alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 178 (Wednesday, September 16, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47570-47571]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22232]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 11291-023-IN]


Star Mill, Inc.; Notice of Availability of Environmental 
Assessment

September 9, 2009.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR Part 
380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47879), the Office of Energy Projects has 
reviewed the proposed termination of license by implied surrender for 
the Star Milling and Electric Minor Water Power Project, located on the 
Fawn River in La Grange

[[Page 47571]]

County, Indiana, and has prepared an Final Environmental Assessment 
(FEA).
    The FEA contains the Commission staff's analysis of the potential 
environmental effects of the proposed action (termination by implied 
surrender with project facilities in place), alternative action 
(termination by implied surrender with partial/full dam removal), and 
no-action alternative (project would remain licensed and subject to 
license requirements). On September 3, 2009, the Commission issued an 
Order Conditionally Terminating License by Implied Surrender which 
authorized the implied surrender with the project facilities in place. 
The FEA is attached to the order.
    A copy of the FEA is on file with the Commission and is available 
for inspection. The FEA may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site 
at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket 
number (P-11291) excluding the last three digits in the docket number 
field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online 
Support at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#276162756468494b4e494274525757485553674142554409404851"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f4b2b1a6b7bb9a989d9a91a78184849b8680b492918697da939b82">[email protected]</span></a> or toll-free at 1-866-208-3372, 
or for TTY, (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-22232 Filed 9-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


     I, Terrance M.  McCarthy,  President and Chief  Executive  Officer of First
Banks,  Inc.  (the  "Company"),   certify,   pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

     (1)  The Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the annual  period
          ended  December  31,  2007  (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with the
          requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
          of 1934; and

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


Date:  July 30, 2008

                                          By: /s/ Terrance M. McCarthy
                                             -----------------------------------
                                                  Terrance M. McCarthy
                                                  President and
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
                                                  (Principal Executive Officer)
#### Matter of the Petition of George J. Young, for an Order to Compel the Board of Supervisors of Oneida County to Refund Taxes, Etc.

(County Court, Oneida Gounty,

January, 1899.)

1. Taxation — Refund not granted for a mere inequality.

A proceeding for the refund of a tax, taken under section 16 •

chapter 686 of the Laws of 1892 and sections 40 and 53 of chapter S of the Laws of 1896, cannot he maintained where there is only n irregularity in the proceedings of the assessors who levied the assA ' ment.

*2.*Same — Failure of assessors to meet on grievance day is not a jv-S-

dictional defect.

The failure of the assessors to meet on grievance day is onian irregularity and is not a jurisdictional defect.

This is a motion pursuant to section 16, chapter 686 of the iws of 1892, and sections 40 and 53 of the General Tax Law fcv/s of 1896, chap. 908), to compel the board of supervisors to rund a tax upon petitioner’s property which is alleged to havpeen *187illegally assessed by reason of an over-valnation of the property,, and because the assessors failed to meet on grievance day.

George C. Carter, for motion.

J. K. O’Connor, opposed.

Dunmore, J.

The failure of the assessors to meet on grievance day is an irregularity and not a jurisdictional defect. People v. Turner, 145 N. Y. 451.

That omission, therefore, did not render the assessment void, but merely voidable in a direct proceeding for that purpose. The assessors had jurisdiction over the person and property of the applicant, and if they committed an error their action was not void and their assessment could not be attacked collaterally. United States T. Co. v. Mayor, 144 N. Y. 488.

A proceeding of this kind cannot be maintained where there is only an irregularity in proceedings of the assessors in levying the assessment. The petitioner has, therefore, mistaken his remedy,, and the proceeding must be dismissed, with costs.

Proceeding dismissed, with costs.
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.28

                        AMENDMENT TO LICENSE AGREEMENT

This Amendment having an effective date of February 13, 1998 is made by and 
between Cortech, Inc., a corporation having a principal place of business at 
6850 North Broadway, Denver, Colorado 80221 (hereafter "Cortech") and The 
Johns Hopkins University, having an address of 2024 E. Monument Street, Suite 
2-100, Baltimore, Maryland 21205 (hereinafter "JHU").

     WHEREAS, JHU and Cortech entered into a License Agreement dated November 
21, 1996 (hereinafter the "Agreement"); and

     WHEREAS, JHU and Cortech find it in their mutual best interests to amend 
said Agreement such that certain rights to the inventions are terminated and 
shall revert back to JHU, with JHU having sole ownership of said rights.

     NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree to replace or terminate the 
following paragraphs as follows:

     Paragraph 1.2 is replaced with the following: "Field" shall mean and 
include the use of PATENT RIGHTS only for the use of Cortech's compound 
CI-0694 (Sulfasim) and other compounds claimed in the U.S. Patent No. 
5,599,912 entitled "Compounds and methods for suppressing an immune response 
to sulfomethoxozale containing substances."

     Paragraph 4.1 is replaced with the following: Each party will notify the 
other promptly in writing when any infringement in the Field by another is 
uncovered or suspected.

     Paragraph 4.2 is replaced with the following: JHU shall have the sole 
right but not the obligation to enforce any patent within PATENT RIGHTS 
against any infringement or alleged infringement thereof.

     Paragraph 4.3 is hereby terminated.

     Paragraph 4.4 is replaced with the following: Any recovery by JHU under 
Paragraph 4.2 shall be deemed to reflect the loss of commercial sales, and 
JHU shall pay to Cortech fifteen percent (15%) of the recovery net of all 
reasonable costs and expenses associated with a suit or settlement in the 
PATENT RIGHTS in the FIELD.

     Paragraph 7.2 is hereby terminated.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be 
executed the day and year first written above.

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY                     CORTECH, INC.


By: /s/ Bart Chernow, M.D.                   By:  /s/ Diarmuid Boran
   -------------------------------------        -------------------------------
   Bart Chernow, M.D.                           Name: Diarmuid Boran
   Vice Dean for Research and Technology        Title: Vice President,
   Professor of Medicine,                              Corporate Development
   Anesthesiology and Critical Care
§ 478.28 Qualifications of a reconsideration reviewer. A reconsideration reviewer must be someone who is— ( a ) Qualified under § 476.98 of this chapter to make an initial determination.
( b ) Not the individual who made the initial denial determination.
( c ) A specialist in the type of services under review, except where meeting this requirement would compromise the effectiveness or efficiency of QIO review.
[50 FR 15330, Apr. 17, 1985, as amended at 77 FR 68563, Nov. 15, 2012]
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 15


May 13, 1999


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549



We are aware that our report dated May 10, 1999 on our review of interim
financial information of Life Technologies, Inc. (the Company) for the three-
month periods ended March 31, 1999 and 1998, included in the Company's quarterly
report on Form 10-Q for the quarter then ended, is incorporated by reference in
the Company's Registration Statements on Form S-8, Registration No. 333-28607,
Registration No. 333-03773, Registration No. 33-59741, Registration No. 33-21807
and Registration No. 33-956, and the Company's registration statement on Form S-
3, Registration No. 33-29536.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP


                                      15
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPublic Schedule...Public Schedule – November 1, 2021

# 									Public Schedule – November 1, 2021							

Public Schedule

Office of the Spokesperson

November 1, 2021

*****THE DAILY PUBLIC SCHEDULE IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE*****

**SECRETARY ANTONY J. BLINKEN**

Secretary Blinken accompanies President Biden on travel to Vatican City, Rome, and Glasgow, from October 28-November 2, 2021. Please click here for more information.

Secretary Blinken follows President Biden’s schedule.

**1:00 p.m. LOCAL** Secretary Blinken delivers remarks at the U.S. Center Opening Event, in Glasgow, United Kingdom.**(POOLED PRESS COVERAGE)**The Secretary’s remarks will be livestreamed on www.state.gov and https://www.youtube.com/user/TheUSCenter.

**7:35 p.m. LOCAL**Secretary Blinken attends a working dinner with UK Foreign Secretary Elizabeth Truss, in Glasgow, United Kingdom.**(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**DEPUTY SECRETARY WENDY R. SHERMAN****3:30 p.m.** Deputy Secretary Sherman meets with the United Nations Population Fund Executive Director Dr. Natalia Kanem, at the Department of State.**(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES BRIAN P. MCKEON**

Deputy Secretary McKeon attends meetings and briefings, from the Department of State.

**UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS VICTORIA J. NULAND**

Under Secretary Nuland attends meetings and briefings, from the Department of State.

**ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS KAREN DONFRIED**

Assistant Secretary Donfried is on travel to Sweden, Estonia, Norway, and Italy, from October 25-November 1, 2021. Please click here for more information.

**ASSISANT SECRETARY FOR OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS MONICA P. MEDINA**

Assistant Secretary Medina accompanies President Biden and Secretary Bliinken to Glasgow from November 1-2, 2021.

