alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 101 (Friday, May 25, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 29339]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2588]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meetings

    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 
meetings.
    The meetings 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 grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute 
Special Emphasis Panel, Short Term Research Training (T35).
    Date: July 19, 2007.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact person: Chang Sook Kim, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Review Branch, DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood 
Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7190, Bethesda, MD 20892-7924, 
301-435-0287, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#debdbfacb1b2b5b19eb3bfb7b2f0b0b7b6f0b9b1a8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="096a687b66656266496468606527676061276e667f">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute 
Special Emphasis Panel, Cardiovascular Research Program Project.
    Date: July 25, 2007.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Keary A. Cope, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Review Branch/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood 
Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7190, Bethesda, MD 20892-7924, 
301-435-2222, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b0d3dfc0d5dbd1f0ddd1d9dc9eded9d89ed7dfc6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e1828e91848a80a18c80888dcf8f8889cf868e97">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, 
National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and 
Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, 
Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS).

    Dated: May 17, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-2588 Filed 5-24-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. ISIDOR LERMAN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.

Submitted May term, 1929

Decided November 7, 1929.

Before Justices Teenchaed, Lloyd and Case.

Eor the plaintiff in error, *Harold Simandl.*

Eor the defendant in error, *Joseph L. Smith.*

Pee Ctjeiam.

Plaintiff in error was convicted in the Essex Court of Quarter Sessions of assault and battery on and criminal abuse of one Sally Bigams—a child between the age of twelve and sixteen years. The case is here on both writ of error and specifications of causes for reversal under a certificate. Several rulings on evidence are presented, but the main point argued is that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.

There was abundant evidence to support the verdict. In addition to the testimony of the girl herself it appeared that *987she made almost immmediate complaint, was examined by a physician and found to be ruptured, and the defendant admitted to a physician his conduct, paid the doctor’s bill and •offered to pay for the support of the child that was later in •due time born.

As to the points for reversal based on alleged rulings on •evidence, we think there was no error. No one of these rulings is of sufficient importance to call for extended discussion and the judgment is affirmed.
§ 393.5 DOT Support for Marine Highway-related research. ( a ) *How does DOT support research?* ( 1 ) The Program Office works in consultation with public and private entities as appropriate, within the limits of available resources, to identify impediments, develop incentives, and conduct innovative research, in support of the America's Marine Highway Program or in direct support of specific designated Marine Highway Routes and Projects. The primary objectives of selected research projects are to: ( i ) Identify markets, cargoes, and service parameters that could facilitate the development of new or expanded Marine Highway Services.
( ii ) Identify existing or emerging technology, vessel design, infrastructure designs, and other improvements that would reduce emissions, increase fuel economy, and lower costs of Marine Highway transportation and increase the efficiency of intermodal transfers.
( iii ) Identify impediments to the establishment of Marine Highway services.
( iv ) Identify incentives to increase the use and efficiency of Marine Highway services.
( b ) The Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, may conduct research on short sea transportation regarding: ( 1 ) The environmental and transportation benefits to be derived from short sea transportation alternatives for other forms of transportation;
( 2 ) Technology, vessel design, and other improvements that would reduce emissions, increase fuel economy, and lower costs of short sea transportation and increase the efficiency of intermodal transfers; and
( 3 ) Solutions to impediments to short sea transportation projects designated.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2412 

To exempt children of certain Filipino World War II veterans from the 

numerical limitations on immigrant visas. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 14, 2009 

Ms. HIRONO (for herself, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. FILNER, Mr. HONDA, Mr. 

FALEOMAVAEGA, Ms. BORDALLO, Mrs. MALONEY, and Mr. FARR) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To exempt children of certain Filipino World War II veterans 

from the numerical limitations on immigrant visas. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Filipino Veterans 

5 Family Reunification Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FROM IMMIGRANT VISA LIMIT. 

7 Section 201(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality 

8 Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(1)) is amended by adding at the 

9 end the following: 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2412 IH

1 ‘‘(F) Aliens who are eligible for an immigrant 

2 visa under paragraph (1) or (3) of section 203(a) 

3 and who have a parent who was naturalized pursu4 ant to section 405 of the Immigration Act of 1990 

5 (8 U.S.C. 1440 note).’’. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 1
Federal Reserve Bank of: Boston

## Filings received during the week ending January 26, 2008

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 10, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-10694 Summary Calendar

DALE ANDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus DOUG DRETKE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:02-CV-00157 USDC No. 4:02-CV-00158 USDC No. 4:02-CV-00159

