alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 13 (Monday, January 22, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2702-2703]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-235]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney 
Disorders, Notice of closed 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.

[[Page 2703]]

    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 purpose of this meeting is to evaluate requests 
for preclinical development resources for potential new therapeutics 
for type 1 diabetes. The outcome of the evaluation will be a decision 
whether NIDDK should support the request and make available contract 
resources for development of the potential therapeutic to improve the 
treatment or prevent the development of type 1 diabetes and its 
complications. The research proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the proposed research projects, the disclosure of which 
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Type 1 Diabetes--Rapid Access to Intervention 
Development Special Emphasis Panel; National Institute of Diabetes 
and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.
    Date: January 23, 2007.
    Time: 3 p.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To evaluate requests for preclinical development 
resources for potential new therapeutics for type 1 diabetes and its 
complications.
    Place: 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone 
Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Dr. Myrlene Staten, Senior Advisor, Diabetes 
Transplation Research, Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology and 
Metabolic Diseases, NIDDK, NIH, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, 
MD 20892-5460, 301 402-7886.
(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.277, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 98.849, Kidney Diseases, urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    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.

    Dated: January 11, 2007.
Anna Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-235 Filed 1-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Case 2:15-cv-10170-AJT-EAS   ECF No. 19-2   filed 07/28/15    PageID.215    Page 1 of 16

Case 2:15-cv-10170-AJT-EAS   ECF No. 19-2   filed 07/28/15    PageID.216    Page 2 of 16

Case 2:15-cv-10170-AJT-EAS   ECF No. 19-2   filed 07/28/15    PageID.217    Page 3 of 16

Case 2:15-cv-10170-AJT-EAS   ECF No. 19-2   filed 07/28/15    PageID.218    Page 4 of 16

Case 2:15-cv-10170-AJT-EAS   ECF No. 19-2   filed 07/28/15    PageID.219    Page 5 of 16

Case 2:15-cv-10170-AJT-EAS   ECF No. 19-2   filed 07/28/15    PageID.220    Page 6 of 16

Case 2:15-cv-10170-AJT-EAS   ECF No. 19-2   filed 07/28/15    PageID.221    Page 7 of 16

Case 2:15-cv-10170-AJT-EAS   ECF No. 19-2   filed 07/28/15    PageID.222    Page 8 of 16

Case 2:15-cv-10170-AJT-EAS   ECF No. 19-2   filed 07/28/15    PageID.223    Page 9 of 16

Case 2:15-cv-10170-AJT-EAS   ECF No. 19-2   filed 07/28/15    PageID.224    Page 10 of 16

Case 2:15-cv-10170-AJT-EAS   ECF No. 19-2   filed 07/28/15    PageID.225    Page 11 of 16

Case 2:15-cv-10170-AJT-EAS   ECF No. 19-2   filed 07/28/15    PageID.226    Page 12 of 16

Case 2:15-cv-10170-AJT-EAS   ECF No. 19-2   filed 07/28/15    PageID.227    Page 13 of 16

Case 2:15-cv-10170-AJT-EAS   ECF No. 19-2   filed 07/28/15    PageID.228    Page 14 of 16

Case 2:15-cv-10170-AJT-EAS   ECF No. 19-2   filed 07/28/15    PageID.229    Page 15 of 16

Case 2:15-cv-10170-AJT-EAS   ECF No. 19-2   filed 07/28/15    PageID.230    Page 16 of 16
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7709

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BRUCE WAYNE TART, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-00-106; CA-02-2-1) Submitted: March 25, 2004 Decided: March 30, 2004 Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bruce Wayne Tart, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Hale Levin, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Bruce Wayne Tart seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting a magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. This order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Tart has not made the requisite showin g. Accordingly, we deny Tart’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION FROM THE AUDITED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS OF COMPOST AMERICA HOLDING COMPANY, INC. FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED
APRIL 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                         388,956
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,045,449
<ALLOWANCES>                                   117,422
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,962,184
<PP&E>                                      31,565,700
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,225,542
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             159,298,414
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,690,808
<BONDS>                                    104,563,421
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        8,766,159
<PREFERRED>                                    281,963
<COMMON>                                    44,911,709
<OTHER-SE>                                (26,098,452)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               159,298,414
<SALES>                                      9,259,698
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,259,698
<CGS>                                        6,205,099
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,205,099
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            14,331,265
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,418,131
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (13,694,797)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (2,076,671)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (11,618,126)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (11,618,126)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.55)
        

</TABLE>
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 28, 2014

No. 04-11-00156-CR

Juan E. GUERRA,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2009CR13014

Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

The panel has considered the Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing, and the motion is 

DENIED.