**BRIEFING SCHEDULE******

No Department Press Briefing

 

 

Tags

Office of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
#### § 50.607 Other HHS regulations that apply.

Several other regulations and policies apply to this subpart. They include, but are not necessarily limited to:

2 CFR part 376—Nonprocurement debarment and suspension (HHS)

42 CFR part 50, subpart D—Public Health Service grant appeals procedure

45 CFR part 16—Procedures of the Departmental Grant Appeals Board

45 CFR part 75—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards

45 CFR part 79—Program fraud civil remedies

[76 FR 53283, August 25, 2011, as amended at 81 FR 3006, Jan. 20, 2016]
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPublic Schedule...Public Schedule – April 22, 2024

# 									Public Schedule – April 22, 2024							

Public Schedule

Office of the Spokesperson

April 22, 2024

*****THE DAILY PUBLIC SCHEDULE IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE*****

 

**SECRETARY ANTONY J. BLINKEN**

**2:00 p.m.**Secretary Blinken delivers remarks on the release of the 2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices from the press briefing room at the Department of State.**(OPEN PRESS COVERAGE)**

*The Secretary’s remarks will be streamed live on the**Department homepage****and the****Department YouTube channel**.*

*Preset time for video cameras is 1:20 p.m. from the 23rd Street entrance. Final access for writers and still photographers is 1:40 p.m. from the 23rd Street entrance.***

**DEPUTY SECRETARY KURT M. CAMPBELL**

Deputy Secretary Campbell attends meetings and briefings at the Department of State.

**DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES RICHARD R. VERMA**

Deputy Secretary Verma is on travel to Cameroon, Ethiopia, and Angola from April 21-25, 2024.

**ACTING UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS JOHN BASS******

Acting Under Secretary Bass attends meetings and briefings at the Department of State.

**ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS******

Assistant Secretary Satterfield is on travel to Arizona and Hawaii from April 17-24, 2024.

**BRIEFING SCHEDULE**

**2:30 p.m.**Department Press Briefing with Spokesperson Matthew Miller.**(OPEN PRESS COVERAGE)**

*The Department Press Briefing will be streamed live on the****Department homepage****and****YouTube Channel***.

Tags

Office of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
November 15, 2012 

Mr. Revnaido Adolfo Polanco 

Chief of Maintenance, Air Century, S.A. 

Dr. Joaquín Balaguer International Airport 

Local No. 1032 

Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic 

Dear Mr. Polanco: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

§ 129.20 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can’t 

process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can’t Process Your Request 

We entered your October 9, 2012, exemption request on behalf of Air Century, S.A. into the 

public docket (No. FAA-2012-1115), but we are unable to process your request any further. 

The information you sent doesn’t comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 11.81 (copy 

enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption wouldn’t adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request, 

including the model of aircraft, whether you’ve actually taken delivery of the aircraft and 

if so, have you been operating without meeting the data link requirements. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. We will consider the docket on your request open until we 

receive this required information from you. Please note that 14 CFR 11.63(d) requires you to 

send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the 

exemption. 
2 

If We Don’t Hear From You 

If we don’t hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda D. Courtney 

Manager, Aircraft and 

 Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
#### Southern Ry. Co. *v.*Hardin.

*Action for Injury to Passenger.*

(Decided April 21, 1911.

55 South. 270.)

1. *Evidence; Declarations; Complaint of Pain.*— In an action against a common carrier for injury to a passenger complaints of pain, suffering, and symptoms indicative of injury made by the person injured are admissible.

2. *Trial; Objections to Evidence; Sufficiency.*— Where part of an answer is admissible an objection to the answer as a whole is properly overruled.

Appeal from Cherokee Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. W. W. Haralson.

Action by Rena Hardin against the Southern Railway Company, for injury to her while a passenger. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Hood & Murphre®, for appellant.

The court erred in admitting the evidence objected to as the answer made no reference to any suffering but was a statement to a third person about what happened at the time of the *injury.*— R. *& D. R. R. Go. v; Hammond,*93 Ala. 181.

Hugh Reid, for appellee.

The court did not err in the admission of *testimony.*— K. *G. M. & B. v. Butler,*143 Ala. 262; *B. R. L. & P. Go. r. Rutledge,*142 Ala. 195. The judgment is not *excessive.*— So. *Ry. v. Grounder,*130 Ala. 256.

*278PER CURIAM.

Action for personal injuries.

