub. L. 111–203 requires a rulemaking, not less than 60 days after publication of the final rule or regulation implementing such provision of subtitle A, see section 754 of Pub. L. 111–203, set out as an Effective Date of 2010 Amendment note under section 1a of this title.
### §§2912 to 2918. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Sections 2912 to 2918 of this title were omitted in the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 99–198, title XVI, §1601(b), Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1597.

Section 2912, Pub. L. 94–294, §13, May 28, 1976, 90 Stat. 535, related to administrative review of orders, petition for such review, a hearing, and judicial review.

Section 2913, Pub. L. 94–294, §14, May 28, 1976, 90 Stat. 536, related to enforcement of orders, referral of civil actions to Attorney General, penalties for willful violations, and availability of additional remedies. See section 2908 of this title.

Section 2914, Pub. L. 94–294, §15, May 28, 1976, 90 Stat. 536, related to certification of organizations and contents of a factual report as criteria. See section 2905 of this title.

Section 2915, Pub. L. 94–294, §16, May 28, 1976, 90 Stat. 537, provided that nothing in this chapter be construed to interfere with workings of any State beef board, council, or other promotion entity. See section 2910(a) of this title.

Section 2916, Pub. L. 94–294, § 17, May 28, 1976, 90 Stat. 537, authorized Secretary to promulgate regulations to carry out this chapter.

Section 2917, Pub. L. 94–294, §18, May 28, 1976, 90 Stat. 537, related to investigations by Secretary, oaths and affirmations, subpenas, judicial enforcement, contempt proceedings, and service of process. See section 2909 of this title.

Section 2918, Pub. L. 94–294, §20, May 28, 1976, 90 Stat. 538, authorized appropriations to carry out this chapter. See section 2911 of this title.
U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE FORM

NOTE: In order to appear before this Court an attorney must either be a member in good standing of this 

Court’s general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for by Local Rules 83.12 through 

83.14.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

Plaintiff, )

v. ) Case No. 11-cv-05937

 )

AIMEE KRAUSE, ) 

 Defendant. )

AN APPEARANCE IS HEREBY FILED BY THE UNDERSIGNED AS ATTORNEY FOR:

United States of America

NAME (Type or print)

Kimberly J. Goodell

SIGNATURE (Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically)

 s/Kimberly J. Goodell

FIRM: Potestivo & Associates, P.C.

STREET ADDRESS: 223 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 610

CITY/STATE/ZIP: Chicago, IL 60606

ID NUMBER (SEE ITEM 3 IN INSTRUCTIONS): 6305436 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 312-263-0003

ARE YOU ACTING AS LEAD COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? Y

ARE YOU ACTING AS LOCAL COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? Y

ARE YOU A MEMBER OF THIS COURT’S TRIAL BAR? N

IF THIS CASE REACHES TRIAL, WILL YOU ACT AS THE TRIAL ATTORNEY? N

IF THIS IS A CRIMINAL CASE, USE AN “X” TO DESCRIBE YOUR STATUS IN THIS CASE.

RETAINED COUNSEL APPOINTED COUNSEL

Case: 1:11-cv-05937 Document #: 35 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:222
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Louis Musto, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered November 21, 1977, convicting him of grand larceny in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment with a maximum of three years. Judgment modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence to a period of imprisonment for 60 days and probation for an additional period of 4 years and 10 months. As so modified, judgment affirmed and case remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, to fix the terms and conditions of probation and for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). The sentence was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Martuscello, J. P., Titone, Hawkins and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
### §7110. Regulations

The Secretary may issue such regulations as are necessary to carry out this chapter.

(Pub. L. 103–407, §11, Oct. 22, 1994, 108 Stat. 4226.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

CHARLES CHATT, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) No. 11 C 9267

)

J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC., etc.,)

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Counsel for defendant J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. (“J.B.

Hunt”) have just managed to chalk up a “first” in this Court’s

experience--and regrettably, not a good one. This Court’s brief

February 8, 2012 memorandum order had identified for counsel

their flawed invocation of the disclaimer provisions of Fed. R.

