alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting Microbiology, Infectious Diseases and AIDS Initial Review Group Microbiology and Infectious Diseases B Subcommittee.

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:*                         Microbiology, Infectious Diseases and AIDS Initial Review Group; Microbiology and Infectious Diseases B Subcommittee MID-B September Review Meeting.                    

*Date:*                         September 25-26, 2018.                    

*Time:*                         9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Ellen S. Buczko, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program Division of Extramural Activities, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616 Bethesda, MD 20892-7616, 301-451-2676,                         *ebuczko1@niaid.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: August 30, 2018.

Natasha M. Copeland, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2018-19317 Filed 9-5-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William LaConte, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered June 1, 1988, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts) under Indictment No. 8448/86, upon a jury verdict, and from two judgments of the same court, both rendered June 23, 1988, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts, one each as to Indictment Nos. 1679/88 and 1713/88), upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

We find unpersuasive the defendant’s contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Although the defendant’s counsel did not move to suppress the identification testimony of the complaining witnesses based on a station house showup, that failure does not in itself establish the ineffective assistance of counsel *(see, People v Belgrave,*143 AD2d 103; *People v White,*137 AD2d 859). In this case, the record demonstrates that such a challenge to the admissibility of the evidence would have proved unavailing *(see, People v Boero,*117 AD2d 814), since, given the fact that the complainants had known the defendant for at least two years, the showup identification was for confirmatory purposes, and the issue of suggestive procedures would therefore not arise *(see, People v Vasquez,*141 AD2d 880; *People v Belgrave, supra).*

Similarly, trial counsel’s strategy and tactics, while ultimately unsuccessful, were reasonable and do not sustain the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel *(see generally, People v Satterfield,*66 NY2d 796; *People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137; *People v Sullivan,*153 AD2d 223).

Furthermore, we find that the sentences imposed were not unduly harsh or excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Eiber, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Juan Gonzalez, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rienzi, J.), rendered May 4, 1988, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Lawrence, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
----

Amendment by France of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services within Guyana

(2005/C 83/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

ANNEX

Essential products

Wheat flour type 45

High-quality pasta

Rice, preprocessed

Rice, not preprocessed

Wheat meal

Dried vegetables (all)

Vegetable preserves

Meat preserves

Fish preserves

Precooked preserved foods

Fish, dried or smoked

Cured meats

Sugars

Fine salt

Coarse salt

Chocolate bars

Cocoa, unsweetened

Jams

Bottled water

Long-life milk

Powdered milk

Butter

Margarine

Oils

Frozen meat and fish

----
No. 00-7378.

#### Farrar v. Bayer, Director, Nevada Department of Prisons, et al.

Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.
## R e q u e s t f

o r I n f o r m a t i o n

­ F A

A

­ 2 0 1 5

­ 1 1 7 2

9

­ A W A

­ A V S

­ 3 3 3 E x e m p t i o n s ( F A

A )

S e n t : W e d n e s d a y

, J u l y 2 2

, 2 0 1 5 4 : 3 1 P M

T o : i n f o @ a r c h a n g e l d r o n e v i d e o g r a p h y

. c o m

D e a r M s

. G h a b r i a l l :

T h i s l e t t e r i s t o i n f o r m y o u t h a t t h e f

o l l o w i n g i n f

o r m a t i o n i s m i s s i n g f r o m y

o u r p e t i t i o n ( D o c k

e t N o

. F A A

­ 2 0 1 5

­ 1 1 7 2 )

. T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i s n e c e s s a r y f

o r t h e F e d e r a l A v i a t i o n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ( F A A ) t o p r o c e s s y o u r p e t i t i o n

.

P r o v i d e a c o p y o f t h e M o t i o n P i c t u r e a n d T e l e v i s i o n O p e r a t i o n s M a n u a l ( M P T O M ) w h i c h i s r e q u i r e d b y O r d e r

8 9 0 0

. 1

, V o l u m e 3

, C h a p t e r 8

, S e c t i o n 1

. I f y o u w i s h f o r u s t o p r o c e e d w i t h o u t t h i s m a n u a l a n d r e m o v e

c l o s e d

‐ s e t f i l m i n g f r o m y

o u r p r o p o s e d o p e r a t i o n p l e a s e i n f o r m o f u s o f y

o u r i n t e n t i o n b y t h e r e q u e s t e d

r e s p o n s e d a t e l i s t e d b e l o w

.

