alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission*

----

# Freedom Of Information Act Reference Guide

(Issued July, 1998 by the Office of Legal Counsel)

I. Introduction

II. Access to Certain Records Without a FOIARequest

III. Where to Make a FOIA Request

IV. How to Make a FOIA Request

V. Time for Response

VI. Expedited Processing

VII. Fees

VIII. Fee Waivers

IX. Initial Request Determination

X. Appeals

XI. Judicial Review

----

*This page was last modified on January 25, 1999.*

Return to Home Page
Case 2:02-cv-04373-RB Document 109 Filed 09/12/2006 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LAURIE SWEIGARD : CIVIL ACTION

:

 vs. :

: NO. 02-CV-2755

CHOICE SERVICES INTERNATIONAL :

INC., ET. AL. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this day of October, 2002, upon

consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time for

Discovery and Related Deadlines, and it appearing to the Court

that the Motion is uncontested and that good cause exists

therefor, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED and the

deadlines established in this Court’s Scheduling Order of July 9,

2002 are EXTENDED for a period of forty-five (45) days. See,

e.g., Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b).

BY THE COURT:

 

J. CURTIS JOYNER, J. 

Case 2:02-cv-02755-JCJ Document 14 Filed 10/23/2002 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARTHA STEELE

v.

HCI DIRECT

:

: CIVIL ACTION

:

: NO. 02-4347

:

RULE 16 CONFERENCE

AND NOW, this 27th day of December, 2004, it is ORDERED, pursuant to

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16 and 26 and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 16.1, that the

parties shall meet to discuss the nature and basis of their claims and defenses, and the

possibilities for a prompt settlement or resolution of the case. It is FURTHER ORDERED that

the parties shall develop a proposed discovery plan and shall submit to the Court, on or before

February 7, 2005, a joint “Rule 16 Memorandum” that includes:

1. A proposed schedule for remaining pretrial proceedings setting forth the time limits:

 (a) to join other parties and to amend the pleadings;

 (b) to file non-dispositive motions;

 (c) to complete discovery;

 (d) to file pretrial memoranda pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3)

and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 16.1(c);

 (e) to exchange exhibits;

 (f) to exchange experts’ reports; and 

 (g) to file dispositive motions.

2. A statement on each of the following:

(a) the prospects of amicable settlement;

(b) whether all parties agree to a referral of this case to U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacob

P. Hart for trial;

(c) the estimated length of trial; 

(d) the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction; and

(e) any other matter that may facilitate the just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition

of this case.

3. A certification that all counsel have conferred and discussed each of the above matters

and approve the contents of the Rule 16 Memorandum.

Case 2:02-cv-04347-BWK Document 35 Filed 12/28/2004 Page 1 of 2
Upon review of the parties’ Rule 16 Memorandum, the Court will issue a Scheduling Order

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) setting forth the dates for the remaining

pretrial proceedings, final pretrial conference, and trial.

BY THE COURT:

 S/Bruce W. Kauffman 

BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN, J.

Case 2:02-cv-04347-BWK Document 35 Filed 12/28/2004 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SAMIR MUHAMMAD, : CIVIL ACTION

 :

v. :

 :

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, :

Commissioner of Social Security, : NO. 05-0238

ORDER

AND NOW, this 12 day of September, 2005, upon consideration of the Report th

and Recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge Peter B. Scuderi, and upon review

of the Cross Motions for Summary Judgment filed by the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

3. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

4. The decision of the Commissioner which denied disabled insurance benefits

and supplemental security income is VACATED, and this matter is REMANDED for

further proceedings consistent herewith.

BY THE COURT:

_s/Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr. ______

THOMAS N. O’NEILL, J.

Case 2:05-cv-00238-TON Document 12 Filed 09/13/05 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ROBERT JOHNSTON, et al. : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF :

PHILADELPHIA, et al. : NO. 04-4948

JUDGMENT

AND NOW, this day of December, 2005, based on

the answers of the jury to special interrogatories, it is hereby

ORDERED that:

(1) judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff Robert 

Johnston and against the defendant the School District of

Philadelphia in the amount of $571,016;

(2) the School District of Philadelphia shall 

reinstate plaintiff Robert Johnston to a position with duties,

responsibilities, and working conditions comparable to those

which he enjoyed prior to his termination on February 3, 2003 and

shall compensate Robert Johnston upon reinstatement in an amount

(including fringe benefits) equal to what he would have been paid

at this time had he not been discharged;

