alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 86.46 What changes can I make in a grant application after I submit it? ( a ) After you submit your grant application, you can add or change information up to the date and time that the applications are due.
( b ) After the application due date and before we announce selected projects, you can add or change information in your application only if it does not affect the scope of the project, would not affect the score of the application, and is not a correction (see paragraph (c) of this section). ( 1 ) During this period we may ask you to change the useful life following the requirements at § 86.74 or allocation of costs between users of the BIG project following the requirements at § 86.19.
( 2 ) If your application proposes using BIG funds for an action we identify as ineligible, we will decide on a case-by-case basis whether we will allow you to change your application to remove identified ineligible costs and if we will consider your application for funding.
( c ) You must inform us of any incorrect information in an application as soon as you discover it, either before or after receiving an award.
( d ) We may ask you at any point in the application process to: ( 1 ) Clarify, correct, explain, or supplement data and information in the application;
( 2 ) Justify the eligibility of a proposed action; or
( 3 ) Justify the allowability of proposed costs or in-kind contributions.
( e ) If you do not respond fully to our questions at paragraph (d) of this section in the time allotted, we may decide not to consider your application for funding.
( f ) If your application is competitive, but funding is limited and we cannot fully fund your project, we may tell you the amount of available funds and ask you if you wish to accept the reduced funding amount. We will decide on a case-by-case basis if we will consider changes to the scope of your project based on the reduced funding. Any changes to the scope of a project must not result in reducing the number of points enough to lower your project's ranking position. If you choose to accept the reduced amount, you must amend your application to reflect all changes, including the difference in Federal and non-Federal funding.
Case 16-27257 Doc 7 Filed 08/25/16 Entered 08/25/16 10:00:47 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2
Case 16-27257 Doc 7 Filed 08/25/16 Entered 08/25/16 10:00:47 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2
Home
About
2020 Federal View Point Survey Results
	About DTIC
	Administrator
	Announcements
	Contact Us
	DTIC’s Past and Future
	DTIC Strategic Plan
	Employment
	Sitemap
Products & Services
DTIC’s Products & Services
	DTIC Registration Benefits
	DTIC Combatant Command (CCMD) Classified Reading Room
	Training
Submit Documents
Sign In
Operating Status
 Defense Technical Information Center
				*Search this site, DoD S&T Reports, and more..*

**Internet Explorer Users:** It is recommended that you use the Google Chrome or Microsoft Edge browser for an optimal experience with this application as Microsoft’s support for Internet Explorer is ending.
	DISMISS DoD Lab Day 2019
		April 18, 2019DoD Lab Day Promo
		
			
	
	Are you attending the #DoDLabDay2019 on April
25th? DTIC will be there!
 Recent Posts
		DTIC Journal Article Is Published
											April 16, 2021
											DTIC publishes special edition of peer-reviewed scientific journal JDR&E
											November 12, 2020
											CUI marking framework guidance now available.
											November 10, 2020
											EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY: New submission requirements for DoD-funded journal articles
											September 24, 2020
											House Appropriations Committee Report on the Defense Appropriations Act for FY2021
											July 21, 2020 Archives
			April 2021
	November 2020
	September 2020
	July 2020
	February 2020
	January 2020
	December 2019
	September 2019
	August 2019
	June 2019
	April 2019
	March 2019
	February 2019
	January 2019
	September 2018
	August 2018
	July 2018
	January 2018
	February 2017
 **DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER**
8725 John J. Kingman Road
Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060-6218
(800) 225-3842https://Discover.DTIC.mil
			AdministratorContact UsDoD Privacy ProgramEEOEmploymentFOIAInformation Analysis Centers
			Information QualityLegalMission StatementNo FEAR ActOpen GovernmentPlain Language
			Policy MemorandaPrivacy PolicySAPRStrategic PlanSubmit DocumentsUSA.govUSD(R&E)
			LinkedIn