It is so ORDERED on the 28th day of May, 2014.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: ____________________________

Keith E. Hottle

 Clerk of Court
# C_2012227EN.01002201.xml

| 28.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 227/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 227/22

---

Order of the General Court (the judge hearing the application for interim measures) of 13 June 2012 — Morison Menon Chartered Accountants and Others v Council

(Case T-656/11 R II)

(Application for interim measures - No need to adjudicate)

2012/C 227/36

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Morison Menon Chartered Accountants and Others (Dubai, United Arab Emirates); Morison Menon Chartered Accountants — Dubai Office (Dubai); Morison Menon Chartered Accountants — Sharjah Office (Sharjah, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: H. Viaene, T. Ruys and D. Gillet, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-M. Joséphidès and S. Kyriakopoulou, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

APPLICATION for the suspension of operation of, first, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), and second, Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), to the extent that they add to the list of persons and entities whose funds and economic resources are to be frozen the entity designated as ‘Morison Menon Chartered Accountant’.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
# C_2014315EN.01004501.xml

| 15.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/45

---

Order of the President of the Court of 5 June 2014 — El Corte Inglés, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Emilio Pucci International BV

(Case C-582/12 P) (1)

1

2014/C 315/72

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.

1

---
# C_2012118EN.01001902.xml

| 21.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/19

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 17 February 2012 — Skatteverket v PFC Clinic AB

(Case C-91/12)

2012/C 118/31

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Skatteverket

Appellant:

Respondent: PFC Clinic AB

Respondent:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 132(1)(b) and (c) of the VAT Directive (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the stated exemption from taxation covers services such as those at issue in the present case and which consist of:






  (a) | cosmetic surgery, |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 132(1)(b) and (c) of the VAT Directive (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the stated exemption from taxation covers services such as those at issue in the present case and which consist of:

1

(a)

cosmetic surgery,

| (b) | cosmetic treatments? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

cosmetic treatments?

| 2. | Does it affect that assessment if the surgery or treatments are carried out with the purpose of preventing or treating sicknesses, physical impairments or injuries? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does it affect that assessment if the surgery or treatments are carried out with the purpose of preventing or treating sicknesses, physical impairments or injuries?

| 3. | If due account is to be taken of the purpose, can the patient’s understanding of the purpose of the intervention be taken into consideration? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If due account is to be taken of the purpose, can the patient’s understanding of the purpose of the intervention be taken into consideration?

| 4. | Is it of any importance to the assessment whether the intervention is carried out by licensed medical professionals, or that such professionals decide on its purpose? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is it of any importance to the assessment whether the intervention is carried out by licensed medical professionals, or that such professionals decide on its purpose?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ L 347, p. 1).

1

---
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.7


AMENDMENT TO THE ARMSTRONG FLOORING, INC.  
NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN 

WHEREAS, Armstrong Flooring, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Armstrong Flooring, Inc. Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”) for the benefit of its eligible employees; and
WHEREAS, the Plan is administered by the Retirement Committee of the Company (the “Administrator”); and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Plan Section 8.1, the Administrator may amend the Plan at any time (but no amendment may divest a Participant of amounts or earnings previously credited to the Participant’s Account); and
WHEREAS, the Administrator has determined to amend the Plan to indefinitely suspend Matching Credits under Plan Section 4.1.
NOW, THEREFORE, Plan Section 4.1, Matching Credits, is hereby amended, effective May 1, 2020, as follows (insertions bold-underline):
Matching Credits:  For each pay period that the employee Participant makes Salary Deferrals and/or Bonus Deferrals, the Company shall make Matching Credits on behalf of each Participant eligible for Matching Credits in an amount equal to 100% of the first 4% and 50% of the next 4% of the Participant’s Salary Deferrals and Bonus Deferrals for such pay period.  Such Matching Credits shall be fully vested at the same time as the Participant’s matching contributions under the Qualified Plan. Effective for pay periods beginning on or after May 1, 2020, the Company shall no longer make Matching Credits for any Participant Salary Deferral and /or Bonus Deferrals.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 NICKIE SAUNDERS, 2 Petitioner-Appellant, 3

v. NO. 34,575 4 KAITLYNN RODRIGUEZ and 5 ROBERT GARCIA, 6 Respondents-Appellees. 7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF EDDY COUNTY 8 Raymond L. Romero, District Judge 9 Nickie Saunders 10 Carlsbad, NM 11 Pro Se Appellant 12 Kaitlyn Rodriguez 13 Robert Garcia 14 Carlsbad, NM 15 Pro Se Appellees 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION 17 VIGIL, Judge. 18 {1} Petitioner-Appellant Nickie Saunders (Pe titioner) appeals from the district 192 court’s order denying her petiti on to be appointed as the kinship guardian for Donovan 1 H. (Child). On May 21, 2015, this Court issued a notice of proposed disposition 2 wherein we proposed to affirm the districtcourt’s decision. Child’s mother filed a 3 document with this Court asserting that she no longer consents to Petitioner being 4 appointed guardian of Child. This information, however, was not before the district 5 court and this Court, therefore, will not consider it on appeal. See State v. Reynolds, 6 1990-NMCA-122, ¶ 16, 111 N.M. 263, 804 P.2d 1082 (“Matters outside the record 7 present no issue for review.”). Petitioner, on the other hand, has not filed a 8 memorandum opposing this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, and the time for 9 doing so has now passed. See Frick v. Veazey , 1993-NMCA-119, ¶ 2, 116 N.M. 246, 10 861 P.2d 287 (“Failure to file a memorandum in opposition constitutes acceptance of 11 the disposition proposed in the calendar notice. ”). Accordingly, we affirm the district 12 court’s decision for the reasons articul ated in this Court’s notice of proposed 13 disposition. 14 {2} IT IS SO ORDERED. 15