On the cross-examination, by, the plaintiff, of the witness Mrs. Hardin, she was asked: “Was she (plaintiff) complaining that afternoon (i. e., the day of the alleged injury) ?” Complaints of pain, suffering, and symptoms indicative of injury, made by the party alleged to have been injured, are admissible in *evidence.—W.*U*. Tel. Co. v. Henderson,*89 Ala. 510, 521, 7 South. 419, 18 Am. St. Rep. 148; *B’ham R. Co. v. Hale,*90 Ala. 8, 10, 8 South. 142, 24 Am. St. Rep. 748; *B. B. L. & P. Co. v. Rutledge,*142 Ala. 195, 202, 39 South. 338; *K. C., M. & B. R. R. Co. v. Butler,*143 Ala. 262, 38 South. 1024. There was no error in allowing the question.

To the quoted question the witness replied: “Plaintiff stopped at my house that evening as she was going home; just said that she got hurt, hurt her back, the train *game Tier a jerk.”*The defendant moved the court to exclude the whole answer, which the court declined to do. The italicized part of the answer might well have been excluded, on properly limited motion, because it was a mere narration of the *cause*of the *injury.—Birmingham**R. Co. v. Hale, supra.*But the motion assailed the answer as a whole, when parts of it were unobjectionable. The court cannot be put in error for overruling a motion embracing legal and illegal testimony. The objection must specify.

There is no merit in the assignment predicated upon the inquiry as to what position the witness Miss McCoy held at the time mentioned.

The judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Note. — The above opinion was prepared by Mr. Justice McClellan of the Supreme Court, before the transfer of the case to this court, and is adopted by this court.
41295.

#### TALTON et al. v. KAPLAN INVESTMENT COMPANY et al.

Hall, Judge.

The plaintiffs filed a petition under oath seeking to recover of the defendants $2,500 which they alleged they paid to the defendants as earnest money upon the execution of a contract to purchase real estate, and which the defendants were obligated to return to them because a condition of the contract was not fulfilled and the contract was not consummated. The assignment of error in this court is on the judgment of the trial court sustaining the plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the defendant’s answer, and awarding judgment for the plaintiffs. *Held:*

The answer, which made an admission or a denial of each paragraph of the petition, conformed with *Code*§ 81-306 and presented an issuable defense. *DeSoto Plantation Co. v. Hammett,*111 Ga. 24 (36 SE 304); *Ocean Steamship Co. v. Anderson,*112 Ga. 835 (38 SE 102). Accord *Reisman v.*
      *749
      *Massey,*84 Ga. App. 796, 802 (67 SE2d 585). A statement in an answer that for want of sufficient information the defendant can neither admit nor deny allegations of the petition amounts to a denial, unless the allegations are necessarily within the knowledge of the defendant. *Code Ann.*§§ 81-103, 81-308; *Ten-Fifty Ponce de Leon Co. v. Citizens &c. Nat. Bank,*170 Ga. 642, 647 (153 SE 751); *Murphy v. Fleming,*55 Ga. App. 392 (190 SE 385); *Byrom v. Ringe,*83 Ga. App. 234, 239 (63 SE2d 235). If the answer in this form to the allegation that an earnest money check for $2,500 was delivered to and cashed by the defendants is construed as an admission, the denial of other essential allegations of the present petition created material issues of fact.

Argued May 5, 1965

Decided May 24, 1965.

P. *L. Wayvian,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Israel Katz, Edward. J. Magner,*contra.

The trial court erred, therefore, in sustaining the motion to dismiss the answer and awarding judgment for the plaintiffs.

The trial court did not err in overruling the motion to quash process. While the Act creating the Civil Court of Fulton County provides that pleadings in cases where the amount sued for is $200 or more, must conform to the rules of pleadings in the superior courts, the Act itself prescribes the rules governing process and appearance in the Civil Court of Fulton County. Ga. L. 1913, pp. 145, 162, as amended, 1918, pp. 348, 350; 1925, pp. 370, 378, 379; 1933, p. 297; 1939, p. 449. See *Ronson Corp. v. Getter,*102 Ga. App. 774 (118 SE2d 223). The process in this case conformed to the statute.

The defendant argues that process did not conform to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Civil Court of Fulton County. This rule is not pleaded and does not appear in the record, however, and this court cannot take judicial notice of it. *Wilson v. Barrow,*107 Ga. App. 555, 556 (130 SE2d 812).

*Judgment reversed.*

*Bell, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*