alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 31159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14311]


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

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, notice is hereby given of the following meeting of the Center 
for Inherited Disease Research Access Committee.
    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: Center for Inherited Disease Research Access 
Committee.
    Date: July 20, 2018.
    Time: 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Room 
3049, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Barbara J. Thomas, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Human Genome Research 
Institute, National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Ste. 
4076, MSC 9306, Bethesda, MD 20892-9306, 301-402-0838, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#05676477676477642b716d6a686476456b6c6d2b626a73"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9af8fbe8f8fbe8fbb4eef2f5f7fbe9daf4f3f2b4fdf5ec">[email protected]</span></a>.

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

    Dated: June 27, 2018.
Sylvia L. Neal,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-14311 Filed 7-2-18; 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>
#### Ralph A. BUCHMAN, Petitioner, v. STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY, State of Florida, Respondent.

No. 41106.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 14, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 245 So.2d 888.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
# Official Journal C 149/2015

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 149 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 586 May 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 149

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 586 May 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions |
| | RECOMMENDATIONS |
| | European Central Bank |
| 2015/C 149/01 | Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 27 March 2015 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of the Deutsche Bundesbank (ECB/2015/14) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

RECOMMENDATIONS

European Central Bank

2015/C 149/01

Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 27 March 2015 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of the Deutsche Bundesbank (ECB/2015/14)

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 149/02 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2015/C 149/02

Euro exchange rates

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 149/03 | Call for proposals and related activities under the 2015 work plan of the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen 2 Joint Undertaking | 3 |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 149/04 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7551 — Advent/Hypo Group Alpe Adria AG) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 4 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2015/C 149/03

Call for proposals and related activities under the 2015 work plan of the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen 2 Joint Undertaking

3

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2015/C 149/04

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7551 — Advent/Hypo Group Alpe Adria AG) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

4

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Stefan Rainer Forkert, * From the 238th District Court

 of Midland County

Trial Court No. CR47750.

Vs. No. 11-16-00279-CR * October 4, 2018

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Simmons, F.J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Simmons, F.J., sitting by assignment, 

and Wright, S.C.J., sitting by 

assignment)

 (Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there 

is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7373

DEREK HALE, Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
EARL BESHEARS; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA96-2952-DKC) Submitted: December 11, 1997 Decided: December 31, 1997 Before HALL and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Derek Hale, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, David Jonathan Taube, Assistant Attorney General, AnnNorman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant that the failure to file timely objections to the recommendation could waive appellate review of a district courtorder based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge's finding and recommendations and instead simply asserted that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, was inapplicable and that the requirement that Appellant assert the same claim in his petition that he presented in state court is too burdensome on him. Accordingly, the district court was not required to conduct a de novo review of the record. See Orpiano v. Johnson , 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when theparties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985); see also Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce , 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). Appellant has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections3 after receiving proper notice. We accordingly deny a certificate ofappealability 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
House Calendar No. 47

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 192

[Report No. 103–118]

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2348)

and for other purposes.for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994,making appropriations for the Legislative Branch

JUNE 9, 1993

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
IV

House Calendar No. 47

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 192

[Report No. 103–118]

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2348) making appropriations

for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30,

1994, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 9, 1993

Mr. FROST, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following resolution;

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2348) making

appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal

year ending September 30, 1994, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this

2 resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of

3 rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee

4 of the Whole House on the State of the Union for consid5 eration of the bill (H.R. 2348) making appropriations for

6 the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending Septem7 ber 30, 1994, and for other purposes. The first reading
2

HRES 192 RH

1 of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order

2 against consideration of the bill are waived. General de3 bate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one

4 hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and

5 ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropria6 tions. After general debate the bill shall be considered for

7 amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be consid8 ered as read. Points of order under clause 2 or 6 of rule

9 XXI against provisions in the bill are waived except as

10 follows: beginning on page 31, line 20, through page 32,

11 line 2. No amendment shall be in order except those print12 ed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying

13 this resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in

14 the order printed, may be offered only by the named pro15 ponent or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall

16 be debatable for the time specified in the report equally

17 divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,

18 shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be sub19 ject to a demand for division of the question in the House

20 or in the Committee of the Whole. Points of order under

21 clause 2 of rule XXI against amendments printed in the

22 report are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of

23 the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and re24 port the bill to the House with such amendments as may

25 have been adopted. The previous question shall be consid-
3

HRES 192 RH

1 ered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to

2 final passage without intervening motion except one mo3 tion to recommit.
#### JACOB PRICKETT *vs.*ABNER HERRING.