P l e a s e s u b m i t t h e a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n ( n o n

‐ p r o p r i e t a r y ) t o y o u r d o c k e t a t w w w

. r e g u l a t i o n s

. g o v a n d s u b m i t a n y

p r o p r i e t a r y i n f

o r m a t i o n t o t h e F A A H e a d q u a r t e r s o r e l e c t r o n i c a l l y v i a e m a i l t o 3 3 3 e x e m p t i o n s @ f a a

. g o v

. I f y

o u w a n t

u s t o p r o c e s s y

o u r r e q u e s t a n y f u r t h e r

, w e m u s t r e c e i v e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n d e s c r i b e d a b o v

e b y 8 / 5 / 1 5

. I f w e d o n o t

r e c e i v e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n

, w e w i l l c l o s e t h e d o c k e t w i t h o u t n o t i f

y i n g y o u f u r t h e r

.

I f y o u h a v e a n y q u e s t i o n s

, p l e a s e f

e e l f r e e t o c o n t a c t m e a t ( 2 0 2 ) 2 6 7

­ 4 2 6 4

.

S i n c e r e l y ,

D a n N g o

F A A O f f i c e o f R u l e m a k i n g
# C_2015093EN.01002201.xml

| 20.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/22

---

Notice concerning a request pursuant to Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU

Request made by a Contracting Entity

(2015/C 93/11)

On 16 January 2015 the Commission received a request in accordance with Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement procedures by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (1). The first working day following receipt of the request is 19 January 2015.

1

This request is made by Flughafen Wien and concerns activities relating to the exploitation of a geographical area for the purposes of provision of airports or other terminal facilities to carriers by air on the territory of Austria. Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU provides that the later Directive is not applicable when the relevant activity is directly exposed to competition in markets to which access is not restricted. These conditions are evaluated solely for the purposes of Directive 2014/25/EU and are without prejudice to the application of competition rules or other fields of EU policies.

Pursuant to letter (b) of first paragraph, of point 1 of Annex IV to Directive 2014/25/EU, the Commission is allowed a period of 130 working days to take a decision on this request, commencing on the working day referred to above. The period therefore expires on 30 July 2015.

---

(1)  OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 243.

1

---
#### People v Rennie Washington.

Motion for reargument of this Court’s order (163 AD2d 20) entered on July 3, 1990, which motion is deemed an application in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis and for other relief, denied in its entirety. Concur—Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Ross and Smith, JJ.
----

----

----

I Comunicaciones

Comisión

----

CATÁLOGO COMÚN DE VARIEDADES DE ESPECIES DE PLANTAS AGRÍCOLAS

Segundo suplemento a la vigesimotercera edición integral

(2005/C 104 A/01)

SUMARIO

NOTAS EXPLICATIVAS

I

1.BETA VULGARIS L.

2.BETA VULGARIS L.

II

5.AGROSTIS STOLONIFERA L.

6.AGROSTIS CAPILLARIS L.

7.ALOPECURUS PRATENSIS L.

8.ARRHENATHERUM ELATIUS (L.) P. BEAUV., EX J.S. ET K.B. PRESL.

12.DACTYLIS GLOMERATA L.

13.FESTUCA ARUNDINACEA SCHREBER

14.FESTUCA OVINA L.

15.FESTUCA PRATENSIS HUDSON

16.FESTUCA RUBRA L.

17.LOLIUM MULTIFLORUM LAM.

18.LOLIUM PERENNE L.

19.LOLIUM × BOUCHEANUM KUNTH

21.PHLEUM BERTOLONII DC.

22.PHLEUM PRATENSE L.

26.POA PRATENSIS L.

30.LOTUS CORNICULATUS L.

32.LUPINUS ANGUSTIFOLIUS L.

33.LUPINUS LUTEUS L.

35.MEDICAGO SATIVA L.

37.ONOBRYCHIS VICIIFOLIA SCOP.

38.PISUM SATIVUM L. (PARTIM)

39.TRIFOLIUM ALEXANDRINUM L.

40.TRIFOLIUM HYBRIDUM L.

42.TRIFOLIUM PRATENSE L.

43.TRIFOLIUM REPENS L.

46.VICIA FABA L. (PARTIM)

48.VICIA SATIVA L.

53.RAPHANUS SATIVUS L. VAR. OLEIFORMIS PERS.

III

55.BRASSICA RAPA L. VAR. SILVESTRIS (LAM.) BRIGGS

57.BRASSICA NAPUS L. (PARTIM)

59.CANNABIS SATIVA L.

62.GOSSYPIUM SPP.

63.HELIANTHUS ANNUUS L.

64.LINUM USITATISSIMUM L.

65.PAPAVER SOMNIFERUM L.

66.SINAPIS ALBA L.

67.GLYCINE MAX (L.) MERRILL

IV

68.AVENA SATIVA L.