(3) judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff Jack 

Zubris and against the defendant the School District of

Philadelphia in the amount of $703,107;

Case 2:04-cv-04948-HB Document 76 Filed 12/16/05 Page 1 of 3
-2-

(4) the School District of Philadelphia shall 

reinstate plaintiff Jack Zubris to a position with duties,

responsibilities, and working conditions comparable to those

which he enjoyed prior to his termination on February 3, 2003 and

shall compensate Jack Zubris upon reinstatement in an amount

(including fringe benefits) equal to what he would have been paid

at this time had he not been discharged;

(5) judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff Edward 

Pilosi and against the defendant the School District of

Philadelphia in the amount of $802,170;

(6) the School District of Philadelphia shall 

reinstate plaintiff Edward Pilosi to a position with duties,

responsibilities, and working conditions comparable to those

which he enjoyed prior to his termination on February 3, 2003 and

shall compensate Edward Pilosi upon reinstatement in an amount

(including fringe benefits) equal to what he would have been paid

at this time had he not been discharged;

(7) judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff Peter 

Bracchi and against the defendant the School District of

Philadelphia in the amount of $884,085; and 

(8) judgment is entered in favor of plaintiffs Robert 

Johnston, Jack Zubris, Edward Pilosi, and Peter Bracchi and

against defendant Kimberly Sangster for zero dollars.

Case 2:04-cv-04948-HB Document 76 Filed 12/16/05 Page 2 of 3
-3-

BY THE COURT:

______________________________

J.

Case 2:04-cv-04948-HB Document 76 Filed 12/16/05 Page 3 of 3
No. 50902.

#### Protests 57712-K (A), etc., of Beckerman & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries involved.- The protests were sustained to this extent.
PROGRAM OPTIONS:

PPBDAYSOPTION = 0

TOXCURVOPTION = 0

TOXDISTOPTION = 0

COSM CONC OPT = 1

LOCMETHOD OPT = 1

MEAN OF LOGEC50S = 2.127

STDV OF LOGEC50S = 0.365

MEAN OF LOGSTEEP =-0.071

STDV OF LOGSTEEP = 0.195

ASSESSMENT PERIOD= 60

PATI VERSUS CONCENTRATION CURVE:

CONCENTRATION PATI

1 0.723

1.3 0.868

1.6 1.045

2 1.263

2.5 1.532

3.2 1.866

4 2.283

5 2.805

6.3 3.463

7.9 4.293

10 5.345

12.6 6.679

15.8 8.371

20 10.514

25.1 13.177

31.6 16.436

39.8 20.367

50.1 25.005

63.1 30.335

79.4 36.265
100 42.629

125.9 49.217

158.5 55.813

199.5 62.183

251.2 68.119

316.2 73.494

398.1 78.227

501.2 82.281

631 85.672

794.3 88.454

CUMPATI VALUES FOR EACH COSM EXPOSURE:

 COSMID 60CUMPATIEFFECT Duration

1 4794.4 1 365

2 514 1 365

3 4810.7 1 63

4 2351.1 1 365

5 3372.7 1 340

7 1866 1 56

8 2740.7 1 56

9 2841.9 1 96

10 2841.9 1 96

13 3705 1 53

14 4398.7 1 53

15 5031.1 1 53

17 295.5 1 7

18 981.9 1 12

19 1173.2 1 12

22 83.1 1 15

23 234.2 1 43

24 404.2 1 32

25 436.9 1 17

26 596.8 1 14

27 2703.9 1 30
28 112.2

1 21

29 916.21 21

30 1738.11 21

31 151.31 12

32 612.21 12

33 691.11

7

34 1572.21 21

35 2435.51 42

36 3238.91 42

37 3730.81 42

38 40971 42

39 1372.51 55

40 639.41 15

41 2470.41 360

42 3650.61 360

44 211.91 21

45 295.21

7

46 633.91

7

47 1225.61 53

48 1648.31 53

49 2488.31 53

50 1571.21 42

51 2931 12

52 543.61 63

53 151.10 30

54 1225.80 30

58 12.71 18

58b 5.41 42

59 3491 21

60 952.21 21

61 343.50 42

62 980 35

6330

7

64 19.30

7
65 12.4 0 29

66 168 0 70

67 21.9 0 14

68 14 0 20

69 201.9 0 20

70 102.5 0 20

71 4.6 0 28

72 54.9 0 28

73 156.5 0 28

75 393.5 0 30

76 39.6 0 21

77 112.2 0 21

78 556.5 1 30

79 1270.3 1 28

80 117.6 0 36

81 2040.9 1 173

82 117.3 1 23

83 576.4 0 40

84 47.2 0 40

85 576.4 1 40

86 47.2 1 40

87 371.1 1 25

88 322.1 1 7

89 70.9 1 7

90 988.9 0 25

95 411.4 0 51

96 2979 1 51

97 4799.5 1 51

98 540.2 0 42

99 1039 0 42

100 1837.1 1 42

101 2845.6 1 42

REGRESSION LOG(EC50) (STD ERR) = 2.1461(0.1734)
REGRESSION STEEPNESS (STD ERR) = 2.0803(0.5267)

