alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 106 (Thursday, June 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 35105]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13724]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Library of Medicine; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with 
attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend 
and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or 
other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person 
listed below in advance of the meeting.
    The portions of the meeting devoted to the review and evaluation of 
journals for potential indexing by the National Library of Medicine 
will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in section 552b(c)(9)(B), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. Premature 
disclosure of the titles of the journals as potential titles to be 
indexed by the National Library of Medicine, the discussions, and the 
presence of individuals associated with these publications could 
significantly frustrate the review and evaluation of individual 
journals.

    Name of Committee: Literature Selection Technical Review 
Committee.
    Date: June 8-9, 2000.
    Open: June 8, 2000, 9 am to 10:30 am.
    Agenda: Administration reports and program developments.
    Place: National Library of Medicine, 8600 Rockville Pike, Board 
Room, Bethesda, MD 20894.
    Closed: June 8, 2000, 10:30 am to 5 pm.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate journals as potential titles to 
be indexed by the National Library of Medicine.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.
    Place: National Library of Medicine, 8600 Rockville Pike, Board 
Room Bldg 38, Rm 2E-09, Bethesda, MD 20894.
    Closed: June 9, 2000, 8:30 am to 12:30 pm.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate journals as potential titles to 
be indexed by the National Library of Medicine.
    Place: National Library of Medicine, 8600 Rockville Pike, Board 
Room, Bethesda, MD 20894.
    Contact Person: Sheldon Kotzin, BA, Chief, Bibliographic 
Services Division, Division of Library Operations, National Library 
of Medicine, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bldg 38A.Room 4N419, Bethesda, MD 
20894.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.879, 
Medical Library Assistance, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 24, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy, NIH.
[FR Doc. 00-13724 Filed 5-31-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
(79 South. 879)

#### SPELCE et al. v. STATE.

(8 Div. 555.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

May 18, 1918.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Madisou County; R. C. Briekell, Judge.

Douglass Taylor, of Huntsville, for appellants. F. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., for the State.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed by appellants.
I 

## SERVED: MAY 15,2014

.. ··,. 

### U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC 

### i2it: ;:_: '( !b /\ <,. 

## 22
In The Matter Of: AIRBORNE MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING SERVICES Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. FAA-2013-0291
Case No. 2011S0290032

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO SUSPEND LITIGATION DATES

On May 2, 2014, an Order Granting In Part and Denying In Partthe Respondent's Motion to Compel Discovery was filed. On May 14, 2014, theparties filed aJoint Motion to Suspend Litigation Dates. The partiespointto the following factors in support ofthe Motion: 1) the need for time to reviewthe materials addressed inthe May 2, 2011 Order; 2) the need to conduct depositions regarding those materials; and 3) the uncertainty ofcounsels' schedules in the coming weeks. Pursuant to 14 C.P.R.§§ 13.205(a)(6) and (8), and afterreviewing all relevant caselaw, regulations, statutory authority, and being fully advised; ITIS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. TheJoint Motionto Suspend Litigation Dates is granted. All litigation dates in this proceeding are temporarily suspended.
_ 2. On orbefore June 16, 2014, the parties shall file arevised litigation**sc~edule.** The revised litigation schedule should include a date/time for a telephone conference with the Judge, to discuss the revised litigation schedule. The parties should determine their calendar availability for such a conference and, prior to filing the revised litigation schedule, contact Mr. Cody Smith (202-366-6491) to schedule the conference.

Attachment: Service List.

## '

SERVICE LIST- BYU.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal AviationAdministration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2WI000 1

Mr. Christopher R. Stevenson Complainant's Counsel Federal Aviation·Adm.inistration ONE COPY

.Office ofthe Regional Counsel, Southern Region P. 