69.HORDEUM VULGARE L.

70.ORYZA SATIVA L.

72.SECALE CEREALE L.

73.SORGHUM BICOLOR (L.) MOENCH

76.× TRITICOSECALE WITTM.

77.TRITICUM AESTIVUM L. EMEND. FIORI ET PAOL.

78.TRITICUM DURUM DESF.

80.ZEA MAYS L.

V

81.SOLANUM TUBEROSUM L.

----

(1)DO C 46 A de 22.2.2005, p. 1. Catálogo cuya última modificación la constituye el primer suplemento (DO C 86 A de 8.4.2005, p. 1).

(2)DO L 193 de 20.7.2002, p. 1. Directiva cuya última modificación la constituye el Reglamento (CE) no 1829/2003 del Parlamento Europeo y el Consejo (DO L 268 de 18.10.2003, p. 1).

----
Supplemental Instructions

DFAS R&A Pay 

DD Form 2656-10 

SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN (SBP)/RESERVE COMPONENT (RC) 

SBP REQUEST FOR DEEMED ELECTION 

When to use this form: 

The SBP Request for Deemed Election (DD2656-10) form should be used by former spouses of 

members wishing to make a claim for Survivor Benefit coverage under the member’s retirement 

plan. In order make such a claim successfully, in addition to filing the form, the former spouse must 

show the election is being made pursuant to a court order or an agreement previously made and 

ratified by a court order. In addition, this form must be filed within one year of the end of the former 

spouse’s marriage with the member. 

To complete the DD 2656-10, please follow the instructions below. Carefully read and complete all 

information as requested, and be sure to include any required documentation with your submission. 

Instructions by Section

Section Instructions Reminders and Tips 

I Please complete Member’s: 

1. Name

2. Social security number

3. Branch of Service,

a. Please indicate in #3(b) whether the member

is currently Active Military, Reserve or

National Guard

4. Is the member retired: a. Indicate Yes/No

5. Date of Retirement if Applicable

Please note, that the Member name 

must match name on court order or 

written agreement used in Section 

III 

II Please enter your: 

6. Name

7. Social security number

8. Address and

9. Date of birth

10. Marriage history including:

a. Date of your marriage to the member,

b. Date of your divorce from the member

c. Currently Married:

i. Indicate Yes/No

d. Date of Current Marriage if Applicable

Please note your name and date of 

the divorce must appear on the court 

order or agreement. The date of 

divorce must be within one year of 

filing this form. 
Supplemental Instructions

DFAS R&A Pay 

III Authority to Request Deemed SBP Election: 

11. Indicate Yes or No (if Yes provide applicable court

order)

12. Indicate Yes or No

13. If Yes for #12:

a. Please indicate Yes or No

Please note that if you answer no to 

both 11 and 12, you are not eligible 

to request a deemed SBP election. 

IV 14. If your child(ren) are covered in the court order or

agreement, please list their:

a. Name(s)

b. Birth date(s)

c. Social security number(s)

d. Relationship(s) to the member

e. Disabled (Yes or No)

15. Please use this space to provide any additional

remarks

Please note the child(ren)’s name(s) 

must be contained in the court order 

or agreement and must be the result 

of the parties’ marriage to one 

another. 

V 16. Signature of Former Spouse

17. Date of Signature

Please also note that an unsigned 

form is considered invalid, cannot 

be processed and will be returned. 

Forms without a date of signature 

are also invalid and will be returned. 

Please return all documents to:

Defense Finance and Accounting Service 

Garnishment Operations Directorate

P.O. Box 998002

Cleveland, OH 44199-8002 

Please direct questions to the address above or call our customer service representatives at 800-321-

1080, between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
Order entered December 22 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 16
- 00742
- CV AZEB RUDER, Appellant

V. WILLIAM JORDAN D/B/A WILLIAM DAVIS REALTY , WILLIAM DAVIS REAL ESTATE SERVICES, LLC D/B/A WILLIAM DAVIS REALTY AND KATHY JAB RI, Appellee s On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 004
- 01346
- 2014



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s December 20, 2016 second unopposed m otion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief. Appellant’s motion is GRANTED . Appellant’s brief shall be filed by January 13, 2017. We caution appellant that further requests for extension of
time will be disfavored.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUST ICE
#### DOR RICH, INC., doing business as Mr. Richard Sanz Beauty Salon, et al., Petitioners, v. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH et al., Respondents.

No. 45042.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 13, 1974.

Robert W. Stern, Miami, for petitioners.