Civ. P. (“Rule”) 8(b)(5), an obvious defect resulting from

counsel’s apparently not having read that Rule. But given the

opportunity to cure their mistake by filing an amendment to their

Answer, counsel have managed to commit still another obvious

boner.

In J.B. Hunt’s just-filed Amendment to Answer, this time its

counsel have tracked the provisions of the disclaimer accurately

(not a hard task, given the plain terms of Rule 8(b)(5)), but in

each instance that is followed by the assertion that the

corresponding allegation of the Complaint “is therefore denied.” 

That is of course oxymoronic--how can a party that asserts

(presumably in good faith) that it lacks even enough information
to form a belief as to the truth of an allegation then proceed to

deny it in accordance with Rule 11(b)?

Accordingly the Amendment to Answer is stricken. Even

though under the circumstances this Court could well rule that

the questioned allegations of the Complaint are deemed admitted,

no such sanction will be imposed. Instead:

1. Leave is granted once more to J.B. Hunt’s counsel

to return to the drawing board and file a proper Second

Amendment to Answer on or before February 22, 2012.

2. Counsel are ordered once again to make no charge to

J.B. Hunt for the added work and expense incurred in

correcting counsel’s current errors, but as a kind of modest

sanction counsel are ordered to transmit copies of the

February 8 memorandum order and this memorandum order to

their client together with a letter advising the client of

the no-charge commitment, with a copy of that letter to be

transmitted to this Court (for informational purposes, not

for filing).

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: February 14, 2012

2
§ 776.66 Bar admission and disciplinary matters. ( a ) A covered attorney, in connection with any application for bar admission, appointment as a judge advocate, employment as a civilian USG attorney, certification by the JAG or his designee, or in connection with any disciplinary matter, shall not: ( 1 ) Knowingly make a false statement of fact; or
( 2 ) Fail to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known by the person to have arisen in the matter, or knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary authority, except that this part does not require disclosure of information otherwise protected by § 776.25 of this part.
( b ) The duty imposed by subpart B of this part extends to covered attorneys and other attorneys seeking admission to a bar, application for appointment as a covered USG attorney (military or civilian) or certification by the JAG or his designee. Hence, if a person makes a false statement in connection with an application for admission or certification (e.g., misstatement by a civilian attorney before a military judge regarding qualifications under R.C.M. 502), it may be the basis for subsequent disciplinary action if the person is admitted, and in any event may be relevant in a subsequent admission application. The duty imposed by subpart B of this part applies to a covered attorney's own admission or discipline as well as that of others. Thus, it is a separate professional offense for a covered attorney to make a knowing misrepresentation or omission in connection with a disciplinary investigation of the covered attorney's own conduct. Subpart B of this part also requires affirmative clarification of any misunderstanding on the part of the admissions, certification, or disciplinary authority of which the person involved becomes aware.
From: Wieg, Christina <Christina.Wieg@epa.state.oh.us>

Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 11:42 AM To: Conrad Chin Cc: friedman.beth@ecrweb.com; nelson.brad@ecrweb.com; Chuck French; Jonathan Averback; Deshaies, Marco; Weinberg, Bruce Subject: RE: Eramet Test Data Conrad, Marco, our stack test coordinator was kind enough to quickly pull together what he could find. Hope this helps and please let us know if you have any questions regarding this information: It should be noted that M W below are the average for the runs during the test. Furnace #1 (EU P901) 4/9/2002 - 28.89 MW - SiMn 6/12/2003 - 28.87MW - SiMn 5/26/2004 - 28.88MW - SiMn 6/15/2005 - 27MW - SiMn 11/8/2006 - 24.18 - SiMn 5/9/2007 - 28.2MW - SiMn 5/10/2007 - 24.7MW - SiMn 3/25/2008 - 26.5MW - SiMn 9/16/2008 - 29MW - SiMn 10/13/2009 - 22.2 - SiMn 10/14/2009 - 22.2MW - SiMn 11/26/2010 - 28.88MW - SiMn 5/26/2011 - 27.12MW - SiMn 8/12/2003 - 26MW - We believe this one was SiMn but this one needs doubled checked Furnace #12 (EU P908) 4/9/2002 - 20.7 MW - FeMn 6/12/2003 - 19.82MW - FeMn 5/26/2004 - 21.86MW - FeMn 6/15/2005 - 20.6MW - FeMn 11/8/2006 - 21.15MW - FeMn 5/8/2007 - 20.55MW - FeMn 3/25/2008 - 21.06MW - FeMn 3/2/2009 - 20.03MW - FeMn 6/28/2010 - 19.90MW - FeMn 5/25/2011 - 19.54MW - FEMnSincerely,

