alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 124 (Thursday, June 28, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35502-35503]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-3184]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Human Genome Research Institute; 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.
    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 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 Human Genome Research Institute 
Special Emphasis Panel, Encode Scaling and DCC RFA's.
    Date: July 12-13, 2007.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 2 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Eric P. Newman Education Center, 660 S. Euclid Avenue, 
Saint Louis, MO 63110.
    Contact Person: Keith McKenney, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, NHGRI, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 4076, Bethesda, MD 
20814, 301-594-4280, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fe939d959b90909b8795be939f9792d0909796d0999188"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ee838d858b80808b9785ae838f8782c0808786c0898198">[email protected]</span></a>.

    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.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.172, Human 
Genome Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)


[[Page 35503]]


    Dated: June 21, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-3184 Filed 6-27-07; 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>
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 19, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 33739]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-3003]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce (DOC) will submit to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for 
collection of information under provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 
Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS).
    Title: One-Time Report for Foreign Software of Technology Eligible 
for De Minimis Exclusion.
    Agency Form Number: None.
    OMB Approval Number: 0694-0101.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection of 
information.
    Burden Hours: 5,925.
    Average Time per Response: 25 hours.
    Number of Respondents: 237.
    Needs and Uses: Any company that is seeking exemption from export 
controls on foreign software and technology commingled with U.S. 
software or technology must file a one-time report for the foreign 
software or technology. The report must include the percentage of 
relevant values in determining U.S. content, assumptions, and the basis 
or methodologies for making the percentage calculation. The 
methodologies must be based upon accounting standards used in the 
operation of the relevant business, which must be specified in the 
report.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker, (202) 395-3897.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance 
Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, e-mail address, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d793b6a1beb38885b8a4a3bcb2a597b8bab5f9b2b8a7f9b0b8a1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a2e6c3d4cbc6fdf0cdd1d6c9c7d0e2cdcfc08cc7cdd28cc5cdd4">[email protected]</span></a>, or fax number, (202) 395-7285.

    Dated: June 14, 2007.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 07-3003 Filed 06-18-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DT-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT
**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**
**SCOTT ALLEN CHAMBERLAIN,**

**Petitioner :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **No** s **. 208** -209 **WAL 2016 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from**  **the Order of the Superior Court**

ORDER

P ER CURIAM AND NOW **, this 28th day of September, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is**  DENIED

**.**
#### The People of the State of New York *ex rel.*Thomas Flaherty, *Appellant, v.*The Commissioners of the Department of Fire and Buildings of the City of Brooklyn, *Respondents*.

Order reversed, with costs and disbursements. Opinion by

Dykman, J.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

WILLIAM JOSEPH WHITEHEAD,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 330 WAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 26th day of November, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 77 (Monday, April 23, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 20163]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1991]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Second Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 210, Cabin Management 
Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 210, Cabin Management Systems.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 210, Cabin Management.

DATES: The meeting will be held May 9-10, 2007 from 9-5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1828 L Street, NW., 
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036, Colson Board Room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (1) RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, 
NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036; telephone (202) 833-9339; fax 
(202) 833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice 
is hereby given for a Special Committee 210, Cabin Management Systems 
meeting. The agenda will include:
<bullet> May 9:
    <bullet> Working Group 1, Document Review/Assessment, Garmin Room.
    <bullet> Working Group 2, Cabin Management Function Classification, 
Colson Board Room.
    <bullet> Working Group 3, Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS) 
Assessment, ARINC Room.
<bullet> May 10:
    <bullet> Opening Plenary Session (Welcome and Introductory Remarks, 
Approval of Seventh Plenary Summary).
    <bullet> Approval of Summary of the First Meeting held March 6-7, 
2007, RTCA Paper No. 083-07/SC210-003.
    <bullet> Terms of Reference--Review Status.
    <bullet> Review Working Group (WG) Progress and Identify Issues for 
Resolution.
    <bullet> WG-1, Document Review/Assessment.
    <bullet> WG-2, Cabin Management Function Classification.
    <bullet> WG-3, Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS) Assessment.
    <bullet> Document Structure/Review.
    <bullet> Assignment of Responsibilities.
    <bullet> Closing Plenary Session (Other Business, Establish Agenda 
for Next Meeting, Date, Place and Time of Next Meeting, Adjourn).
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 16, 2007.
Francisco Estrada C.,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 07-1991 Filed 4-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# Time and Date:

11 a.m., Friday, July 13, 2007.

# Place:

1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor, Commission Conference Room.

# Status:

Closed.

# Matters to be Considered:

Surveillance Matters.

# Contact Person for More Information:

Eileen A. Donovan, 202-418-5100.

Eileen A. Donovan,

Acting Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 07-3088  Filed 6-20-07; 10:27 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
§ 73a.735-101 Principles and purpose. ( a ) To assure that the business of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is conducted effectively, objectively, and without improper influence or appearance thereof, all employees must be persons of integrity and observe the highest standards of conduct. Because of FDA's special regulatory responsibilities to the consumer and industry, its employees must be especially alert to avoid any real or appearance of conflict of their private interests with their public duties. Their actions must be unquestionable and free from suspicion of partiality, favoritism, or any hint of conflicting interests. This supplement recognizes FDA's public obligation to set reasonable and fair safeguards for the prevention of employee conflicts of interest. It is necessary to meet FDA's regulatory responsibilities and to otherwise assure full protection of the public confidence in the integrity of its employees.
( b ) Since FDA is a unique consumer protection and regulatory agency within the Department, the DHHS Standards of Conduct need further supplementation to reflect this role. Therefore, for purposes of implementing the DHHS Standards of Conduct regulations within the FDA, this supplement provides interpretive definitions and additional requirements. As further guidance to its employees and supervisory officials, FDA will issue internal procedural instructions in accordance with this supplement.
Argued and submitted June 28,

affirmed October 11, 1995

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*EDWARD GEORGE McLEER, *Appellant.*

(TM93-1839; CA A84630)

903 P2d 417

Andy Simrin, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender.

