alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 36 (Wednesday, February 24, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 8374]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3736]



[[Page 8374]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), 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 Human Genome Research Institute 
Special Emphasis Panel, Revolutionary Sequencing Technology.
    Date: April 2, 2010.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Crystal City Marriott at Regan National Airport, 1999 
Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.
    Contact Person: Ken D. Nakamura, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, 
National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 4076, MSC 
9306, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-402-0838, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b7d9d6dcd6dac2c5dcf7dad6dedb99d9dedf99d0d8c1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dfb1beb4beb2aaadb49fb2beb6b3f1b1b6b7f1b8b0a9">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.172, Human 
Genome Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 17, 2010.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-3736 Filed 2-23-10; 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>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Annual
Report on Form 10-K and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements for the period ended October 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,551
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,662
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (941)
<INVENTORY>                                     37,861
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                87,454
<PP&E>                                         273,801
<DEPRECIATION>                                (81,953)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 280,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           93,005
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            36
<OTHER-SE>                                    (59,122)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   280,000
<SALES>                                        320,450
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               320,450
<CGS>                                          318,842
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  340,898
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                33,334
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,490
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (74,272)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,143)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (73,129)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (73,129)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (20.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (20.26)


</TABLE>
Exhibit No. 21.1

 

**Subsidiaries of BNCCORP, Inc.**

 

The following is a list of all subsidiaries of the Company, including their state of incorporation or organization.

 

 
| **Name**                                                                          |   | **Incorporated In** |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------|
| BNC National Bank                                                                 |   | National Bank       |
| BNC Insurance Services, Inc. (a Subsidiary of   BNC National Bank) |   | Arizona             |
| BNC Asset Management, Inc., (a Subsidiary of BNC National Bank)                   |   | North Dakota        |
| Bismarck Properties, Inc.                                                         |   | North Dakota        |
| BNC Capital Trust I                                                               |   | Delaware Trust      |
| BNC Statutory Trust II                                                            |   | Connecticut Trust   |
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000813621
<NAME>                        AMCOL International Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     USD
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.00
<CASH>                                         2,206
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  99,275
<ALLOWANCES>                                   2,964
<INVENTORY>                                    48,945
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               154,800
<PP&E>                                         325,208
<DEPRECIATION>                                 150,505
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 354,018
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          71,319
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       320
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   354,018
<SALES>                                        121,557
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               121,557
<CGS>                                          98,022
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  113,712
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               331
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2,111
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                5,403
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,945
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            3,458
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   3,458
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .12
        


</TABLE>
# m8752.docx

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 14.3.2018 C(2018) 1652 final To the notifying parties: Subject : Case M. 8752 - CPPIB / BHL / BGL Commission decision pursuant to Article 6(1 )( b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 1 and Article 57 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area 2 Dear Sir or Madam, 1. On 16 February 2018 , the European Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which CPP Investment Board (Canada) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1 )( b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of BGL (Holdings) Ltd (United Kingdom), currently controlled by BHL Holdings Ltd ( Guernsey ) by way of purchase of shares . 3 2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are: - CPP Investment Board: a Toronto based investment management organisation investing the funds of the Canada Pension Plan Fund principally in public equities, private equities, real estate, infrastructure and fixed income investments. - BHL Holdings Ltd: a privately owned, Guernsey managed, holding company with interests in Europe, Australia, Singapore, South Africa and Turkey active in insurance underwriting, reinsurance, price comparison websites, legal, property development and leisure sectors. - BGL (Holdings) Ltd: operation of price comparison websites in the UK and France, insurance distribution of third party and own-brand life and non-life insurance products in the UK. 3. After examination of the notification, the European Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of the Merger Regulation and of paragrap h 5 ( c ) of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 . 4 4. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the European Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the internal market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1 )( b) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement . For the Commission
( S igned)
Johannes LAITENBERGER Director - General
(1)
OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 ( the ' Merger Regulation ' ). With effect from 1 December 2009, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ( ' TFEU ' ) has introduced certain changes, such as the replacement of ' Community ' by ' Union ' and ' common market ' by ' internal market ' . The terminology of the TFEU will be used throughout this decision.
(2) OJ L 1, 3.1.1994, p. 3 ( the ' EEA Agreement ' ).
(3) Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No C 71 , 24.2.2018 , p. 29 .
(4)
OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5 .
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk May 1, 2013

jam 

# Order

May 1, 2013

1 47015 ( 3 )

DARREN JOHNSON

,

Plaintiff,

v SC: 1 47015

AGC: 0251

- 10

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION

,

Defendant.