______________________________ 16 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge 17 WE CONCUR: 18

_________________________________ 19 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 203 _________________________________ 1 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 2
EXHIBIT
32.1








Certification
Pursuant to


Exchange
Act Rule 15d-14(b) and


18
U.S.C. Section 1350





In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Astrata Group Incorporated (the ”Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period
ending May 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), I, Martin Euler, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to Exchange Act
Rule 15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that:





i.
            The
      report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act 1934;
and





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








A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906,
has been provided to Astrata Group Incorporated and will be retained by Astrata
Group Incorporated and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.











Dated:  February
      26, 2009
                  /s/ MARTIN EULERName:
      Martin EulerTitle:
      Chief Executive
Officer
§ 221.1 Purpose. ( a ) This part implements statutory responsibilities of the Secretary of Transportation (the Secretary) with respect to: ( 1 ) The regulation pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 56101 and 56103of transactions involving transfers of: ( i ) An interest in or control of Documented Vessels owned by Citizens of the United States (including the Transfer of a Controlling Interest in such owners) to Noncitizens or;
( ii ) A Documented Vessel to registry or Operation under Authority of a Foreign Country or for scrapping in a foreign country; and
( 2 ) Transactions involving maritime interests in time of war or national emergency under 46 U.S.C. 56102.
( b ) The responsibilities in paragraph (a) (1) and (2) of this section have been delegated by the Secretary to the Maritime Administrator.
[57 FR 23478, June 3, 1992, as amended at 63 FR 6880, Feb. 11, 1998; 78 FR 35771, June 14, 2013]
# C_2012138EN.01004005.xml

| 12.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/40

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 November 2011 — AC v Council

(Case F-26/11) (1)

(2012/C 138/103)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 179, 18.6.2011, p. 21.

---
§ 180.70 Ring life buoys. ( a ) A vessel must have one or more ring life buoys as follows: ( 1 ) A vessel of not more than 7.9 meters (26 feet) in length must carry a minimum of one life buoy of not less than 510 millimeters (20 inches) in diameter;
( 2 ) A vessel of more than 7.9 meters (26 feet) in length, but not more than 19.8 meters (65 feet), must carry a minimum of one life buoy of not less than 610 millimeters (24 inches) in diameter; and
( 3 ) A vessel of more than 19.8 meters (65 feet) in length must carry a minimum of three life buoys of not less than 610 millimeters (24 inches) in diameter.
( b ) Each ring life buoy on a vessel must: ( 1 ) Be approved in accordance with § 160.050 in subchapter Q of this chapter, or other standard specified by the Commandant, including, but not limited to, approval series 160.150;
( 2 ) Be readily accessible;
( 3 ) Be stowed in a way that it can be rapidly cast loose;
( 4 ) Not be permanently secured in any way; and
( 5 ) If on a vessel on an oceans or coastwise route, be orange in color.
( c ) At least one ring life buoy must be fitted with a lifeline. If more than one ring life buoy is carried, at least one must not have a lifeline attached. Each lifeline on a ring life buoy must: ( 1 ) Be buoyant;
( 2 ) Be of at least 18.3 meters (60 feet) in length;
( 3 ) Be non-kinking;
( 4 ) Have a diameter of at least 7.9 millimeters (5 ⁄ 16 inch);
( 5 ) Have a breaking strength of at least 5 kilonewtons (1,124 pounds); and
( 6 ) Be of a dark color if synthetic, or of a type certified to be resistant to deterioration from ultraviolet light.
( d ) A vessel must carry one floating waterlight, unless it is limited to daytime operation, in which case no floating waterlight is required. ( 1 ) Each floating waterlight must be approved in accordance with § 161.010 in subchapter Q of this chapter, or other standard specified by the Commandant, including, but not limited to, approval series 160.110.
( 2 ) Each ring life buoy with a floating waterlight must have a lanyard of at least 910 millimeters (3 feet) in length, but not more than 1,830 millimeters (6 feet), securing the waterlight around the body of the ring life buoy.
( 3 ) Each floating waterlight installed after March 11, 1997, on a vessel carrying only one ring buoy, must be attached to the lanyard with a corrosion-resistant clip. The clip must have a strength of at least 22.7 kilograms (50 pounds), and allow the waterlight to be quickly disconnected from the ring life buoy.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 975, Jan. 10, 1996; 61 FR 20557, May 7, 1996, as amended by CGD 97-057, 62 FR 51050, Sept. 30, 1997; 62 FR 51357, Sept. 30, 1997; USCG-2015-0867, 80 FR 62470, Oct. 16, 2015]