NOTICE:  The appearance of hyperlinks does not constitute endorsement by the DTIC of non-U.S. Government sites or the information, products, or services contained therein.  Although the DTIC may or may not use these sites as additional distribution channels for Department of Defense information, it does not exercise editorial control over all of the information that you may find at these locations.  Such hyperlinks are provided consistent with the stated purpose of this website. The DTIC bears no responsibility for the accuracy, legality or content of the external website or for that of subsequent links. Contact the external website for answers to questions regarding its content. Please let us know about existing external links which you believe are inappropriate.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 22, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-10804

Conference Calendar

 

JOHN LEE THOMPSON, JR.,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

JANIE COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT

OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

No. 3:01-CV-1810-H

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

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

John Lee Thompson, Jr., a Texas prisoner (# 766659), appeals

the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas

petition as barred by the one-year limitations provision in 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d). Thompson is serving prison terms of 50 and 60

years for guilty-plea convictions of robbery and aggravated

robbery. 

On October 31, 2002, this court granted Thompson a

certificate of appealability (“COA”) on whether he was entitled
No. 02-10804

- 2 -

to equitable tolling of the limitations period until the date he

received actual notice of the denial of his state postconviction

application. In his appellate brief, however, Thompson has set

forth neither factual allegations nor legal authorities in

support of an equitable-tolling claim. Issues must be briefed,

even by prisoners proceeding pro se, to be preserved for appeal. 

See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); FED.

R. APP. P. 28(a)(7) and (9) (appellant’s brief must contain a

“statement of facts relevant to the issues . . . with appropriate

references to the record” and “contentions and reasons for them,

with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on

which the appellant relies”). By failing to set forth relevant

factual references or legal citations, Thompson has effectively

abandoned any arguments regarding the dismissal of his habeas

petition as time-barred. See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-25. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Case 16-30026 Doc 9 Filed 09/23/16 Entered 09/23/16 11:27:45 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
      2002**




I,
      Robert
      J. Wood, Chief Financial Officer of Biophan Technologies, Inc. (the "Company"),
      certify to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report
      on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2007 of the Company,
      that:




(1)
      the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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:
                January 9, 2008/s/
                Robert J. WoodRobert
                J. WoodChief
                Financial Officer
58810 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 193 / Thursday, October 5, 2006 / Notices 

[FR Doc. 06–8502 Filed 10–4–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–C 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal No. 06–73] 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense 

Security Cooperation Agency. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of a 

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. 

This is published to fulfill the 

requirements of section 155 of Public 

Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

J. Hurd, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 604–

6575. 

The following is a copy of a letter to 

the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, Transmittal 06–73 with 

attached transmittal and policy 

justification. 

Dated: September 28, 2006. 

C.R. Choate, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 


mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICESEN05OC06.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 193 / Thursday, October 5, 2006 / Notices 58811 


mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICESEN05OC06.003</GPH>
58812 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 193 / Thursday, October 5, 2006 / Notices 


mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICESEN05OC06.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 193 / Thursday, October 5, 2006 / Notices 58813 


mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICESEN05OC06.005</GPH>
58814 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 193 / Thursday, October 5, 2006 / Notices 

[FR Doc. 06–8503 Filed 10–4–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–C 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal No. 06–70] 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense 

Security Cooperation Agency. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of a 

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notifications. 

This is published to fulfill the 

requirements of section of 155 of Public 

Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

J. Hurd, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 604–

6575. 

The following is a copy of a letter to 

the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, Transmittal 06–70 with 

attached transmittal and policy 

justifications. 

Dated: September 28, 2006. 

C.R. Choate, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 


mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICESEN05OC06.006</GPH>
#### § 1238.4 What standards are used as guidance for this part?

These regulations conform with guidance provided in ISO15489-1:2001, part 7.1 (Principles of records management programmes), and 9.6 (storage and handling).
§ 200.2 Small business size standards and frequency of review. ( a ) NMFS' small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing is $11 million in annual gross receipts. This standard applies to all businesses classified under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 11411 for commercial fishing, including all businesses classified as commercial finfish fishing (NAICS 114111), commercial shellfish fishing (NAICS 114112), and other commercial marine fishing (NAICS 114119) businesses.
( b ) NMFS will review each of the small business size standards in paragraph (a) of this section at least once every 5 years to determine if a change is warranted. A change may be warranted because of changes in industry structure, market conditions, inflation, or other relevant factors.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 7 A1 60 1 . EARLY ARNOLD CONNELLY v . THE STATE.

