alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 17, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 71582]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22858]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, 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 Center for Advancing Translational 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; Botulinum Toxin Potency Assay using 
Tissue Chips.
    Date: November 20, 2023.
    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, 
National Institutes of Health, One Democracy Plaza, 6701 Democracy 
Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Rahat (Rani) Khan, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Center for Advancing 
Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Democracy Boulevard, Room 1078, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-7319, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#97fcfff6f9e5a5d7f4e4e5b9f9feffb9f0f8e1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="563d3e373824641635252478383f3e78313920">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.859, 
Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.350, 
B--Cooperative Agreements; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research 
Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 12, 2023.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-22858 Filed 10-16-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W. D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

MANUEL ROA CARTENO,

 Defendant.

Case No. 06-5125M

DETENTION ORDER

THE COURT, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3142, finds that no condition or combination

of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and/or the safety of any

other person and the community.

This finding is based on 1) the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) charged, including whether the offense is a

crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug; 2) the weight of the evidence against the person; 3) the history and characteristics of

the person including those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A)(B); and 4) the nature and seriousness of the danger release would

impose to any person or the community.

Findings of Fact/ Statement of Reasons for Detention

Presumptive Reasons/Unrebutted:

 ( ) Conviction of a Federal offense involving a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(A)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(B)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of 10+ years as prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.§801 et seq.), the

Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.§951 et seq.) Or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46

U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.)

 ( ) Convictions of two or more offenses described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(1) of two or more

State or local offenses that would have been offenses described in said subparagraphs if a circumstance giving rise to

Federal jurisdiction had existed, or a combination of such offenses.

Safety Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant is currently on probation/supervision resulting from a prior offense.

 ( ) Defendant was on bond on other charges at time of alleged occurrences herein.

 ( ) Defendant’s prior criminal history.

 ( ) 

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

 ( X ) Defendant’s lack of community ties and resources..

 ( X ) Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer.

 ( X ) Alleged use of multiple alias names and dates of birth.

 ( ) Failures to appear for past court proceedings.

 ( ) Past conviction for escape.

Order of Detention

< The defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal,

without prejudice to review..

< The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel.

< The defendant shall on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, be delivered

to a United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

 July 6, 2006.

s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-mj-05125-GHK Document 5 Filed 07/06/06 Page 1 of 1
PUBLIC LAW 106–524—NOV. 22, 2000 114 STAT. 2493

Public Law 106–524

106th Congress

An Act

To revise the boundary of Fort Matanzas National Monument, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) MAP.—The term ‘‘Map’’ means the map entitled ‘‘Fort

Matanzas National Monument’’, numbered 347/80,004 and

dated February, 1991.

(2) MONUMENT.—The term ‘‘Monument’’ means the Fort

Matanzas National Monument in Florida.

(3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary

of the Interior.

SEC. 2. REVISION OF BOUNDARY.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The boundary of the Monument is revised

to include an area totaling approximately 70 acres, as generally

depicted on the Map.

(b) AVAILABILITY OF MAP.—The Map shall be on file and available for public inspection in the office of the Director of the National

Park Service.

SEC. 3. ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL LAND.

The Secretary may acquire any land, water, or interests in

land that are located within the revised boundary of the Monument

by—

(1) donation;

(2) purchase with donated or appropriated funds;

(3) transfer from any other Federal agency; or

(4) exchange.

SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATION.

Subject to applicable laws, all land and interests in land held

by the United States that are included in the revised boundary

under section 2 shall be administered by the Secretary as part

of the Monument.

Florida.

16 USC 431 note.

Nov. 22, 2000

[S. 1670]

114 STAT. 2494 PUBLIC LAW 106–524—NOV. 22, 2000

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 1670:

SENATE REPORTS: No. 106–331 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):

Oct. 5, considered and passed Senate.

Oct. 31, considered and passed House.

Æ

SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are

necessary to carry out this Act.

Approved November 22, 2000.
Before the First Division,

November 9, 1966

No. P66/329.

#### Walker & Zanger (West Coast), Ltd. *v.*United States, protest 63/8031 (Los Angeles).

Nichols, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of polished marble slabs similar in all material respects to those the sub j ect of *Selectile Co.,*
      *829
      *Inc.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 30, C.D. 2504), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
IV

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 122

Recognizing the United States Border Patrol’s 75 years of service since

its founding.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 27, 1999

Mr. REYES submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Recognizing the United States Border Patrol’s 75 years of

service since its founding.

Whereas the Mounted Guard was assigned to the Immigration Service under the Department of Commerce and

Labor from 1904 to 1924;

Whereas the founding members of this Mounted Guard included Texas Rangers, sheriffs, and deputized cowboys

who patrolled the Texas frontier looking for smugglers,

rustlers, and people illegally entering the United States;

Whereas following the Department of Labor Appropriation

Act of May 28, 1924, the Border Patrol was established

within the Bureau of Immigration, with an initial force

of 450 Patrol Inspectors, a yearly budget of $1 million,

and $1,300 yearly pay for each Patrol Inspector, with

each patrolman furnishing his own horse;
2

•HCON 122 IH

Whereas changes regarding illegal immigration and increases

of contraband alcohol traffic brought about the need for

this young patrol force to have formal training in border

enforcement;

Whereas during the Border Patrol’s 75-year history, Border

Patrol Agents have been deputized as United States Marshals on numerous occasions;

Whereas the Border Patrol’s highly trained and motivated

personnel have also assisted in controlling civil disturbances, performing National security details, aided in foreign training and assessments, and responded with security and humanitarian assistance in the aftermath of numerous natural disasters;