REGRESSION CURVE POINTS:

1 0.0114

1.5849 0.0171

2.5119 0.0258

3.9811 0.0386

6.3096 0.0573

10 0.0844

15.8489 0.1226

25.1189 0.1748

39.8107 0.243

63.0957 0.3274

100 0.4246

158.4893 0.528

251.1886 0.6291

398.1072 0.72

630.9573 0.7958

1000 0.8552

1584.893 0.8996

2511.886 0.9314

3981.072 0.9537

6309.573 0.969

10000 0.9793

LOC FOR CUMPATI =140
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PHILADELPHIA 76ERS L.P. : CIVIL ACTION

:

 v. :

:

TRUSTMARK INSURANCE COMPANY, : NO. 04-4972

NEW JERSEY NETS BASKETBALL, LLC

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 15th day of December, 2004, defendant Trustmark

Insurance Company’s motion to stay filed November 22, 2004 is denied as moot.

 s/ EDMUND V. LUDWIG 

 Edmund V. Ludwig, J.

Case 2:04-cv-04972-EL Document 20 Filed 12/15/2004 Page 1 of 1

PHILADELPHIA 76ERS L.P. v. TRUSTMARK INSURANCE COMPANY et al Doc. 20

Dockets.Justia.com
No. 48410.

#### Protests 686011-G, etc., of A. D. Cohen Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain items consist of 8-bu. hats valued at less than $3 per dozen, similar to the harvest hats involved in *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664). The claim at 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) was therefore sustained as to this item.
No. 58443.

protests 215792-K, etc. (New York).

#### J & J Distributing Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the merchandise, facts, and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that 4 cases of alcoholic beverages from the entry involved in protest No. 215792-K, 6 cases of wine from the entry involved in protest No. 199784-K, and 1 case of alcoholic beverages from the entry involved in protest No. 215822-K, reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importers. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty and internal revenue tax are not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protests were sustained to this extent.
i i i i i i



## MEMORANDUM OPI NIO N No. 04-10-00549- CR IN RE J onathan MIMS Orig inal Mandamus Proce eding 1 

### PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: Aug ust 11, 2010 PETI TI ON F OR WR I T OF MANDAMUS DEN I ED On J uly 27, 2010, rela tor J onathan Mims filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial court’s failure to r ule on his pro se motion for speedy trial. Howeve r, counsel has been appointed to repr esent r el ator in the criminal proce eding pending in the t rial court for which he is
curr ently confine d. A criminal defe ndant is not entitled to hy brid repr esenta tion. See R obinson v

. State , 240 S.W .3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Patrick v. State , 906 S.W .2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). A t rial cour t has no leg al duty

to rule on a pro se motion filed with reg ard to a criminal proc eeding in w hich the defe ndant is r epre sented by counsel. See Robinson , 240 S.W .3d at 922. Consequently , the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to rule on rela tor’s pro

1 ... T h i s p r o c e e d i n g a r i s e s o u t o f C a u s e N o . 2 0 0 8
- C R
- 7 1 8 0 , s t y l e d S t a t e o f T e x a s v . J o n a t h a n M i m s , p e n d i n g i n t h e 4 3 7 t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t , B e x a r C o u n t y , T e x a s , t h e H o n o r a b l e L o r i V a l e n z u e l a p r e s i d i n g .0 4
- 1 0
- 0 0 5 4 9
- C R



### se motion filed in the criminal proce eding pending in the trial court. Acc ording ly , the petition is denied. T E X 

### . R. A P P 

### . P. 52.8(a)
. PER C URI AM DO NOT PUBL I SH

- 2
-
<PAGE>





                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
                TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Flagstar Capital Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark T.
Hammond, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the
best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


Dated:  May 9, 2003                        by:      /s/ Mark T. Hammond

                                                     Mark T. Hammond
                                                     President and
                                                     Chief Executive Officer




                                       14
Before the First Division,

August 11, 1949

No. 53477.

petition 6676-R (New York).