___________________________________

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it

is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be

liable for filing fees.

Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall p ay to the

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $ 15 .00, shall submit a copy of this order

with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned

with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result i n the appeal not being

filed in this Court.

If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly

payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of

the deposits made to plaintiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of

$36 0 .00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court.

Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in civil

actions in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full.

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and

return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.
#### Lal DIN, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS, Respondents.

Docket No. 03-40099-AG.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Oct. 11, 2005.

*65Lai Din, Jackson Heights, New York, for Appellant, pro se.

Ronald J. Tenpas, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Illinois, Laura J. Jones, Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Illinois, Fairview Heights, Illinois, for Appellee.

Present: WINTER, CALABRESI, and POOLER, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Lai Din, *pro se,*petitions for review of the BIA decision denying his motion to reopen his immigration proceedings. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.

This Court reviews the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. *See Iavorski v. INS,*232 F.3d 124, 128 (2d Cir.2000). The BIA abuses its discretion where its decision “provides no rational explanation, inexplicably departs from established policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or contains only summary or concluso-ry statements; that is to say, where the Board has acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” *Zhao v. DOJ,*265 F.3d 83, 93 (2d Cir.2001) (citation omitted). An applicant for asylum who seeks to reopen his immigration proceedings must file a motion to reopen “no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The ninety-day limit does not apply where, *inter alia,*the applicant seeks to reopen his proceedings in order to apply or reapply for asylum and withholding “based on changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Further, a motion to reopen “shall not be granted unless it appears to the Board that evidence sought to be offered is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); *see also Kaur v. BIA,*413 F.3d 232, 234 (2d Cir. June 22, 2005).

In this case, the BIA’s decision denying Din’s motion to reopen did not constitute an abuse of discretion. Because the BIA rendered its final administrative decision in Din’s case on August 20, 2002, Din was required to file his motion to reopen on or before November 18, 2002. Din did not file his motion to reopen until June 2003, well beyond the required time period. Further, Din provided no evidence of changed circumstances, nor any evidence that he, would be subject to the abuses described in the articles attached to his motion to reopen. Notably, in his motion to reopen, Din noted that “circumstances for the Sikhs ha[d] not changed” since the BIA decision affirming the IJ’s denial of Din’s application for asylum. Accordingly, the BIA properly denied Din’s motion to reopen.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

August 11, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00347

- CV

ALLSTATE COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO MPANY

, A ppellant

v. Gregorio G

. PAREDES J r.
, Appellee

From the 49th Judicial District Co urt, Zapata County, Texas

Trial Court No. 9,016

Honorable Jose A. Lopez, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R O F R E F E R R A L

After reviewing the parties’ responses to this court’s prior order, the court has determined this appeal is appropriate for refe rral to alternative dispute resolution. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 154.021(a); 4TH TEX. APP. (SAN ANTONIO) LOC. R. 2. It is therefore ORDERED that this appeal is referred to a mediated settlement co nference to be conducted by Paul Van Osselaer, Van Os selaer Dispute Resolution, PLLC, 2305 Cheswick Court, Austin, TX

78746

- 1935

, (512) 593

- 5104, the Med iator selected by the parties.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that all appellate deadlines are hereby suspended until September 26, 2016

.

It is FURTHER ORDERED t hat mediation shall commence at such place as the Mediator may designate and proceed in accordance with the schedule set by the Mediator until completed, but in any event the mediation shall be completed no later than forty

- five (45) days from the date

of this Order. The Mediator shall file with the Clerk of Court within three (3) days of the completion of the mediation a written report concerning the disposition of this appeal.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Mediator shall be compensated and that partie s in this cause shall be equally responsible for its share of this obligation. Mediation fees shall ultimately be taxed as court costs. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 154.054.It is FURTHER ORDERED that all parties to this cause are directed to attend the mediated settlement conference with their counsel of record. The corporate party representative in attendance and the individual party representatives shall have full authority to settle up to and including the judgment amount. To facilitate this proce dure the Mediator shall encourage and assist, but will not compel or coerce the parties in reaching a settlement of the dispute. Unless the parties otherwise agree, all matters, including the conduct and demeanor of the parties and their counsel during med iation, shall remain confidential and shall never be disclosed to anyone, including this court. See id. § 154.053.