### 0. Box 20636 Atlanta, GA 30320 TEL: 404-305-5200 FAX: 404-305-5223 Mr. Robert P. Silverberg Respondent's Counsel Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff, LLP Georgetown Place, Suite 120 1101 30th St., N.W. Washington, DC 20007 TEL: 202-944-3300 FAX: 202-944-3306 Judge J.E. Sullivan U.S. Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2013-0291 (Civil Penalty Action)

.1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 14

- 00084

- CR

ROBERT SHAYNE KINSLOW, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 6th District Court Red River County, Texas Trial Court No. CR01649

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION
In May 2011, in Red River County, Texas, Robert Sha y ne Kinslow was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for two charges of indecency with a child. On the same day, Kinslow was convicted of one charge of burglary and sentenced to two years ’ confinement , but that sentence w as suspended , and he was placed on community supervision for a period of five years

. In November 2013, the State moved to adjudicate guilt and revoke Kinslow’s community supervision. After a hearing, the trial court adjudicated Kinslow guilty of the tw o counts of indecency with a child, sentencing him to two consecutive twenty

- year terms, and revoked his community supervision on his burglary conviction, sentencing him to two years ’ confinement. In this case, Kinslow appeals the adjudication of guilt re garding one count of indecency with a child. He has appealed from the adjudication of guilt on the other indecency charge under our cause number 06

- 14

- 00083

- CR and from the revocation of his community supervision on the burglary conviction under our cause number 06

- 14

- 00085

- CR. Kinslow has filed a single brief, in which he raises issues common to all of his appeals. He contends that the trial court erred: (1) by failing to conduct a sentencing hearing after adjudicating him guilty and (2) by assessing a ttorney fees against him.3 We addressed these issues in detail in our opinion of this date in Kinslow’s appeal in cause number 06

- 14

- 00083

- CR. For the reasons stated therein, we likewise conclude that the judgment in this case should be modified to delete the award of attorney fees and affirmed , as modified.

Bailey C. Moseley Justice Date Submitted: November 17, 2014 Date Decided: Dec ember 19 , 2014 Do Not Publish
§ 104.267 Security measures for newly hired employees. ( a ) Newly-hired vessel employees may be granted entry to secure areas of the vessel for up to 30 consecutive calendar days prior to receiving their TWIC provided all of the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section are met, and provided that the new hire is accompanied by an individual with a TWIC while within the secure areas of the vessel. If TSA does not act upon a TWIC application within 30 days, the cognizant Coast Guard COTP may further extend access to secure areas for another 30 days. The Coast Guard will determine whether, in particular circumstances, certain practices meet the condition of a new hire being accompanied by another individual with a TWIC.
( b ) Newly-hired vessel employees may be granted the access provided for in paragraph (a) of this section only if: ( 1 ) The new hire has applied for a TWIC in accordance with 49 CFR part 1572 by completing the full enrollment process, paying the user fee, and is not currently engaged in a waiver or appeal process. The vessel owner or operator or Vessel Security Officer (VSO) must have the new hire sign a statement affirming this, and must retain the signed statement until the new hire receives a TWIC;
( 2 ) The vessel owner or operator or the VSO enters the following information on the new hire into the Coast Guard's Homeport website (*https://homeport.uscg.mil*): ( i ) Full legal name, including middle name if one exists;
( ii ) Date of birth;
( iii ) Social security number (optional);
( iv ) Employer name and 24 hour contact information; and
( v ) Date of TWIC enrollment;
( 3 ) The new hire presents an identification credential that meets the requirements of § 101.515 of this subchapter;
( 4 ) There are no other circumstances that would cause reasonable suspicion regarding the new hire's ability to obtain a TWIC, and the vessel owner or operator or VSO have not been informed by the cognizant COTP that the new hire poses a security threat; and
( 5 ) There would be an adverse impact to vessel operations if the new hire is not allowed access.
( c ) This section does not apply to any individual being hired as a Company Security Officer (CSO) or VSO, or any individual being hired to perform vessel security duties.
( d ) The new hire may not begin working on board the vessel under the provisions of this section until the owner, operator, or VSO receives notification, via Homeport or some other means, the new hire has passed an initial name check.
[USCG-2006-24196, 72 FR 3581, Jan. 25, 2007, as amended by USCG-2013-0397, 78 FR 39173, July 1, 2013; USCG-2007-28915, 81 FR 57711, Aug. 23, 2016; USCG-2022-0323, 88 FR 10029, Feb. 16, 2023]
(77 South. 1004)

#### PACKOS v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM.

(6 Div. 334.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Nov. 29, 1917.)

