alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 48 (Tuesday, March 13, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 11364]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4537]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special 
Emphasis Panel (SEP): The National Center for Chronic Disease 
Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP) Arthritis Program 
Programmatic Review

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting.

    Time and Date: 8 a.m.-5 p.m., April 24, 2007 (Closed).
    Place: Renaissance Hotel, 590 W. Peachtree Street NW., Atlanta, 
GA 30308, telephone 404-881-6000.
    Status: The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance 
with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c) (4) and (6), Title 5 
U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis 
and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.
    Matters to be Discussed: The meeting will include the review, 
discussion, and evaluation of the NCCDPHP Arthritis Program.
    For Further Information Contact: Lee Ann B. Ramsey, Designated 
Federal Official, Division of Adult and Community Health, CDC, 4770 
Buford Hwy. NE., Mailstop K51, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone 770-488-
6036.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining 
to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and 
Disease Registry.

    Dated: March 2, 2007.
Elaine L. Baker,
Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. E7-4537 Filed 3-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
No. 42900.

#### Protest 168462-G of R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is similar to that the subject of *United States*v. *Amrein*(26 C. C. P. A. 353, C. A. D. 40). The claim at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 was therefore sustained.
No. 63152.

#### Wood, Niebuhr & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 58/16950 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
No. 50107.

#### Petition 6388-R of Sun Chong Fat (Honolulu).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

The petition was dismissed.
No. 53608.

protests 115847-K, etc. (Pittsburgh).

#### Oldetyme Distillers, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted March 31, 2009

Decided March 31, 2009

Before

     FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 08‐2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

           Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

ALAN M. JUNGELS,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 06 CR 33‐4

James B. Zagel,

Judge.

O R D E R

Alan Jungels pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement that included an

appeal waiver, to one count of distributing child pornography.  See 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1).

The district court sentenced Jungels to 240 months in prison, the statutory maximum.

Jungels filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed counsel now seek to withdraw under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), because they cannot discern a nonfrivolous basis for

appeal.  Jungels has not accepted our invitation to comment on counsel’s motion.  See CIR. R.

51(b).  Because counsel’s supporting brief is adequate, we limit our review to the potential

issues identified in the brief.  See United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973‐74 (7th Cir. 2002).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 08‐2018 Page 2

Counsel begin by telling us that Jungels does not wish to challenge his guilty plea.

So counsel appropriately refrain from discussing whether Jungels could argue that his plea

was not voluntary.  See United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 670‐71 (7th Cir. 2002).

  

Counsel consider only one potential issue: whether Jungels can challenge his

sentence.  But as counsel note, the appeal waiver forecloses any argument challenging his

sentence except a claim that the district court relied on a constitutionally impermissible

factor or that the sentence exceeded the statutory maximum.  See United States v. Lockwood,

416 F.3d 604, 608 (7th Cir. 2005); United States v. Bownes, 405 F.3d 634, 637 (7th Cir. 2005).

Neither of those issues is relevant here; thus, any argument that the court erred in imposing

Jungels’s sentence would be frivolous.

Accordingly, we GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.
# C_2007194EN.01002101.xml

| 22.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/21

---

Corrigendum to the Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to training aid

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 119 of 30 May 2007
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 119 of 30 May 2007

(2007/C 194/15)

On page 10, Aid XT 41/07, sixth row, last column,

| 1. | entry for ‘Annual overall amount’: |
| --- | --- |

1.

entry for ‘Annual overall amount’:

for:

‘EUR 208,65 million’,

read:

‘EUR 208 646,3’;

| 2. | entry for ‘Total’: |
| --- | --- |

2.

entry for ‘Total’:

for:

‘EUR 1 251,88 million’,

read:

‘EUR 1 251 877,8’.

---
#### STATE BAR OF MICHIGAN *v.*PILLON.

Suspension of attorney from practice for one year and assessment of eosts is affirmed where the ruling of a three-judge panel confirming the findings of a grievance committee appears appropriate from the record.

Reference for Points in Headnote

7 Am Jur 2d, Attorneys at Law § 12 *et seq.*

Appeal from Wayne, William F. Ager, Arthur E. Moore and Norman A. Baguley, JJ., presiding.