-------------------- Before JOLLY, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Dale Anderson, Texas prisoner # 909781, appeals the denial of his F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b) motion challenging the dismissal and denials of his three consolidated 28 U.S.C. § 2254 applications. The only issue before us is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Anderson’s Rule 60(b) motion. See Aucoin v. K-Mart Apparel Fashion Corp. , 943 F.2d 6, 8 (5th Cir. 1991).No. 03-10694 -2- The sole purpose of Anderson’s Rule 60(b) motion was to circumvent the jurisdictional problem caused by his failure to file a timely notice of appeal from the judgment denying habeas relief. A Rule 60(b) motion, however, is not a substitute for a timely appeal. Dunn v. Cockrell , 302 F.3d 491, 493 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied , 537 U.S. 1181 (2003). Moreover, the delay in Anderson’s receipt of notice of the judgment denying habeas relief does not qualify as an “extraordinary circumstance” under Rule 60(b)(6). Although the time to file a notice of appeal had expired when he received notice of the denial, Anderson failed to take advantage of other remedies that were still available, such as a motion for an extension of time or a motion to reopen the time to file an appeal. See F ED . R. A PP . P. 4(a)(5) (motion for an extension of time); F ED . R. A PP . P. 4(a)(6) (motion to reopen time to file notice of appeal).

AFFIRMED.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-20-00343-CV

Vernon Michael Abshier

v.

Melva E. Long

On Appeal from the

405th District Court of Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 18-CV-0325-B

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

February 17, 2022
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SOTIRIOS GIANNAKOPOULOS and

MARGARITA GIANNAKOPOULOS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. 15-11971

Honorable John Corbett O’Meara

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' JULY 23, 2015 MOTION TO DISMISS

This matter came before the court on Defendants' July 23, 2015 motion to dismiss. On July

16, 2015, this court granted Plaintiffs' attorney leave to withdraw as counsel; and Plaintiffs were

given 30 days in which to retain new counsel or notify the court that they were representing

themselves. No new counsel has filed an appearance, and Plaintiffs have not informed the court that

they are representing themselves.

 In addition, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss July 23, 2015. In its July 27, 2015 Notice

of Determination of Motion without Oral Argument, this court allowed Plaintiffs until September

30, 2015, to file a response. To date Plaintiffs have failed to file a response. Therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that Defendants' July 23, 2015 motion to dismiss is GRANTED for the reasons set

forth in the motion.

s/John Corbett O'Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: October 5, 2015

5:15-cv-11971-JCO-MJH Doc # 13 Filed 10/05/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 198
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record

on this date, October 5, 2015, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz 

Case Manager

2

5:15-cv-11971-JCO-MJH Doc # 13 Filed 10/05/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 199
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANNETTE PERRY, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 15-11658

vs.

HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

WAYNE COUNTY COMMUNITY 

COLLEGE DISTRICT,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT [DOC. 18]

This matter has come before the court on the parties’ joint motion to approve

settlement. The court having presided over a hearing on the joint motion, and having

taken testimony from the personal representative and being otherwise fully advised in

the premises, now therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the settlement is approved as requested jointly by

the parties. 

It is so ordered.

Dated: August 23, 2016

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

August 23, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marcia Beauchemin

Deputy Clerk

2:15-cv-11658-GCS-EAS Doc # 19 Filed 08/23/16 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 99
#### § 502.105 Waiver of rules governing enlargement of time and postponement of hearings.

Except as otherwise provided by law the presiding officer, for good cause, may reduce or enlarge any time limit prescribed in the rules of this Part, may waive the requirements of §§ 502.102 and 502.104 for replies, and may rule ex parte on requests submitted under those rules. [Rule 105.]
§ 58.16-16 Reducing regulators. ( a ) All systems shall be provided with a regulating device so adjusted as to release gas to the distribution tubing at a pressure not in excess of 18 inches water column, or approximately 10.5 ounces per square inch.
( b ) The low-pressure side of all regulators must be protected against excessive pressure by means of a suitable relief valve, which must be integral with the regulator. The relief valve must be set to start to discharge at a pressure not less than two times and not more than three times the delivery pressure.
( c ) All reducing regulators must be fitted with a pressure gage located on the high-pressure side of the regulator.
#### § 35.08-1 Posting of stability letter.

If a stability letter is issued under § 170.120 of this chapter, it must be posted under glass or other suitable transparent material in the pilothouse of the vessel.