A ju ry fo u n d Earl y Arn o l d Co nn el l y g u il t y o f fo u r co u n t s o f rap e; fo u r co u n t s

o f i n ces t ; an d o n e co u n t each o f s t at u t ory rap e, c h i l d m ol es t at i o n , an d ag g rav at ed

s ex u al b at t ery

. W i t h t h e ex cep t i o n o f t he ag g rav at ed s ex ual bat t ery co u n t

, Co n n el l y ’ s

co n vi ct i o n s were affi rm ed o n ap p eal

. See Co nn el l y v. S t a te
, 2 95 Ga. Ap p . 7 6 5 (6 7 3

SE2 d 2 74 ) (2 0 0 9 ). Co n nel l y s u b s eq u en t l y fi l ed an ex t rao rd i n ary m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al

. Th e t ri al co u rt d en i ed th e m o ti o n , an d Co n n el l y fi l ed t h i s d i rect ap peal

. An o rd er den y i n g an ex t rao rd i n ary m o ti o n fo r a n ew t ri al m u st b e ap p eal ed by

ap p li cat io n fo r d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal

. See OCGA § 5

- 6 -3 5 (a) (7 ); Ba l kco m v. S t a t e , 2 2 7 Ga. Ap p

. 3 2 7, 3 2 9 (4 8 9 SE2 d 1 2 9 ) (1 9 9 7 ). Acco rd i n g l y , we l ack j u ri s d i ct i o n

o v er t h i s d i rect ap p eal , wh i ch i s h ereb y DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e
, A t la n t a
,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. May 09, 2017

05/09/2017
#### S. Augusta Hull, as Administratrix of the Estate of Edgar G. Hull, Deceased, Respondent, *v.*The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant.

(Argued February 28, 1907;

decided March 15, 1907.)

*Hull*v. *N. Y. C.*& *H. R. R. R. Co.,*113 App. Div. 888, affirmed.

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered May 15, 1906, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover for the death of the plaintiff’s intestate, alleged to have been caused by defendant’s negligence.

*Frederick Oollin*and *John B. Stanchfield*for appellant.

*William 8. Moore*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Yann, Werner, Willard Bartlett and Hiscooii, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000868278
<NAME>                        E.H.Kaytes
<MULTIPLIER>                  1                 
<CURRENCY>                    US.Dollars        
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1998     
<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-01-1998     
<PERIOD-END>                    Dec-31-1998     
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                 1               
<CASH>                          28,331,765      
<SECURITIES>                    0               
<RECEIVABLES>                   8,138,559       
<ALLOWANCES>                    563,193         
<INVENTORY>                     6,522,612       
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                47,027,652      
<PP&E>                          1,214,702       
<DEPRECIATION>                  173,316         
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  48,610,644      
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           4,003,167       
<BONDS>                         0               
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0               
<PREFERRED>                     0               
<COMMON>                        7,205           
<OTHER-SE>                      44,607,477      
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    48,610,644      
<SALES>                         36,354,155      
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                36,354,155      
<CGS>                           10,877,594      
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   25,190,998      
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0               
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0               
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0               
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 11,163,157      
<INCOME-TAX>                    4,353,631       
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             6,809,526       
<DISCONTINUED>                  0               
<EXTRAORDINARY>                  0              
<CHANGES>                        0              
<NET-INCOME>                     6,809,526      
<EPS-PRIMARY>                    0.51           
<EPS-DILUTED>                    0.46           
        


</TABLE>
# EUR-Lex - 12006E022 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12006E022

**Treaty establishing the European Community (consolidated version) - Part Two - Citizenship of the Union - Article 22 **

*
Official Journal C 321 E , 29/12/2006 P. 0051 - 0051 Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0046 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0187 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 224 , 31/08/1992 P. 0011 - Consolidated version *

Article 22

The Commission shall report to the European Parliament, to the Council and to the Economic and Social Committee every three years on the application of the provisions of this Part. This report shall take account of the development of the Union.