Submitted June 4, 1970.

(Calendar No. 13, Docket No. 52,795.)

Decided August 19, 1970.

Disbarment proceedings against Gregory M. Pillon. Order suspending defendant from practicing law in this state for one year and thereafter until such time as he shall make application for reinstatement to the bar and requiring defendant to reimburse the State Bar of Michigan for its actual and necessary expenses incurred by reason of the proceedings entered. Defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

*Louis Rosenzweig,*for the State Bar of Michigan.

*Gregory M. Pillon, in propria persona.*

Per Curiam.

The ruling of the three-judge panel confirming the findings of the grievance committee *736appears appropriate from this record. The respondent was denied no constitutional rights by the rejection of the offered evidence of similar action by other attorneys. The misconduct charged and established by the proofs, was a serious breach of the canons of ethics governing the conduct of all practitioners.

The suspension from practice for one year and the assessment of costs to partially reimburse the Bar Association for its expenses in connection with processing these grievances, is affirmed.

T. E. Brennan, C. J., and Dethmers, Kelly, Black, T. M. Kavanagh, Adams, and T. Gr. Kavanagh, JJ., concurred.
(Reap. Dec. 10764)

#### Kurt Orban Company, Inc., et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 34, etc.

(Decided June 3, 1964)

*Sharretts, Paley & Carter*for the plaintiffs.

*John*TV. *Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

LawkeNCE, Judge:

The appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in schedule A, attached to and made a part of the decision herein, present the question of the proper dutiable value of certain wire strand, imported from Japan.

By written stipulation of the parties, it has been agreed as follows:

> That the merchandise covered by the appeals to reappraisement enumerated in Schedule “A”, attached hereto and made part hereof, consist of wire strand exported from Japan during the period beginning January 1, 1959 and ending September 30, 1960; that wire strand is not identified in the Final List published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54521, effective February 27,1958; that on or immediately preceding the date of exportation of each shipment of wire strand covered by each of the appeals to reappraisement enumerated on Schedule “A”, the prices at which wire strand, such as or similar to the wire strand described on the invoices covered by the instant appeals to reappraisement were freely sold, or in the absence of sales, offered for sale in the principal market of Japan, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, was $254. per metric ton for wire strand of % inch diameter and $252. per metric ton for wire strand of %6 inch diameter (United States funds).

*580Upon tbe agreed facts of record, tbe court finds and bolds that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by tbe Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (19 U.S.C. § 1401a(b)), is the proper basis of value for tbe wire strand in issue and that said value is $254 per metric ton for wire strand of %-inch diameter and $252 per metric ton for wire strand of %6-inch diameter (United States funds). 4

Judgment will issue accordingly.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 24
- 0168 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, vs. MARTIN BRADLEY COLEMAN,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including September 25 , 202 4, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 19 2024

08/19/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0168
```

[House Report 113-144]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

113th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    113-144

======================================================================

 
      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL (H.R. 2609) MAKING 
 APPROPRIATIONS FOR ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES 
 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2014, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                _______
                                

July 8, 2013.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

               Mr. Burgess, from the Committee on Rules, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 288]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 288, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

    The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 2609, the 
Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, 2014, under an open rule. The resolution 
provides one hour of general debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Appropriations. The resolution waives all points 
of order against consideration of the bill. The resolution 
waives points of order against provisions in the bill for 
failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI. The resolution 
provides that the bill shall be considered for amendment under 
the five-minute rule. The resolution authorizes the Chair to 
accord priority in recognition to Members who have pre-printed 
their amendments in the Congressional Record. The resolution 
provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

                         EXPLANATION OF WAIVERS

    The waiver of all points of order against consideration of 
the bill includes a waiver of clause 4(c) of rule XIII, which 
prohibits consideration of a general appropriations bill 
reported by the Committee on Appropriations in the House until 
the third calendar day on which printed hearings of the 
Committee on Appropriations thereon have been available to 
Members.
    The waiver of clause 2 of rule XXI, which prohibits 
unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an 
appropriations bill, is necessary because the bill contains 
unauthorized appropriations and legislative provisions.

                                  

```
No. 41793.