[CGD 79-023, 48 FR 51006, Nov. 4, 1983]
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 5
Federal Reserve Bank of: Richmond

## Filings received during the week ending June 7, 2008

|Filer                  | Filing Type        | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                              | End of Comment Period                          
|---------------------- | ------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------
|EAGLE BANCORP, INC.    | * 3A5* 18C* Branch | Eagle Bancorp, Inc., Bethesda, Maryland, to acquire 100% of the voting securities of Fidelity & Trust Financial Corporation, Bethesda, Maryland and thereby indirectly acquire Fidelity & Trust Bank, Bethesda, Maryland.                    | Newspaper:06/14/2008Federal Register:06/16/2008
|Newspaper:             | 06/14/2008        
|Federal Register:      | 06/16/2008        
|VIRGINIA BANCORP, INC. | * 3A1              | Virginia BanCorp, Inc., Petersburg, Virginia, to become a bank holding company through the acqusition of 100% of the voting securities of Virginia Commonwealth Bank, Peterburg, Virginia (formerly First Federal Savings Bank of Virginia). | Newspaper:07/07/2008Federal Register:07/03/2008
|Newspaper:             | 07/07/2008        
|Federal Register:      | 07/03/2008        

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
§ 535.303 Husbanding agreements—exemption. ( a ) A husbanding agreement is an agreement between an ocean common carrier and another ocean common carrier or marine terminal operator, acting as the former's agent, under which the agent handles routine vessel operating activities in port, such as notifying port officials of vessel arrivals and departures; ordering pilots, tugs, and linehandlers; delivering mail; transmitting reports and requests from the Master to the owner/operator; dealing with passenger and crew matters; and providing similar services related to the above activities. The term does not include an agreement that provides for the solicitation or booking of cargoes, signing contracts or bills of lading and other related matters, nor does it include an agreement that prohibits the agent from entering into similar agreements with other carriers.
( b ) A husbanding agreement is exempt from the filing requirements of the Act and of this part.
( c ) The filing fee for optional filing of husbanding agreements is provided in § 535.401(g).
2:15-cr-20457-MFL-APP Doc # 127 Filed 02/13/17 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 606
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

#   Board Actions 

## Actions taken during the week ending February 16, 2008

----

FormsForms  -- final Board review to extend with revision the Application for Employment with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FR 28) and to extend without revision the Recordkeeping Requirements Associated with the Real Estate Lending Standards Regulation for State Member Banks (Reg H-5). 					-Approved, February 14, 2008 					

Testimony And StatementsBond Insurance Industry  -- statement by Patrick M. Parkinson, Deputy Director of the Division of Research and Statistics, before the Subcommittee on Capital Markets of the House Financial Services Committee on the implications of recent downgrades of bond insurers' ratings.					-Published, February 14, 2008 					Community Reinvestment Act  -- statement by Sandra F. Braunstein, Director, Division of Consumer and Community Affairs, before the House Committee on Financial Services on February 13, 2008.					-Reviewed, February 12, 2008 					The Economy and Financial Markets  -- statement by Chairman Bernanke before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.					-Published, February 14, 2008 					

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco
Home | Banking information and regulationAccessibility | Contact   usLast update: February 21, 2008
#### § 201.121 Application for subpoena ad testificandum.

An application for a subpoena requiring attendance of a witness at a hearing may be made without notice by any party to the presiding officer, or, in the event that a presiding officer has not been assigned to a proceeding or the presiding officer is not available, to the Chief Hearing Examiner, for action by him or by a member of the Administration. A subpoena for the attendance of a witness shall be issued on oral application at any time and shall be issued upon request of any interested party upon tender of an original and two copies of such subpoena. A record of the issuance of such a subpoena shall be entered in the docket.
#### SAMUEL B. THOMPSON, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. CENTRAL RAILROAD OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Decided October 16, 1929.

Before Gummere, Chief Justice, and Justices Parker and Bodine.

Eor the defendant-appellant, *William A. Barlcalow {Be Toe Tomlinson,*of counsel).

Eor the plaintiff-respondent, *Bari A. Merrill.*

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff recovered a verdict against the defendant in the sum of $12,500.

Our examination of the testimony in this case leads us to the conclusion that the defendant’s negligence was clearly established, and that the plaintiff was not shown to have been negligent in any particular. Eurther, the damages recovered, in the light of the testimony submitted at the trial, were not excessive.

The rule will be discharged.
#### § 327.7 Administrative disallowance presumption.

If MarAd fails to give written notice of allowance or disallowance of a claim in accordance with § 327.6 within sixty (60) calendar days following the date of the receipt of such claim by the proper person designated in § 327.5, such claim shall be presumed to have been “administratively disallowed,” within the meaning in section 1(a) of 50 U.S.C. App. 1291(a).
#### § 4.09-5 Powers of Marine Board of Investigation.

Any Marine Board of Investigation so designated shall have the power to administer oaths, summon witnesses, require persons having knowledge of the subject matter of the investigation to answer questionnaires, and to require the production of relevant books, papers, documents or any other evidence. Attendance of witnesses or the production of books, papers, documents or any other evidence shall be compelled by a similar process as in the United States District Court. The chairman shall administer all necessary oaths to any witnesses summoned before said Board.
#### § 502.9 Suspension, amendment, etc., of rules in this part.

The rules in this part may, from time to time, be suspended, amended, or revoked, in whole or in part. Notice of any such action will be published in the Federal Register. [Rule 9.]