*Quere.*Will not the court order up the original record of a justice of the peace, when upon a certiorari it is alledged that the record sent up is not the true record?

And has not the court power to punish for an improper alteration of the record?

Certiorari to Justice Walston. Record returned. Exceptions filed.

The plaintiff below alledged diminution, and had an order for a further return; on the coming in of which, it appeared to the court that all the exceptions were met.

*Bates,*for plaintiff b.

*Smithers,*for defendant b.

*Smithers,*for the defendant below,

moved an order on the justice to bring up the original record; upon an allegation that the record had been changed after the certiorari was taken: and he exhibited two transcripts, one taken before, and the other after the certiorari, differing from each other, and both differing from the record.

*The Court*

were inclined to make the order, with a view to exam- • inc, and if necessary to correct or punish, the misconduct of the justice of the peace, under the act of 1760, *Dig.*104; but it afterwards appearing that the justice who made the return was out of office, and the records in the hands of a successor, it was apparent that such an order was useless for this purpose.
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Boy Elijah O’STEEN, Appellee.

No. M-106.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 13, 1970.

*444Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and J. Christian Meffert, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

A. C. Soud, Jr., Jacksonville, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is another of the consolidated cases heard by this court on appeal between the same parties, and the applicable law is governed by our opinion entered this same term, as State v. O’Steen, our case no. M-91, 238 So.2d 434. The facts in this particular case, however, reveal that some of the property stolen consisted of golf clubs, and a clothes hamper, as well as a tool box and tools. The motion to suppress the evidence as to the tool box and tools is reversed.

As to the golf clubs and clothes hamper, the record on appeal does not indicate why the arresting officers had reason to believe the same were stolen, and therefore we cannot determine whether the search and seizure was reasonable or not and the order suppressing the same is set aside as to these items and the trial court directed to take further testimony to determine the question, in the light of our decision rendered this day in our case No. M-91, and to enter his order thereon accordingly.

JOHNSON, C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
#### Cleo B. MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carl YOUNG and Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13339.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Sept. 26, 1977.

En Banc. Rehearing Denied Oct. 31, 1977.

Writ Refused Dec. 14, 1977.

*977Ford E. Stinson, Benton, for plaintiff-appellant.

Cook, Clark, Egan, Yancey & King by Herschel E. Richard, Jr., Shreveport, for defendants-appellees.

Before BOLIN, HALL and MARVIN, JJ.

BOLIN, Judge.

While a house guest of defendant, plaintiff fell and broke his hip. Alleging that his injuries were caused by defendant’s negligence, he sued his host and the latter’s homeowner’s insurer. The trial court rejected plaintiff’s demands and he appeals. We affirm.

> In written reasons the trial judge stated: “In the opinion of the Court, the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant was guilty of any negligence. On the contrary, the evidence establishes that the plaintiff’s fall and resulting injury was caused by the combination of his own physical frailty plus the fact that he had consumed a considerable quantity of alcohol that evening.”

Since there is sufficient evidence to support the findings of the trial court, the judgment should be and is affirmed at appellant’s cost. *Canter v. Koehring Company,*283 So.2d 716 (La.1973).
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.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - 47 CFR Part 54

### CFR Correction

 In Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 40 to 69, revised as of October 1, 2017, on page 206, in § 54.507, the second paragraph (f) is removed.