#### Protests 580509-G, etc., of Oceano Shipping Co. et al. (New York).

*325Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 40880 it was held that an allowance should have been made in the weight of the cheese to compensate for the inedible covering on the outside.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v DONALD G. FLUTE, Private First Class, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

18 USCMA 187, 39 CMR 187

No. 21,703

March 14, 1969

*Lieutenant Commander E. M. Fulton, Jr.,*JAGC, USN, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel C. R. Larouche,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

We granted review in this case to determine whether Article 38(b), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 838, had been complied with. The record reflects that, at the outset, a *pro forma*inquiry was made to determine whether the accused had been advised of his rights concerning counsel as set forth in Article 38(b) of the Code.

In United States v Donohew, 18 USCMA 149, 39 CMR 149, decided March 7, 1969, we held that this type of inquiry constituted *minimal*compliance with Article 38(b). However, as we stated in *Donohew:*

> “We believe the seriousness of the situation dictates that *the record should contain the accused’s personal response to direct questions incorporating each of the elements of Article 88(h), as well as his understanding of his entitlement thereunder.*

> *“Accordingly, the record in each special or general court-martial convened more than thirty days after the date of this*[Donohew] *opinion should reflect this requirement has been met.*United States v Rinehart, 8 USCMA 402, 24 CMR 212.” [Emphasis supplied in part.]

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.
ex10-24.htm


Exhibit 10.24

 

Second Amendment to Lease Agreement

 

 

 

This Second Amendment to Lease Agreement (“Amendment”) is dated as of February 24, 2015, and amends that certain Standard Industrial/Commercial Single-Tenant Lease –Net, dated April 21, 2008 (the “Original Lease”) by and between Surgi-Vision, Inc. (whose name has been changed to MRI Interventions, Inc.), ( Lessee”), and Shaw Investment Company, LLC (“Lessor”) as further amended by that certain Amendment dated March 26, 2012. The Original Lease concerns that certain property known as 5 Musick, Irvine, California. Initially capitalized terms used and not defined herein shall have the meanings given them in the Original Lease.

 

Lessor and Lessee now desire to amend the Lease to reflect their agreement with respect to the following:

 

The current Lease term expires on September 30, 2015. Lessee wishes to extend the term of the Lease by Three (3) Years commencing October 1, 2015 and terminating September 30, 2018.

 

 

	
October 1, 2015 through September 30, 2016 
	$	7,255.92	 
	
October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2017
	 	$	7,626.12	 
	
October 1, 2017 through September 30, 2018 
	 	$	7,996.32	 


 

 

Lessor shall, at Lessor’s sole cost provide a Tenant Improvement Allowance in the amount of Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars, ($7,500.00) available to Lessee upon the submittal of invoices from a licensed general contractor and Lessor’s verification of the completion of the work. Lessee shall provide Lessor or Lessor’s representative with the scope of work to be completed. Lessee shall be required to receive approval from Lessor prior to the commencement of the work. Lessor’s approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 

 

Except as amended hereby, and in prior Amendment(s) to the Lease, the Original Lease remains in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of the Original Lease and the Amendment(s), the provisions of this Amendment shall control. This Second Amendment shall be governed by California law and may be executed in counterparts, and all counterparts shall constitute but one and the same document.

 


 

 




 


 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Lessor and Lessee have executed this Amendment as of the day first above written.

 

	
Lessor:
	
Lessee:

	
 
	
 

	
Shaw Investment Company, LLC, 
	
MRI Interventions, Inc.

	
 
	
 

	
By /s/ Charles E. Crookall           
	
By /s/ David Carlson               

	
 
	
 

	
Title Manager Date 3-10-2015          
	
Title CFO          Date 3/5/15
No. 46751.

#### Protests 886413-G, etc., of H. W. Robinson & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following *Bullocks*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 110, C. D. 441) the merchandise in question consisting of articles (not fabrics) in part of silk or -artificial silk, or both, was held not subject to countervailing duty as claimed.
Exhibit 10.1 


 


PROMISSORY NOTE


 


U.S. __________ November 1, 2014


 


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the
undersigned, Crowd 4 Seeds, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Borrower"), HEREBY PROMISES TO PAY to the order
of __________ (the "Lender"), upon demand, the principal sum of __________ U.S. Dollars ($__,___.00), which
constitutes the aggregate principal amount of the Advance (defined below) made by the Lender to the Borrower and outstanding on
the date hereof.