Whereas the present force of over 8,000 agents, located in

146 stations under 21 sectors, is responsible for protecting more than 8,000 miles of international land and

water boundaries;

Whereas, with the increase in drug-smuggling operations, the

Border Patrol has also been assigned additional interdiction duties, and is the primary agency responsible for

drug interdiction between ports-of-entry;

Whereas Border Patrol agents have a dual role of protecting

the borders and enforcing immigration laws in a fair and

humane manner; and

Whereas the Border Patrol has a historic mission of firm

commitment to the enforcement of immigration laws, but

also one fraught with danger, as illustrated by the fact

that 86 agents and pilots have lost their lives in the line

of duty—6 in 1998 alone: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That Congress recognizes the historical sig-
3

•HCON 122 IH

1 nificance of the United States Border Patrol’s founding

2 and its 75 years of service to our great Nation.

Æ
1 Statement of the Air and Radiat ion Management Administration Maryland Department of the Environment For the Public Hearing Concerning the Implementation, Maintenance, and Enforcement of the 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard State Implementation Plan Held on July 10, 2007

Good morning. My name is Carl York. I am the Special Projects Manager of Air Quality Planning Program of the Air and Radiation Ma nagement Administration, Maryland Department of Environment (MDE).

This public hearing concerns Maryland's implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard State Implementation Plan.

This public hearing is being held pursuant to federal law found at 42 U. S. C. § 7410(a) and 40 CFR Parts 51.102 and 251. It is also being held in conformance with the State Administrative Procedure Act, under the State Government Article, beginning at Section 10-101.

Notice of this public hearing appeared in

• The Baltimore Sun on June 1, 2007

• The Washington Post on June 7, 2007, and

• the Maryland Department of the Environmen t's website on May 30, 2007 and remained on the website until today's hearing.

Copies of these notices will be submitted with the formal SIP submission package to the U.S.

EPA.

Copies of the proposed SIP were submitted for review to the State Clearinghouse and are also submitted at this time into the hearing record. Copies were also made available for public inspection on the Maryland Department of the Environment's website, at the Air and Radiation Management Administration offices in Baltimore, Cumberland, and Salisbury, and at all local health departments or local air quality control offices.

The purpose of this hearing is to provide the public with an opportunity to formally comment on the proposed SIP document.

Summary of Proposed State Implementation Plan

The purpose of this document was to examine Maryland’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) and determine if all necessary implementation, maintenance, and enforcement measures for the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) are in place. §110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act provides a detailed listing of various requirements for state implementation plans regarding the national ambient air quality standards. In this SIP document, each subparagraph2 from (A) through (M) is broken down, with various provisions supporting the requirements.

The MDE has verified its authority, through this document, to implement the NAAQS.

CONSIDERATION OF COMMENTS

The Department will consider all pertinent comments, and revise the proposed plan if necessary, before making a final decision to adopt the plan and submit it to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for approval as a Maryland State Implementation Plan (SIP).

The comment period for this SIP ends by 5 pm today.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Willadeur ALPHONSE, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-6633.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 27, 2005.

Decided Aug. 5, 2005.

Willadeur Alphonse, Appellant pro se. Benjamin H. White, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Willadeur Alphonse, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Alphonse’s motion filed pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b)(2), which the court construed as a successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider. Alphonse also appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion filed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). The orders are 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 the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Alphonse has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Alphonse’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, 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*
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

v.

MAURICE DERUFF POSEY,

Defendant. 

CASE NO.CR06-5456RBL

 

 ORDER CONTINUING 

 TRIAL DATE

On October 30, 2006, counsel for defendant was allowed to withdraw and new counsel was

appointed on October 31, 2006 . Mr. Posey had executed a speedy trial waiver during the hearing.

In order to allow new counsel the time to prepare the November 13, 2006 trial date was stricken.

The Trial Date is NOW SET for February 20, 2007 @ 9:00 a.m.

In view of the foregoing, the court finds and rules as follows:

1. Failure to grant a continuance in this matter would deny the defense the reasonable time

necessary for effective preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence. Title 18

U.S.C. §3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). 

2. The ends of justice served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the interest of the

public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Title 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(8)(A). The period of delay

resulting from this continuance from November 13, 2006 to February 20, 2007 is excluded for

speedy trial computation purposes under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) and (B) as this is a

reasonable period of delay.

Case 3:06-cr-05456-RBL Document 27 Filed 11/02/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER -2

ACCORDINGLY:

The Jury Trial is CONTINUED to FEBRUARY 20, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. 

The Motions Cutoff date is extended to JANUARY 8, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of November, 2006. ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Digitally Signed upon oral authorization (JAB)

ORDER -2

Case 3:06-cr-05456-RBL Document 27 Filed 11/02/06 Page 2 of 2
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Arkansas�forests...**
 
2005 | 2010
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.80: F 76/AR 4/
Item Number:0083-B-05 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000964064
 
May 15, 2018
No. 54443.

#### Cleveland Worsted Mills *v.*United States,

protests 148349-K, etc. (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protests were dismissed.
#### Larry Lamont BUSH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John H. PRICE, Warden; William Britton, Case Manager; Mary Chaplin-Cole, Case Manager; M. Stouffer, Warden; K. Hoffman, Case Manager, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 05-6154.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 24, 2005.

Decided: Aug. 19, 2005.

Larry Lamont Bush, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane Weber, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Larry Lamont Bush appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Bush v. Price,*No. CA-03-2264-AMD (D. *183Md. filed Jan. 13; entered Jan. 14, 2005). 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.

*AFFIRMED*