#### Agash Refining Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

The petition was dismissed.
Dollar Amount % of Total Dollar Amount Number of Transactions % of Total Number of Transactions

Fiduciary (Investment & Borrowing) 15,464,276,514,592 99.66% 12,187 12.26%

Buy/Sell 47,634,460,176 0.31% 85,853 86.38%

Benefits (RITS) 5,505,449,475 0.04% 426 0.43%

Check Aftermath (TRACS) 78,274,689 0.00% 924 0.93%

Zero Dollar 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

Grand Total - August 2017 15,517,494,698,932 100.00% 99,390 100.00%

Grand Total - July 2017 15,889,416,398,896 100.00% 104,457 100.00%

July to August Change -371,921,699,964 -5,067

Percentage Change -2.341% -4.851%

Grand Total - August 2016 15,730,275,205,698 96,674

August 2016 to August 2017 Change -212,780,506,767 2,716

Percentage Change -1.4% 2.8%

IPAC Operational Metrics for November 2017

Volume by Transaction Type
##### 



Exhibit
10.13
 THIRD AMENDMENT
TO
LOAN AGREEMENT
 Amendment _20th___ Borrower Bank
  Loan Agreement
     Conditions Precedent
  Exhibit
A
 Exhibit
B




---



##### 



Amendments
 The Loans Section 1.1
 The Notes Section 1.2
 Dividends and Distributions Section 4.14
 Dividends and Distributions provided provided further
 Total Capital Base Section 4.15
 Deposit Accounts Section 4.18
 Annual Cleanup Section 4.19
 Representations; No Default
 2




---



##### 



Unmatured Event of Default
 Reaffirmation of Pledge Agreement Loan Documents
 Affirmation, Further References
 Merger and Integration, Superseding Effect
 Severability
 3




---



##### 



Successors
 Costs and Expenses
 Headings
 Counterparts
 Governing Law
 No Waiver
 
 4




---



##### 



BORROWER:
    
    WESTERN RESERVE BANCORP, INC.,an Ohio corporationBy: /s/ Edward J. McKeonPrinted Name: Edward J. McKeonIts: PresidentBy: /s/ Cynthia A. MahlPrinted Name: Cynthia A. MahlIts: Senior Vice PresidentBANK:
    
    TCF NATIONAL BANK,a national banking associationBy: /s/ Guy J. RauPrinted Name: Guy J. RauIts: Senior Vice PresidentBy: /s/ Jeffrey FryPrinted Name: Jeffrey FryIts: Commercial Loan Officer




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A
 AMENDED AND RESTATED
PROMISSORY NOTE
 $3,000,000
    
    July 20, 2006
 Borrower Bank Loan Loans
   Default Rate
 Base Rate
   Loan Agreement




---



##### 



WESTERN RESERVE BANCORP, INC.By: /s/ Edward J. McKeonTitle: PresidentandBy: /s/ Cynthia A. MahlTitle: Senior Vice President




---



##### 



EXHIBIT B
 AMENDED AND RESTATED
PROMISSORY NOTE
 $1,000,000
    
    July 20, 2006
 Borrower Bank Loan Loans
   Default Rate
 Base Rate
   Loan Agreement




---



##### 



WESTERN RESERVE BANCORP, INC.By: /s/ Edward J. McKeonTitle: PresidentandBy: /s/ Cynthia A. MahlTitle: Senior Vice President
#### McGUIRE OIL COMPANY, Berwick Oil Company, Inc., and Diamond Gasoline Stations Inc., Plaintiffs-Counterclaim-Defendants-Appellants, Cross-Appellees, v. MAPCO, INC., Defendant-Counterclaim-Plaintiff-Appellee, Mapco Petroleum, Inc., d/b/a “Western,” Defendant-Counterclaim-Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant.

No. 91-7235.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

March 19, 1993.

*445W. Dennis Summers, Ezra B. Jones, III, Summers & Jones, P.C., Atlanta, GA, for appellant.

Alphonse M. Alfano, Roy F. Dunshee, Bassman, Mitchell & Alfano, Chartered, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae The Petroleum Marketers Assoc. of America.

Richard A. Feinstein, McKenna & Cuneo, Washington, DC, J.P. Courtney, III, Wesley Pipes, Lyons, Pipes & Cook, P.C., Mobile, AL, for appellee.