Jonathan H. Fussner, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.

Before Riggs, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Armstrong, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed. *State v. O’Key,*321 Or 285, 899 P2d 663 (1995); *State v. Prickett,*136 Or App 559, 902 P2d 621 (1995).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ATRION CORPORATION FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31,
1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           6,965
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,597
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      8,401
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,883
<PP&E>                                          20,575
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,992
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  60,975
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,719
<BONDS>                                            102
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           342
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,677
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    60,975
<SALES>                                         10,162
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,162
<CGS>                                            6,428
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,428
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,155
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  10
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    800
<INCOME-TAX>                                       302
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                498
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       498
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15
        

</TABLE>
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-41040

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

THOMAS GEORGE KRUECK,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-00-CR-1155-ALL

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

September 6, 2002

Before JOLLY, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Thomas George Krueck has appealed his conviction for

possession with intent to distribute 50 kilograms or more of

marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) & (b)(1)(C). 

Krueck contends that, Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466

(2000), the Government was required to prove that he knew the 

quantity of the drug involved in his offense. Krueck contends

that the Government failed to prove that he knowingly possessed
No. 01-41040

-2-

more than 50 kilograms of marijuana. Prior to Apprendi, the

Government was not required to prove that the defendant knew the

precise quantity or type of the drug he possessed. See United

States v. Valencia-Gonzales, 172 F.3d 344, 345-46 (5th Cir.

1999). Apprendi did not overrule this jurisprudence. See United

States v. Cazares-Ramirez, No. 01-40835 (5th Cir. Apr. 22, 2002)

(unpublished); United States v. Puente-Vasquez, No. 01-40767 (5th

Cir. Mar. 27, 2002) (unpublished); see also United States v.

Collazo-Aponte, 281 F.3d 320, 326 (1st Cir. 2002), petition for

cert. filed, No. 01-10893 (May 29, 2002); United States v.

Barbosa, 271 F.3d 438, 459 (3d Cir. 2001); United States v.

Sheppard, 219 F.3d 766, 768 n.2 (8th Cir. 2000), cert. denied,

531 U.S. 1200 (2001); United States v. Carrera, 259 F.3d 818, 830

(7th Cir. 2001).

Krueck contends for the first time on appeal, that 21 U.S.C.

§ 841 is facially unconstitutional under Apprendi. He concedes

that this contention is foreclosed by the jurisprudence of this

court, but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court

review. See United States v. Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580, 581 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1045 (2001). The judgment is

AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York, *Respondent, v.*Walter V. *Price, Appellant.*

Appeal dismissed.
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 August 8, 2009

|Filer             | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                   | End of Comment Period                                 
|----------------- | -------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------
|MAINSTREET BANK   | * Branch       | MainStreet Bank, Herndon, Virginia, to establish a branch at 3101 N 10th St., Arlington, Virginia | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:        | Not available 
|Federal Register: | Not applicable

## 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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-4107

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

OTIS RICH, a/k/a O, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District 

Judge. (1:08-cr-00411-WDQ-5) 

Submitted: September 24, 2009 Decided: October 16, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion. 

Sicilia Chinn Englert, LAWLOR & ENGLERT, LLC, Greenbelt, 

Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States 

Attorney, Jason M. Weinstein, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Otis Rich pled guilty pursuant to a written plea 

agreement to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and 

to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 

21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). In accordance with the negotiated term 

of imprisonment detailed in the plea agreement, see Fed. R. 

Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) (permitting parties to agree to a specific 

sentence that is binding on the district court upon acceptance 

of the plea agreement), Rich was sentenced by the district court 

to 188 months’ imprisonment. 

Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which she asserts there are 

no meritorious issues for appeal but questions the adequacy of 

the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing and the reasonableness of the 

sentence. Rich was notified of his right to file a pro se 

supplemental brief, but he has not done so. The Government 

asserts that the court fully complied with Rule 11 and seeks 

dismissal of the sentencing issue based on the appeal waiver 

provision in Rich’s plea agreement. 

Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript 

of the Rule 11 hearing, we conclude that Rich knowingly and 

voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence. Further, 

because the sentencing issue raised by appellate counsel clearly 

falls within the scope of the waiver, the terms of the agreement 

2 
3 

will be enforced. Accordingly, we dismiss the sentencing issue. 

However, because the appeal waiver pertains only to Rich’s 

sentence, we have reviewed the conviction pursuant to our 

obligation under Anders. As we have found no meritorious issues 

for appeal, we affirm Rich’s conviction. 

This court requires that counsel inform her client, in 

writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the 

United States for further review. If the client requests that a 

petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition 

would be frivolous, then counsel may move this court for leave 

to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state 

that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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 IN PART;

AFFIRMED IN PART
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



The Partners
Drive Financial Services, LP:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Numbers
333-10345, 333-48671, 333-59333, 333-00623 and 33-09485) on Forms S-3 and S-8 of
FirstCity Financial Corporation, of our report dated February 15, 2002, with
respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Drive Financial Services, LP and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and February 28, 2001, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, partners' equity, and cash flows for the
periods March 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001 and August 1, 2000 through
February 28, 2001, which report appears in the December 31, 2001 annual report
on Form 10-K of FirstCity Financial Corporation. Our report refers to a change
in the method of accounting for residual interests in securitized financial
assets in 2001.



                                    KPMG LLP

Dallas, Texas
March 29, 2002