[FR Doc. 2018-14186 Filed 6-29-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 1301-00-D
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                      5
<CIK>                          0000040643
<NAME>                         FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
<CURRENCY>                     U.S. DOLLARS
       

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                 JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                   SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                1
<CASH>                         1,201
<SECURITIES>                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                  19,324
<ALLOWANCES>                   2,579
<INVENTORY>                    25,778
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               48,692
<PP&E>                         32,009
<DEPRECIATION>                 19,301
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 100,714
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          10,574
<BONDS>                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>          0

<PREFERRED>                    0
<COMMON>                       1,364
<OTHER-SE>                     46,075
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   100,714
<SALES>                        29,215
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               29,215
<CGS>                          16,519
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  16,519
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               10,180
<LOSS-PROVISION>               21
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>             721
<INCOME-PRETAX>                1,795
<INCOME-TAX>                   863
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            932
<DISCONTINUED>                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                0
<CHANGES>                      0
<NET-INCOME>                   932
<EPS-PRIMARY>                  .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                  .24
        

</TABLE>
#### Rose J. HENDERSON v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO. et al.

No. 60214.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 23, 1977.

In re: Rose J. Henderson applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 346 So.2d 816.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1996
<CASH>                                       2,520,737
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  175,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,699,424
<PP&E>                                          93,188
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,845,951
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           85,114
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        14,848
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,684,989
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,845,951
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               246,355
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               208,261
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 64,082
<INCOME-TAX>                                       300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             63,782
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 25,988
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    63,782
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00
        

</TABLE>
263 La. 95

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. William RILEY v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 52842.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 17, 1972.

In re: William Riley applying for writ of habeas corpus and/or mandamus

Writs denied. In view of the written reasons by the trial judge the showing made does not warrant the exercise of our original or supervisory jurisdiction.

BARHAM, J.,

is of the opinion the writ should be granted. See Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed. 2d 274.

TATE, J.,

dissents.

In the absence of a contemporaneous recording, the conclusion-ary statement in the minutes at the time of the plea of guilty that the Boykin interroT gation was conducted does not justify the *208denial of an evidentiary hearing on the petitioner’s allegations that no such interrogation took place and that the minutes’ general allegations are not correct.

DIXON, J., dissents from refusal.
#### SALISBURY *v.*CITY OF DETROIT.

1. Taxation — Remedy to Recover. Illegal Taxes Paid.

Remedy to recover illegal taxes paid is in assumpsit for money had and received.

2. Equity — Jurisdiction—Multiplicity op Suits.

Existence of number of independent actions at law does not constitute multiplicity of suits which confers equitable jurisdiction.

Appeal from Wayne; Sample (George W.), J., presiding.

Submitted January 26, 1932.

(Calendar No. 36,277.)

Decided April 4, 1932.

Bill by William Salisbury and others against the City of Detroit, a municipal, corporation, and another to recover special paving assessments, on an invalid assessment. From order .transferring cause to law side of court, plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

*James F. Lane (Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, John C. Spaulding,*and *George W. Bourke,*of counsel), for plaintiffs.

*Paul T. Dwyer (Clarence E. Wilcox,*of counsel), for defendants.

Fead, J.

This is a bill in chancery by- a large number of separate owners of land to recover special paving assessments, paid by them individually, on an assessment held void in *Miller*v. *City of Detroit,*244 Mich. 38. Among others, defendants, pleaded the defenses of the statute of limitations and ade*236quate remedy at law. The court entered an order transferring the case to the law side of the court for trial.

The remedy to recover illegal taxes paid is in assumpsit for money had and received. *Blanchard*v. *City of Detroit,*253 Mich. 491, does not change the remedy. The bill there alleged a cause for injunctive relief, and, under familiar rule, the court disposed of the whole controversy. The existence of a number of independent actions at law does not constitute the multiplicity of suits which confers equitable jurisdiction. *Youngblood*v. *Sexton,*32 Mich. 406 (20 Am. Rep. 654).

Order affirmed, with costs.

. Clark, C. J., and Potter, Sharpe, North, Wibst, and Btjtzel, JJ., concurred. McDonald, J., did not sit.