alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 20 (Monday, February 2, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 5842]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-2164]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC), announces the following meeting of the aforementioned 
committee:
    Times and Dates:
    8 a.m.-5 p.m., February 25, 2009.
    8 a.m.-5 p.m., February 26, 2009.
    Place: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Tom Harkin 
Global Communications Center, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Building 19, Kent 
``Oz'' Nelson Auditorium, Atlanta, Georgia 30333.
    Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space available.
    Purpose: The committee is charged with advising the Director, CDC, 
on the appropriate uses of immunizing agents. In addition, under 42 
U.S.C. 1396s, the committee is mandated to establish and periodically 
review and, as appropriate, revise the list of vaccines for 
administration to vaccine-eligible children through the Vaccines for 
Children (VFC) program, along with schedules regarding the appropriate 
periodicity, dosage, and contraindications applicable to the vaccines.
    Matters to be Discussed: The agenda will include discussions on 
Anthrax; Hepatitis Vaccines; Measles, Mumps and Rubella; Influenza 
Vaccine; Pneumococcal Vaccines; Rabies Vaccine; General 
Recommendations; Human Papillomavirus Vaccines; Herpes Zoster; 
Meningococcal Vaccine; MMRV Vaccine Safety; Pertussis; Polio Vaccine; 
Vaccine Safety; Vaccine Supply; Vaccination of Immigrants and refugees; 
Yellow Fever. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
    Contact Person for More Information: Antonette Hill, Immunization 
Services Division, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory 
Diseases, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., (E-05), Atlanta, Georgia 30333, 
telephone 404/639-8836, fax 404/639-8905.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to 
announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, 
for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Dated: January 22, 2009.
Lorenzo J. Falgiano,
Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. E9-2164 Filed 1-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-18-P
----

Appeal brought on 23 November 2005 by Alcon, INC against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 22 September 2005 in Case T-130/03: Alcon, INC v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-412/05 P)

(2006/C 60/32)

Language of the case: English

An appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 22 September 2005 in Case T-130/03: Alcon, INC v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 November 2005 by Alcon, INC, Hünenberg (Switzerland) represented by Garrett Breen, Solicitor, Landwell Solicitors.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that there has been an error of law by the Court of First Instance and an infringement of Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 (1) on the following grounds:

----

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark OJ L 11, 14.01.1994, p. 1-36.

----
# SPREADING WINGS S900 SPECS

 Home 

###  Products 

###  Spreading Wings S900 

###  Specs 

# FRAME Diagonal Wheelbase 900mm Frame Arm Length 358mm Frame Arm Weight (Including Motor, ESC, Propeller ) 316g Center Frame Diameter 272mm Center Frame Weight (with Landing Gear Mounting Base, Servos) 1185g Landing Gear Size 460mm(Length)×450mm(Width)×360mm(Height) 

# ESC Working Current 40AWorking Voltage 6S LiPo

Signal Frequency 30Hz ~ 450Hz Drive PWM Frequency 8KHz Weight(with Radiators) 35g 

# FLIGHT PARAMETERS Takeoff Weight 4.7Kg ~ 8.2Kg Total Weight 3.3Kg Power Battery LiPo (6S 、 10000mAh~15000mAh 、 15C(Min)) Max Power Consumption 3000W Hover Power Consumption 1000W (@6.8Kg Takeoff Weight) Hover Time 18min (@12000mAh& 6.8Kg Takeoff Weight) Working Environment Temperature - 10 °C ~ +40 °C 

# MOTOR Stator Size 41×14mmKV 400rpm/V

Max Power 500W Weight(with Cooling Fan) 158g 

# FOLDABLE PR**OPELLER (1552/1552R)** Material High strength performance engineered plastics Size 15×5.2inch Weight 13g 

# GAIN VALUE SETTINGS For A2 flight controller Basic: Roll 110%, Pitch 110%, Yaw 120% Attitude: Roll 220%, Pitch 220%, Vertical 120% For WooKong- M flight controller Basic: Roll 160%, Pitch 160%, Yaw 160% Attitude: Roll 190%, Pitch 190%, Vertical 100%
#### The STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Sammy HARDEN, Respondent.

No. 45741.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 3, 1974.

Certiorari denied. 293 So.2d 741.

ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS and OVERTON, JJ., dissent.
# C_2005271EN.01001804.xml

| 29.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/18

---

Removal from the register of Case C-458/04 (1)

1

(2005/C 271/36)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

By order of 29 April 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-458/04 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Caen): Chambre de commerce et d'industrie de Flers-Argentan v Directeur des services fiscaux de la DIRCOFI Quest.

---

(1)  OJ C 19 of 22.01.2005.