On this basis, and without prejudice to the other provisions of this Treaty, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, may adopt provisions to strengthen or to add to the rights laid down in this Part, which it shall recommend to the Member States for adoption in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

--------------------------------------------------
Editorial Note on Part 622
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 622 appear at 79 FR 57837, Sept. 26, 2014 and at 81 FR 32253, May 23, 2016.

§ 622.522 Adjustment of management measures. In accordance with the framework procedure of the Fishery Management Plan for the EEZ around St. Thomas and St. John, the RA may establish or modify the following items. ( a ) *Standard open framework procedures.* Re-specify maximum sustainable yield (MSY), optimum yield (OY), overfishing limit (OFL), maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT), minimum stock size threshold (MSST), acceptable biological catch (ABC), ACL, ACT, sustainable yield level, and other related management reference points and status determination criteria; establish or revise rebuilding plans; revise AMs; modify reporting or monitoring requirements, and time or area closures and closure procedures.
( b ) *Abbreviated open framework procedures.* Gear or vessel marking requirements, maintaining fish in a specific condition, size limits, commercial trip limits, recreational bag and possession limits, changes to the length of an established closed season of no more than 1 day, and gear modifications to address conservation issues including responding to interactions with species listed under the Endangered Species Act or protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
# EUR-Lex - 12007P040 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12007P040

**Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - TITLE V - CITIZENS' RIGHTS - Article 40 - Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at municipal elections **

*
Official Journal 303 , 14/12/2007 P. 0010 - 0010 *

Article 40

Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at municipal elections

Every citizen of the Union has the right to vote and to stand as a candidate at municipal elections in the Member State in which he or she resides under the same conditions as nationals of that State.

--------------------------------------------------
F/O Sue Kiley for County Commissioner

PO Box 999

Edison, Nj 08818

Email: ron@rongravino.com Cell: 

September 20, 2022

Mr. Roy Q. Luckett 

Acting Assistant General Counsel 

Complaints Examination & Legal Administration

Federal Election Commission

1050 First Street NE

Washington, DC 20463

Dear Mr. Luckett:

F/O Sue Kiley for County Commissioner is in receipt of your letter dated August 16, 2022, notifying the 

Committee that the Commission has opened MUR 8051 based on a complaint filed by the New Jersey Democratic State 

Committee.

The complaint references a Request for Additional Information (RFAI) received by the Federal Campaign 

Committee on May 31, 2022, concerning donations the Committee received from non-federal political entities. As the 

complaint acknowledges, the Committee sent a timely response to the Reports Analysis Division, stating

“...we demonstrate a reasonable accounting method that the organization has received sufficient funds subject to the 

limitations and prohibitions in order to make the contribution by obtaining an affidavit from each committee. Each is 

limited to $1000 per calendar year.”

As the response indicates, the Committee actually requires that each non-federal entity submit an affidavit as 

further documentation of our compliance efforts. These affidavits confirm that the non-federal entity has received 

sufficient funds subject to the limitations and prohibitions of the Act in order to make the contribution, as outlined in 11 

CFR 102.5(b). The Committee received an affidavit from each of the non-federal entities listed in the RFAI, and hereby 

submits copies of those affidavits as part of its response to this MUR.

The Committee is now aware of the prohibition under 11 CFR 110.3(d) with respect to donations from a nonfederal campaign to the federal campaign of the same candidate, and, upon receiving notification of the MUR, we 

received a refund to F/O Sue Kiley for County Commissioner from the Federal Committee Kiley for Congress.

In as much as the Committee has documented its compliance with 11 CFR 102.5(b), and has refunded the 

donation to F/O Sue Kiley for County Commissioner, we respectfully request that the Commission close MUR 8051 and 

take no further action.

Sincerely, 

Ron Gravino

Ron Gravino, Treasurer

F/O Sue Kiley for County Commissioner

MUR805100052