Appeal from Criminal Court, Jefferson County; H. P. Heflin, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
#### § 458.57 Additional information and report.

Upon the filing of a complaint pursuant to §§ 458.54 through 458.56, the District Director shall obtain such additional information as he deems necessary, including the positions of the parties and any offers of settlement.

[45 FR 15158, Mar. 7, 1980. Redesignated and amended at 50 FR 31311, 31313, Aug. 1, 1985; 59 FR 15117, Mar. 31, 1994; 62 FR 6094, Feb. 10, 1997]
#### Ward S. Mills v. George Leavitt.

Filed January 2, 1894.

No. 5437.

Beal Estate Agents: Review of Judgment for Commission. In an action by a real estate agent to recover a commission alleged to have been earned by himself in procuring a satisfactory purchaser of the real property of the defendant, the sole matter in controversy having been whether payment was essentially conditioned upon the happening of a subsequent event, the verdict of a jury upon that point, being supported by competent evidence under proper instructions of the court in respect to the matters in controversy, will not be disturbed.

Error from the district court of Lancaster county. Tried below before Hall, J.

*Mockett, JRainbolt & Polk,*for plaintiff in error.

*Leese & Stewart, contra.*

Ryan, C.

This suit was brought by George Leavitt, a real estate agent of Lincoln, Nebraska, against Ward S. Mills, by whom Leavitt alleged he was employed as such agent to sell certain lots owned by Mills, on terms specified; and Leavitt having, as he averred, fully complied with all prerequisites necessary thereto, was, as he alleged, entitled to recover $180 as fair compensation, and interest thereon, for his said services. There seems to be no contention made by plaintiff in error, except as to whether or not an essential part of the contract was that Leavitt was to receive no payment unless sufficient was paid by the purchaser to serve that purpose. Upon this point the court instructed the jury as follows:

> “If you believe from the evidence that the defendant agreed to pay said commission upon getting a loan on the *581several houses and lots, and if you find from the evidence that said loans were obtained, then your verdict should be for the plaintiff for $180, with interest at seven per cent per annum from date said loans were obtained to February 1, 1892, the first day of this term of court.

> “If you believe from the evidence that by agreement of the parties to this action the said commissions were not to be paid by defendant until he had obtained from the purchaser, Algur, the first payments to be made by said purchaser on said lots, and if you find from the evidence that such first payments have not yet been made, then your verdict should be for defendant.” *t*

If the> verdict had been for the defendant, it is at least doubtful whether or not the first paragraph above quoted would have vitiated it, for plaintiff’s right of recovery was thereby governed by considerations much narrower than were proper under the evidence. Whatever criticism might justly be made upon that paragraph is not material, for in any event only the defendant in error could complain. The second paragraph quoted very fairly stated the law as applicable to the defense made in the answer, and had the support of sufficient evidence to render it proper to be given. The verdict of the jury thereon was fully justified and the judgment of the district court is therefore

Affirmed.
§ 100.732 Annual River Race Augusta; Savannah River, Augusta GA. ( a ) *Definitions:* ( 1 ) *Regulated Area.* The regulated area is formed by a line drawn directly across the Savannah River at the U.S. Highway 1 Bridge at mile marker 199 and directly across the Savannah River at mile marker 197. The regulated area would encompass the width of the Savannah River between these two lines.
( 2 ) *Coast Guard Patrol Commander.* The Coast Guard Patrol Commander is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the Coast Guard who has been designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Charleston, South Carolina.
( b ) *Special Local Regulations.* ( 1 ) Entry into the regulated area is prohibited to all non-participants.
( 2 ) After termination of the River Race Augusta each day, and during intervals between scheduled events, at the discretion of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, all vessels may resume normal operations.
( 3 ) The Captain of the Port Charleston will issue a Marine Safety Information Broadcast Notice to Mariners to notify the maritime community of the special local regulations and the restrictions imposed.
( c ) *Dates.* These regulations become effective annually from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. EDT each day, on the third Friday, Saturday and Sunday of May, unless otherwise specified in the notice to mariners.
[CGD07-98-013, 63 FR 26454, May 13, 1998, as amended by USCG-2006-25556, 72 FR 36327, July 2, 2007]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7104