1

---
EXHIBIT 22

                AMBANC CORP. LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

1.   The American National Bank of Vincennes, Indiana is a wholly-
     owned subsidiary of AMBANC Corp. and is a national banking
     association.

2.   Citizens' National Bank of Linton, Indiana is a wholly-owned
     subsidiary of AMBANC Corp. and is a national banking
     association.

3.   Bank of Casey, Illinois, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
     AMBANC Corp. and is an Illinois state-chartered banking
     association.

4.   The First National Bank in Robinson is a wholly-owned
     subsidiary of AMBANC Corp. and is a national banking
     association.

5.   American National Realty Corp. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
     AMBANC Corp. and is incorporated under the laws of the State
     of Indiana.

6.   Lincolnland Insurance Agency & Investments, Inc., is a wholly-
     owned, non-operating subsidiary of AMBANC Corp., which was
     acquired in connection with the Bank of Casey acquisition.
HomeDSS Press Releases...Dorchester Man Sentenced for Role in Online Scams

# 									Dorchester Man Sentenced for Role in Online Scams							

DSS Releases

August 24, 2023

For Immediate Release – August 24,2023

Click here to read more about this

Tags

DSS ReleasesMassachusettsScience, Technology, and InnovationTechnologyUnited States

Back to Top
/ 

I 

{\ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

MELVIN JONES, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, 

Commissioner of Social Security, et a!., 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 

------------------------------ ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

FILED 

JUN 1 1 2012 

.. clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy 

,,ourts for the District of Columbia 

12 0946 

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and 

his pro se complaint. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint. 

Plaintiff purports to convert the "wrongful denial" of his claim for Social Security 

benefits into a civil rights claim arising from the defendants' "Failure to Provide Equal Excess 

[sic] to public benefits and equal protection under the law." Compl. at 1. 

In order to bring a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, "[t]here is a requirement of 

state action on the part of the alleged wrongdoer in order for liability to attach." Chandler v. 

WE. Welch & Assocs., Inc., 533 F. Supp. 2d 94, 103 (D.D.C. 2008) (citation omitted). Plaintiff 

does not allege that defendants were acting "under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, 

custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia." 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Nor 

does plaintiff allege any constitutionally-protected right he has in the granting of an application 

for benefits. As plaintiff seeks to bring a § 1983 claim against the defendants based on an 

alleged violation of his constitutional rights, the claim must be dismissed. 
An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. 

United States District Judge
# C_2005271EN.01001803.xml

| 29.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/18

---

Removal from the register of Case C-425/04 (1)

1

(2005/C 271/35)

Language of the case: Italian

Language of the case: Italian

By order of 6 June 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-425/04: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.

---

(1)  OJ C 300 of 04.12.2004.

1

---
#### Sparks *v.*Commonwealth.

It is not error to sentence a defendant convicted on an indictment found “A bill,” omitting the 'word “ true.”

Selden moved the court to allow a writ of error to remove the record of an indictment for perjury, on which the defendant was convicted and sentenced, in the Quarter Sessions of Crawford county. The suggestion of error was, that the grand jury had endorsed the indictment “A bill,” ommitting the word “true;” which, he said, is asserted to be indispensable, by every writer on criminal law.

*Sept.*11.

Gibson, C. J.

It is true, that the formal mode of finding an indictment is thus to endorse the bill; but it is not said by any writer to be the only one. On the contrary, it is said in 1 Chitty’s Or. L. 324, that though the endorsement is, if found, “ a true bill,” and if not found, “not a true bill,” yet the better way, in the latter case, is to endorse “not found,” and it would consequently be good to endorse it “found.” But, to endorse it “a bill,” is in effect to endorse it so; for though an indictment is strictly called a bill.before it has been found, yet it is, in common parlance, often called so afterwards. In this instance, the omission of the word “ true” may have been deemed immaterial, or it may have been accidental; but the court might have supplied it in either case, as “matter of form not touching matter of substance.” The grand jury certainly intended to do something; as they did not intend to endorse the bill “ ignoramus,” they intended to endorse it a true bill. The omission- was one of those clerical slips which, it is well settled by Ilawk B. 2. ch. 25, s. 97, and Ohitty’s Cr. L. 297, 325, the court has power, by the previous assent of the grand jury, to amend.

*Allocatur*refused.
# C_2005330EN.01001402.xml

| 24.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/14

---

Removal from the register of Case C-160/05 (1)

1

(2005/C 330/37)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

By order of 4 October 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-160/05: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.

---

(1)  OJ C 115, 14.5.2005.

1

---
#### 412.86 [Reserved]
UNITED STATES OF A11ERICA 

U.S. DEPARUvfBNT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

) ~DL~- ODd-s 

In the matter of ) FAA Docket No Unassigned 

Case No. 2011WP910231 

Law Judge Unassigned 

) 

PLATINUM AIR SERVICE, INC. ) 

) 

RESPONDENT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 

Respondent, PiatinumAir Service, Inc., by his undersigned counsel, 

hereby responds to the numbered paragraphs in the Complaint filed by Nicholas R. 