If the parties are able to settle all matters related to this appeal, the parties are directed to file a joint motion requesting an approp riate disposition of this appeal within thirty (30) days of

the date of mediation.

It is so ORDERED on August 11, 2016

.

___________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed th e seal of the said

court on August 11, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle, Clerk
# C_2019166EN.01001301.xml

| 15.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/13

---

Corrigendum to the Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) for the financial year 2018 — amending budget No 1

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 19 of 15 January 2019
  )

(2019/C 166/07)

On page 3, in column ‘Appropriations 2018’:

| — | row ‘Chapter 4 0’: |
| --- | --- |

—

row ‘Chapter 4 0’:

for:

‘490 452’,

read:

read:

‘558 074’,

| — | row ‘Title 4 — Total’: |
| --- | --- |

—

row ‘Title 4 — Total’:

for:

for:

‘2 280 452’,

read:

read:

‘2 348 074’,

| — | row ‘GRAND TOTAL’: |
| --- | --- |

—

row ‘GRAND TOTAL’:

for:

for:

‘44 413 567’,

read:

read:

‘44 481 189’.

On page 3, in column ‘New amount’:

| — | row ‘Chapter 4 0’: |
| --- | --- |

—

row ‘Chapter 4 0’:

for:

for:

‘490 452’,

read:

read:

‘558 074’,

| — | row ‘Title 4 — Total’: |
| --- | --- |

—

row ‘Title 4 — Total’:

for:

for:

‘2 280 452’,

read:

read:

‘2 348 074’,

| — | row ‘GRAND TOTAL’: |
| --- | --- |

—

row ‘GRAND TOTAL’:

for:

for:

‘44 191 067’,

read:

read:

‘44 258 689’.

---
#### Marion T. Pearson *v.*Bridgeport Hydraulic Company

Inglis, C. J., O’Sullivan, Wynne and Daly, Js.1

Argued October 5

decided November 1, 1955

*Marion T. Pearson,*pro se, the appellant (plaintiff).

*Arthur C. Williams,*for the appellee (defendant).

1

 By agreement of the parties the ease was argued before and decided by four judges.

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff seeks a new trial, on the ground of newly discovered evidence, of an action brought against her by the defendant, the Bridgeport Hydraulic Company, in which judgment was rendered by the Superior Court enjoining her from prosecuting against the company any further actions relating to certain property it had taken by condemnation proceedings. The judgment was affirmed on appeal to this court. *Bridgeport Hydraulic Co.*v. *Pearson,*139 Conn. 186, 91 A.2d 778. The trial court denied the petition for a new trial and the plaintiff has appealed.

The record does not contain a finding of facts since none was requested by the plaintiff. From the memorandum of decision, however, it appears that the court concluded that the so-called newly dis*745covered evidence which, the plaintiff proffered in the petition, as well as the so-called newly discovered evidence which she referred to in her brief, was not such as would be likely to change the result if a new trial were granted. This conclusion obviously is correct. The plaintiff claimed that the new evidence indicated that the defendant, in instituting the action for an injunction, was actuated by an improper motive. “Where there is a legal right to do a certain act, the motive which induces the exercise of the right is of no importance.” *Fisher, Brown & Co.*v. *Fielding,*67 Conn. 91, 106, 34 A. 714. Accordingly, the denial of the petition was proper.

There is no error.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

Friday, July 26, 2013

No. 04-12-00789-CV

Clark and Nancy Sadler,

Appellant

v.

Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Companies,

Appellee

Trial Court Case No. 11-03-00113-CVF



## O R D E R

The Court has reviewed the record and briefs in this appeal and the majority of the judges

have determined that oral argument will not significantly aid it in determining the legal and

factual issues presented in the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 39.8. Therefore, all requests for oral

argument are denied, and the cause is advanced for ON BRIEFS submission on Wednesday,

September 04, 2013, to the following panel: Justice Angelini, Justice Barnard, and Justice

Martinez. All parties will be notified of the Court’s decision in this appeal in accordance with

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 48.

Either party may file a motion requesting the Court to reconsider its determination that

oral argument will not significantly aid the Court in determining the legal and factual issues

presented in the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 39.8. Such a motion should be filed within ten (10)

days from the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED on Friday, July 26, 2013.

______________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this Friday, July 26, 2013.

______________________________ Keith E. Hottle, Clerk
§ 182.3041 Erythorbic acid. ( a ) *Product.* Erythorbic acid.
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing practice.