ROGER LEWIS SMYRE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CR-93-36-MU, CA-96-163-5-MU)

Submitted: December 11, 1997 Decided: December 30, 1997

Before HALL and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roger Lewis Smyre, Appellant Pro Se. Harry Thomas Church, Assistant

United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. Smyre v. United States, Nos. CR-93-36-MU; CA-96-163-5-MU

(W.D.N.C. July 9, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear by USCG-2010-0351, 75 FR 36277, June 25, 2010.

2. At 89 FR 22946, Apr. 3, 2024, part 1 was amended by revising the authority citation; however, the amendment could not be incorporated due to inaccurate amendatory instruction.

#### § 1.01-30 Captains of the Port.

Captains of the Port and their representatives enforce within their respective areas port safety and security and marine environmental protection regulations, including, without limitation, regulations for the protection and security of vessels, harbors, and waterfront facilities; anchorages; security zones; safety zones; regulated navigation areas; deepwater ports; water pollution; and ports and waterways safety.

[CGD-225, 59 FR 66484, Dec. 27, 1994]
<PAGE>

EX-11
Statement re: computation of earnings per share


LOSS PER SHARE

Computation of loss per share
(in thousands, except per share data)

                                                Three Months Ended March 31,
                                                    2000            1999
                                                ------------   -------------

Net loss                                        $     25,168  $      17,560
                                                ============  =============
Net loss attributable to common stockholders    $     25,168  $      41,172
                                                ============  =============
Weighted average shares of common stock
outstanding used in computing basic and
diluted net loss per share attributable
to common stockholders                                29,630          5,483
                                                ============  =============

Basic and diluted net loss per share
attributable to common stockholders             $      (0.85) $       (7.51)
                                                ============  =============

Shares of common stock used in computing
pro forma basic and diluted net loss per share
                                                                     18,295
                                                              =============

Pro forma basic and diluted net loss per share                $       (2.25)
                                                              =============
ex_10-e.htm


Exhibit 10(e)


 


AMENDMENT TO 2011 INCENTIVE STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT







THIS AMENDMENT TO 2011 INCENTIVE STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made as of this 10th day of February 2012, between Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and J. Larry Sorsby (the “Participant” and, together with the Company, the “Parties”).







RECITALS


 


WHEREAS, the Parties entered into an Incentive Stock Option Agreement which relates to the Participant’s June 10, 2011 Option (the “Agreement”); and







WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend the Agreement to include certain performance conditions.







NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and representations contained herein, the Parties hereto agree the Agreement is amended as follows:







1.  The following shall replace Section 2 of the Agreement in its entirety:







Vesting.  The Option will vest in installments on the later of (i) the dates set forth on the vesting schedule set forth above or (ii) the date upon which the “Performance Condition” (as defined below) is achieved, subject to Section 3 of this Agreement.  For purposes of this Agreement, the “Performance Condition” shall mean the Committee’s determination prior to the Option Termination Date (as defined below) that the Company’s Adjusted EBITDA for two consecutive fiscal years exceeds the Company’s actual EBITDA for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2011.  As used herein, “EBITDA” shall mean the Company's consolidated earnings before interest expense, income taxes, depreciation and amortization, including inventory impairment losses and land option write-offs and gains or losses on extinguishment of debt, determined in a manner consistent with the Company's normal practices for quarterly press release financial reporting purposes.  “Adjusted EBITDA” shall mean the Company's consolidated earnings before interest expense, income taxes, depreciation and amortization, excluding inventory impairment losses and land option write-offs and gains or losses on extinguishment of debt, determined in a manner consistent with the Company's normal practices for quarterly press release financial reporting purposes.







Except as expressly stated otherwise in this Amendment, capitalized terms used and not defined have the same meanings defined in the Agreement, and all provisions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.


 

 


HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES, INC.







By: _______________________


Ara Hovnanian


Chairman, President and CEO







PARTICIPANT







__________________________


J. Larry Sorsby