Millard, Attomey, Enforcement Division, AGC-300, Office ofthe Chief Counsel, 

Federal Aviation Administration on January 20. 2012 as follows: 

1. Denied. 

2. Denied. 

3. Denied. 

4. Denied. 

5. Denied. 

6. Denied. 

7. Denied. 

8. Denied. 

9. Denied. 

1 
10. Denied. 

11. Denied. 

12. Denied. 

13. Denied. 

14. Denied. 

15. Denied. 

16. Denied. 

17. 

a. Denied. 

b. Denied. 

i. Denied. i' 

u. Denied. 

iii. Denied. 

IV. Denied. 

v. Denied. 

Vl. Denied. 

Vll. Denied. 

c. Denied. 

d. Denied. 

e. Denied. 

2 
f Denied 

g. Denied. 

h. Denied. 

i. Denied 

18. Denied. 

a. Denied. 

b. Denied. 

c. :Denied 

19. Denied. 

20. Denied. 

DATED: February 2, 2012 

Respectfully submitted, 

~i/:V<::.-----, ,', "' " ~·- J.· r_ ...... 

. ARTHUR WASSERMAN, Attorney for 

PLATINUM AIR SERVICE, INC. 

3 

I 

I 

' ! ' 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this date faxed and sent FedEx Overnight, an 

original and one copy of the foregoing RESPONDENT'S ANSWER TO 

COMPLAINT, FAA Docket No. Unassigned, Case No. 2011WF910231, 

addressed to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000 

Washington D.C. 20591 

Facsimile; (202) 493-5142 

In addition, I hereby certifY that I sent a copy of the same by U.S. Certified 

Mail, return receipt requested, and by facsimile, addressed to: 

Nicholas R. Milliard, Attorney 

Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Facsimile: (202) 267-5106 

Dated: February 2, 2012 

.• ~-. . ff1..tvu.' 'aL :'!' ... .l A' "' . _,.,·r -~ . 

Christina Merrick 

4 

I
#### In re Angela Mary REILLY.

No. 80-O-1447.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 3, 1980.

In re Angela Mary Reilly, applying for application to take the Louisiana Bar Examination.

Granted.

MARCUS, BLANCHE and WATSON, JJ., would deny the petition.
###### Editorial Note on Part 422

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

#### § 422.1002 Definitions.

As used in this subpart—

*Affected party* means an MA organization impacted by an initial determination or if applicable, by any subsequent determination or decision issued under this part. For this definition, “*party*” means the affected party or CMS, as appropriate.

*ALJ* stands for Administrative Law Judge.

*Departmental Appeals Board or Board* means a Board established in the Office of the Secretary to provide impartial review of disputed decisions made by the operating components of the Department.

*MA organization* has the meaning given the term in 422.2.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-09-00383-CR

EX PARTE HELEN MAYFIELD

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Helen Mayfield filed an emergency application for writ of habeas corpus alleging 

that the trial court failed to award credit for time she spent under electronic monitoring. 

She contends that she has filed two motions nunc pro tunc, to which the trial court has 

failed to respond. We dismiss the application for want of jurisdiction. 

A complaint that a defendant “should be awarded time credit for the time he 

spent on bond under electronic monitoring because this time is equivalent to 

confinement” is “akin to a pre-sentence jail time credit claim.” Ex parte Myers, No. WR68,402-02, 2008 Tex. Crim. App. Unpub. LEXIS 47, at *2 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 23, 2008). 

Such an issue must first be presented to the trial court via a motion nunc pro tunc. See Ex 

parte Ybarra, 149 S.W.3d 147, 148 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Where the trial court fails to 
Ex Parte Mayfield Page 2

respond to the motion, as Mayfield alleges occurred in this case, the defendant must 

first “seek relief in the Court of Appeals, by way of a petition for a writ of mandamus, 

unless there is a compelling reason not to do so.” Id. at 149 (emphasis added); see In re 

Florence, No. 10-09-00030-CR, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 2397, at *2 (Tex. App.—Waco Apr. 

8, 2009, orig. proceeding) (not designated for publication).

Accordingly, an emergency application for writ of habeas corpus is not the 

proper remedy in this case.1 Moreover, “[t]his Court does not have original habeas 

corpus jurisdiction in criminal law matters.” Ex parte Price, 228 S.W.3d 885, 886 (Tex. 

App.—Waco 2007, orig. proceeding). For these reasons, we dismiss Mayfield’s 

application for want of jurisdiction.