Before KRAVITCH, ANDERSON and BIRCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In *McGuire Oil Co. v. Mapco, Inc.,*763 F.Supp. 1103 (S.D.Ala.1991), the district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiffs’ claim under the Alabama Motor Fuel Marketing Act (AMFMA) and in favor of plaintiffs on defendants’ antitrust and unfair trade practices counterclaim. *Id.*at 1106-10. The court also denied plaintiffs’ motion for Rule 11 sanctions. On appeal, we affirmed the district court on all issues except plaintiffs’ AMFMA claim. *McGuire Oil Co. v. Mapco, Inc.,*958 F.2d 1552, 1554 (11th Cir. 1992). With respect to that issue, we certified to the Alabama Supreme Court several questions of state law. *Id.*at 1564.1 On December 18, 1992, the Alabama Supreme Court answered our certified questions, holding, among other things, that injury to competitors is sufficient, and, accordingly, injury to competition is not necessary, to establish liability under AMFMA. *McGuire Oil Co. v. Mapco, Inc.,*612 So.2d 417 (Ala.1992). Because the district court had granted summary judgment for defendants on the ground that plaintiffs could not prove injury to competition, *see McGuire Oil Co.,*763 F.Supp. at 1109, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and with the opinion of the Alabama Supreme Court.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

1

. The certified questions were as follows:

> (1) DOES THE AMFMA REQUIRE INJURY TO COMPETITION AS A PREREQUISITE TO LIABILITY UNDER THAT ACT, OR DOES INJURY TO COMPETITORS SUFFICE TO ESTABLISH SUCH LIABILITY?

> (2) IF INJURY TO COMPETITION RATHER THAN TO COMPETITORS IS A PREREQUISITE TO LIABILITY UNDER THE AMFMA, WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE OF A DEFENDANT’S MARKET SHARE IN DETERMINING THE EXISTENCE OF INJURY TO COMPETITION?

> (3) IS LACK OF INTENT TO INJURE COMPETITION AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, PERMITTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THAT ISSUE UNDER THE AMFMA?

> (4) CAN A DEFENDANT UNDER THE AMFMA INVOKE THE “MEETING COMPETITION” DEFENSE CONTAINED IN SECTION 8 OF THAT STATUTE WHEN THE DEFENDANT PRICES MOTOR FUEL ONE TO TWO CENTS BELOW THE PRICE SET BY ITS COMPETITORS?
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 221 (Friday, November 17, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 80321]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25472]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Establishment of the Board of Scientific Counselors, Division of 
Translational Toxicology, National Institute of Environmental Health 
Sciences

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 
U.S.C. 1001-1014), the Director, National Institutes of Health (NIH) 
announces the establishment of the Board of Scientific Counselors, 
Division of Translational Toxicology, National Institute of 
Environmental Health Sciences, as authorized by 42 U.S.C. 282(b)(16), 
section 402(b)(16) of the Public Health Service Act, as amended.
    The Director, NIH, has determined that the Board of Scientific 
Counselors, Division of Translational Toxicology, National Institute of 
Environmental Health Sciences is in the public interest in connection 
with the performance of duties imposed on NIH by law, and that these 
duties can best be performed through the advice and counsel of the 
committee.
    The committee will review and evaluate the intramural program and 
the work of tenured, tenure track, and staff scientists and physicians 
and shall also, as requested by the Director, NIH, undertake peer 
review of extramural funding applications as required by section 492 of 
the Public Health Service Act, as amended.
    Inquiries may be directed to Claire Harris, Director, Office of 
Federal Advisory Committee Policy, Office of the Director, National 
Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 1000, Bethesda, 
Maryland 20892 (Mail code 4875), Telephone (301) 496-2123, or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1f5c737e766d7a31577e6d6d766c5f71767731787069"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="66250a070f1403482e0714140f1526080f0e48010910">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: November 13, 2023.
Monica M. Bertagnolli,
Director, National Institutes of Health.
[FR Doc. 2023-25472 Filed 11-16-23; 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>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 v.

JOSE ANTONIO SANTIAGO

:

:

:

:

:

CRIMINAL ACTION

No. 05-32-03

ORDER

AND NOW, this 29th day of January, 2021, upon consideration of Defendant Jose Antonio 

Santiago’s Motion to Reduce Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and the

Government’s opposition, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum, it is 

ORDERED the Motion (Document 348) is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Juan R. Sánchez 

Juan R. Sánchez, C.J. 

Case 2:05-cr-00032-JS Document 359 Filed 01/29/21 Page 1 of 1