 


The Borrower promises to
pay interest on the unpaid principal amount of the Advance from the date of such Advance until such principal amount is paid in
full, at the rate of 4% per annum.


 


Both principal and interest
are payable in lawful money of the United States of America to the Lender, on or before December 31, 2015, at 12 Hohit St., Hod
Hasharon, Israel 45352, or such other address as the Lender may designate in writing, in same day funds, without defense, offset
or counterclaim.


 


Borrower acknowledges the
receipt of the amount of $__,___ which amount was fully loaned prior to November 1, 2014 (the "Advance").


 


The Borrower shall pay
all reasonable costs, fees and expenses (including court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees) incurred by the Lender in collecting
or attempting to collect any amount that becomes due hereunder or in seeking legal advice with respect to such collection or a
default hereunder. This Note may be prepaid at any time without penalty.


 


The Borrower, and every
guarantor and endorser hereof, hereby waive presentment, demand, notice of dishonor, protest and all other demands and notices
in connection with the delivery, acceptance, performance and enforcement of this Note.


 


This Note shall be governed
by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Nevada, without reference to conflict of laws principles.


 


THE BORROWER HEREBY WAIVES
TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY LITIGATION IN ANY COURT WITH RESPECT TO THIS NOTE OR THE ENFORCEMENT OR COLLECTION HEREOF.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
Borrower has caused this Note to be executed by its duly authorized representative as of the day and year first above written.


 


	 	Crowd 4 Seeds, Inc.	 
	 	 	 
	By:	 	 
	 	Itzhak Ostashinsky	 
	 	President
December 21, 1955

No. 59615.

protest 214610-K.

#### C. J. Tower & Sons *v.*United States,

C. D. 1733. Motion of Government for rehearing denied.
#### Archie Lloyd v. Eleanor Atwater Lloyd.

182 So. 237.

Division A.

Opinion Filed June 8, 1938.

Rehearing Denied July 1, 1938.

*Emmett Kehoe*and *Kehoe. & Kehoe,*for Appellant;

*Ross Williams,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

The appeal is from an order dismissing bill of complaint in suit instituted for the purpose of compelling defendant to pay separate maintenance to the complaining wife and which order also dismissed the cross bill of the defendant by which he sought annulment of the marriage on the ground that it was not freely and voluntarily entered into, but was the result of coercion on the *674part of an uncle of the wife and a deputy sheriff and a friend of the uncle.

The question which we are required- to determine is whether or not the record including the evidence supports the findings of the matter approved by the Chancellor and the decree based thereon.

There is some evidence of coercion, but we think that the controlling factor, as shown by the record, was that the young man had committed a grave indiscretion with the girl which resulted in her pregnancy, and that he agreed with her and her aunt that he would marry the girl to legitimatize the child, would pay the expense incident to childbirth and furnish the girl some expense money, and that after the child should be born the girl would procure a divorce at his expense.

The proof amply establishes that Lloyd was the father of the child and that he recognized his responsibility and definitely agreed with the girl and her aunt that he would marry the girl on the following Monday after the agreement with them on Saturday.

Lloyd was twnety-eight years of age and the girl’ was • twenty-three.

The girl’s aunt heard that Lloyd intended to leave the State and she told her husband, Mr. Mitchell, a police officer in Miami, about the condition -of the girl, the agreement and Lloyd’s reported intention to leave the State before complying with his agreement’. Mitchell went to Port Lauderdale, got a deputy sheriff, returned with the deputy to Hollywood where Lloyd lived. There he called on Lloyd and told Lloyd in the presence of Lloyd’s father, that he would have to go then and marry the girl or be arrested. Lloyd chose to marry her rather than be arrested. He was clearly guilty of bastardy and knew that he was. We do *675not think there was clearly sufficient coercion to constitute ground for annulment of the marriage against the Master’s and Chancellor’s findings to the contrary. So, the order should be, and is, affirmed.

So ordered.

Affirmed.

Whitfield, Terrell, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.