FELIPE REYNA

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray

Justice Reyna, and

Justice Davis 

Writ dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed December 30, 2009

[OT06]

 

1 Nor can Mayfield’s application for writ of habeas corpus be treated as a petition for writ of 

mandamus, as it does not comply with Rule of Appellate Procedure 52. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AU GUST 11, 2015

NO. 03

- 15

- 00266

- CR

Randall Arthur Hazel, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND BOURLAN D

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the tr i a l court

.

Randall Arthur Hazel has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Therefore, the Court gran ts the

motion and dismisses the appeal. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no

adjudication of costs is made.
|   | • | Clause 1.  Amended to extend terms of the LOI for the Parties to continue good faith negotiations with the intent to agree on business terms for a formal business relationship and definitive agreement by an additional 220 days post initial date of end of good faith agreements.  For the avoidance of doubt, the additional 220 days will extend the period of good faith negotiations until Jun 30, 2011. |
|--------|---------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | • |  Clause 3.  Amended to execute the option in LOI extension of Exclusive Licence Period for three (3) additional thirty (30) day periods at a cost of  [***] (USD [***]) per period, for a total payment by Novartis of $[***].  For the avoidance of doubt, the period of exclusivity will extend from January 13, 2011 through April 13, 2011. |
|--------|---------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | • | Novartis Diagnostics shall have the right to extend the Exclusive License Period for an additional 78 Days, payable at cost of [***] (USD $[***]) per thirty days. |
|--------|---------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc.  |   | Accelr8 Technology Corporation |
|-----------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------|
|                                          |   |                           |
| By:                                      |   | By:                       |
| (Signature)                                   |   | (Signature)                    |
| Name:                                         |   | Name:                     |
|                                          |   |                           |
| Title:                                   |   | Title:                         |
|                                          |   |                           |
| Date:                                    |   | Date:                     |

| Accelr8 Technology Corporation   | NOVARTIS V&D  |
|--------------------------------------------|------------------------|
| CIT201011051546                  | Page 1 of 1       |
699 A.2d 728

#### Marie E. GACHELIN, Administratrix of the Estate of Reginald Gachelin and Marie E. Gachelin as Trustee Ad Litem and Marie Gachelin, in her own right, Respondent, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Petitioner.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Sept. 16, 1997.

Alan C. Ostrow, Philadelphia, for petitioner.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 16th day of September, 1997, it is ordered that the petitioners’ petition for allowance of appeal is GRANTED, and the order of the Commonwealth Court is AFFIRMED.

ZAPPALA, J., dissents and would reverse the order of the Commonwealth Court.
- Medical Clearances Home
- Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- Patient Documents and Forms

HomeMedical Clearances…Patient Documents and Forms

# 											Patient Documents and Forms									

## Clearance Forms

Visit the **Medical Clearances page**for information on how to use these forms.

Available to download from this page: 

          - DS-1843: Medical History and Examination For Individuals Age 12 and Older
          - DS-1622: Medical History and Examination For Children Age 11 and Younger 
          - DS-3057: Medical Clearance Update (MCU) Form 
          - DS-6570: ESCAPE Posts Pre-Deployment Physical Exam Acknowledgement Form 

Available from your HR representative:

          - DS-3069: Authorization for Medical Examination (Note: This form must be signed by your agency’s hiring authority.)

Available on OpenNet or by emailing **MEDClearances@state.gov**:

          - MED ISO 3003: Health Unit Access and Provision of Limited Medical Services to Unpaid Short-term or Seasonal Interns
          - MED ISO 3308: DOD Civilian and DOD Contractor ICASS Verification Letter
          - MED ISO 3308.5: Institutional Contractor ICASS Verification Letter
          - MED ISO G23002: Notice of Privacy Practices
          - MED ISO F23005: Authorization for Release of Protected Health Information
          - MED ISO F23006: MED Privacy Policy Acknowledgement of Receipt

## Patient Documents

          - MED Code of Conduct
          - MED Notice of Privacy Practices [165 KB]
          - MED Patient Bill of Rights and Responsibilities

Back to Top
###### Editorial Note on Part 411

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 411 appear at 71 FR 9471, Feb. 24, 2006

#### § 411.201 Definitions.

As used in this subpart—

*Entitled to Medicare on the basis of disability* means entitled or deemed entitled on the basis of entitlement to social security disability benefits or railroad retirement disability benefits. (§ 406.12 of this chapter explains the requirements an individual must meet in order to be entitled or deemed to be entitled to Medicare on the basis of disability.)

*Family member* means a person who is enrolled in an LGHP based on another person's enrollment; for example, the enrollment of the named insured individual. Family members may include a spouse (including a divorced or common-law spouse), a natural, adopted, foster, or stepchild, a parent, or a sibling.