Allan M. Glaser, of Sibley, Giblin, Lev-enson & Ward, Miami Beach, Joseph A. Wanick, City Atty., and Yale T. Freeman, Asst. City Atty., for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The background, history and proper disposition of this case is indicated in the opinion of the District Court of Appeal, 289 So.2d 52, Third District, filed January 31, 1974, Rehearing denied February 12, 1974. The matters and things complained of in the litigation have been previously decided by the District Court of Appeal, Third District in an opinion appearing as City of Miami Beach v. Arthree, Inc., 269 So.2d 699 (Fla.App.1972), certiorari denied by this Court, 276 So.2d 166 (Fla.1973), certiorari denied by the Supreme Court of the United States, 414 U.S. 859, 94 S.Ct. 70, 38 L.Ed.2d 109.

The judicial process having run its course, it is past time to enforce the mandate and further interference comes close to trifling with the judicial process. There has to be a time when litigation ends, and in this cause, it is over.

The trial court correctly on February 19, 1974, entered its order on the mandate adopting the decision of the District Court of Appeal dated January 31, 1974, as the judgment of the trial court and authorizing the City of Miami Beach to enforce its ordinance sub judice.

Accordingly, no conflict appearing as required by Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution, F.S.A., the petition for writ of certiorari is denied, the filing of rehearing is dispensed with, and the cause is remanded to the District Court with directions to properly enforce its mandate by whatever lawful means are necessary and without disturbance by further vexatious interference.

It is so ordered.

ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### George M. KRIKIS, a/k/a George William Curtis, a/k/a Joe Curtis, Appellant, v. ALSIDE ALUMINUM SUPPLY COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 73-197.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 31, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Frank T. Stasio, Appellant, v O & L Equipment, Inc., Respondent.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs *(see, Sullivan v Joy Mfg. Co.,*70 NY2d 806; *Vermette v Kenworth Truck Co.,*68 NY2d 714). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, McGowan, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Balio, Lawton and Lowery, JJ.
# C_2014408EN.01002901.xml

| 15.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 408/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 408/29

---

EUROPEAN CENTRE FOR DISEASE PREVENTION AND CONTROL

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2013

2014/C 408/29

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

http://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/aboutus/Key%20Documents/Final-Annual-Accounts-2013.pdf

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Murray, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Clifford Scott, J.), rendered January 4, 1990, convicting defendant on his plea of guilty to attempted robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of *IVz*to 4Vi years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was arrested on September 2, 1989, at Pennsylvania Station in Manhattan, at approximately 12:45 p.m., after the complainant advised an Amtrak Police Officer that defendant had attempted to rob him while displaying a knife. A search of defendant disclosed a knife. After defendant’s motions to suppress were denied, he pleaded guilty as set forth above.

Defendant’s motions to suppress physical evidence, identification testimony, and statements were little more than *pro forma*and as such properly denied without a hearing. That part of the motion seeking to suppress physical evidence was supported only by the conclusory claim that defendant was acting innocently when he was seized. The District Attorney answered that defendant was arrested by a police officer acting pursuant to the complaint of a civilian. In view of the People’s response, which was not controverted by defendant, defendant failed to allege a legal ground for suppression (CPL 710.60 [3]). In other circumstances an accused’s protest that he was acting innocently at the time of his seizure might raise viable issues about the predicate for the police action. In the present context, it is plain that this defendant’s claim raised no viable *Aguilar-Spinelli*issues. Further, the reliability of the citizen informant, whose basis of knowledge was his personal involvement, may be presumed and acted upon by the arresting officer. *(People v Cruz,*149 AD2d 151, 157.)

Summary denial of the *Wade*and *Huntley*branches of defendant’s motion was also correct. No legal basis for suppression was set forth which would warrant a hearing on *438these issues. "What appears here is no more than a naked demand for hearings based upon a [formula] which could be applied to any [prosecution in which the People give notice of their intent to introduce identification testimony or statements of the accused].” *(People v Holder,*149 AD2d 325, 327.)

Since defendant’s basis for relief was inadequate, the failure of the trial court to make findings of fact pursuant to CPL 710.60 (6) does not require remedial action. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Ellerin, Wallach and Asch, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Be th Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 15, 2015

jam 

# Order

Clerk May 15, 2015

1 51608 ( 42 )

JOHN CORRION

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 1 51608

COA: 324 3 10

THUMB CORRECTIONAL FACILITY WARDEN

,

Defendant

- Appellee.

___________________________________

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it

is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be

lia ble for filing fees.

Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $ 1 .00, shall submit a copy of this order

with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleading s which is being returned

with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being

filed in this Court.

If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly

payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of

the deposits made to plaintiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of

$3 74 .00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court.

Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further app eals in civil

actions in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full.

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and

return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.