Christina Wieg Environmental Specialis t III Division of Air Pollution Control Ohio EPA - SEDO 2195 Front Street Logan, OH 43138 740 - 380 - 5223 Fax: 740 - 385 - 6490 Christina.wieg@epa.ohio.gov "Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not." ~ The Lorax by Dr. Seuss

----- Original Message ----- From: Conrad Chin [mailto:Chin.Conrad@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 6:52 PM To: Wieg, Christina Cc: friedman.beth@ecrweb.com; nelson.brad@ecrweb.com; Chuck French; Jonathan Averback Subject: Fw: Eramet Test Data Hello Christina Hope you are doing well. With reference to the attached Excel, we have the historical test data from Eramet on all three furnaces. We assume these are the annual compliance test data. We would be very i nterest to know the type of product being produced during each of these tests, and the furna c e operating MW. Is that something you can help us with? If it is too much work, even partial data would be helpful (such as only for furnaces 1 and 12; and/or on ly data for the last five years etc.) Please let me know if this is something you can help us with. Thanks in advance. Conrad K. Chin Mail Code D243 - 02 Metals and Minerals Group Sector Policies and Programs Division Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 919 - 541 - 1512 (voice) 919 - 541 - 3207 (fax)
Negative Declaration

Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings

The District has reviewed its permit files and the emission inventory for its federal Clean Air Plan, as well as business listings and telephone yellow pages, and has determined that there are no stationary sources or emitting facilities for the following CTG category. The District also does not anticipate that any known businesses will propose constructing these sources in the

future.

GUIDANCE DOCUMENT TITLE DOCUMENT TYPE DOCUMENT

NUMBER Control Techniques Guidelines for Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings CTG EPA-453/R-08-006
Fiscal Year 2014 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - MARYLAND

FY 2014 Title I

LEA ID District Allocation*

2400030 Allegany County Public Schools 2,855,133

2400060 Anne Arundel County Public Schools 11,295,126

2400090 Baltimore City Public Schools 52,062,242

2400120 Baltimore County Public Schools 26,988,694

2400150 Calvert County Public Schools 1,621,506

2400180 Caroline County Public Schools 1,576,211

2400210 Carroll County Public Schools 2,359,681

2400240 Cecil County Public Schools 3,207,826

2400270 Charles County Public Schools 3,483,837

2400300 Dorchester County Public Schools 1,858,259

2400330 Frederick County Public Schools 4,480,622

2400360 Garrett County Public Schools 1,150,295

2400390 Harford County Public Schools 5,019,557

2400420 Howard County Public Schools 4,297,569

2400450 Kent County Public Schools 619,480

2400480 Montgomery County Public Schools 21,489,126

2400510 Prince George's County Public Schools 33,173,040

2400540 Queen Annes County Public Schools 893,272

2400570 Somerset County Public Schools 1,488,383

2400600 St. Marys County Public Schools 2,603,254

2400630 Talbot County Public Schools 929,289

2400660 Washington County Public Schools 6,405,199

2400690 Wicomico County Public Schools 5,148,107

2400720 Worcester County Public Schools 1,751,695

2499999 PART D SUBPART 2 619,976

* Actual amounts received by LEAs will be smaller than shown here due to State-level adjustments to Federal Title I allocations. States adjust

 allocations, for example, to reflect LEA boundary changes or the creation of new LEAs, including charter school LEAs, that are not accounted

 for in the statutory calculations. States also are permitted to reserve, for administration, up to 1 percent of the allocations they would receive

 if $14 billion were appropriated and generally must reserve 4 percent in fiscal year 2014 for school improvement activities. These 

 adjustments will reduce the actual amounts.