alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 3 (Thursday, January 4, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 476]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28954]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel; REDI Small Business Review Panel.
    Date: March 15, 2024.
    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Ivan Tadeu Rebustini, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Gateway Bldg., Suite 100, Bethesda, MD 20892, 
(301) 555-1212, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bed7c8dfd090ccdbdccbcdcad7d0d7fed0d7d690d9d1c8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a1c8d7c0cf8fd3c4c3d4d2d5c8cfc8e1cfc8c98fc6ced7">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 28, 2023.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-28954 Filed 1-3-24; 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>
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 124 (Friday, September 14, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H6061]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

            By Mr. SMITH of Washington:
        H.R. 6427.
        Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, 
     Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for 
     the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States . 
     . .
```
#### In re Fay JONES, Petitioner, Robert R. Raines, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Respondent.

No. A-12817.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Feb. 10, 1960.

*765Fay Jones, pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Lewis A. Wallace, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Fay Jones, now confined in the State Penitentiary by reason of conviction in the district court of Tillman County on a charge of murder, and where he was sentenced to imprisonment for life, now seeks his release by way of writ of habeas corpus.

Petitioner duly appealed from the verdict and judgment in question to this Court and his sentence for murder was reduced to the included offense of manslaughter in the first degree with the punishment reduced from life to thirty years’ imprisonment in the State Penitentiary. See Jones v. State, 1951, 94 Okl.Cr. 359, 236 P.2d 102.

Petitioner now alleges that his conviction was the result of false evidence and perjured testimony, and by suppression of evidence by the prosecuting authorities. The witness complained about was Mary Laing.

Complaint is made that one of petitioner’s attorneys did not show proper diligence in representing him. In fact, all complaints involve a review of the record.

This Court has time and again said that habeas corpus does not serve as an appeal and review of the facts, and that only where record and evidence reveal the judgment to be void will relief be granted by habeas corpus. See Application of Miller, Okl.Cr., 335 P.2d 652; Ex parte Holder, 94 Okl.Cr. 270, 234 P.2d 958; Ex parte Washington, 92 Okl.Cr. 337, 223 P.2d 552; Application of Freels, Okl.Cr., 337 P.2d 754; In re London, Okl.Cr., 321 P.2d 722.

The record in question has already been painstakingly and exhaustively reviewed, as will be disclosed by reading Jones v. State, supra.

In the case of In re Vassar, Okl.Cr., 338 P.2d 359, this Court quoted with approval from In re Booth, 74 Okl.Cr. 406, 126 P.2d 751, as follows:

> “The Court of Criminal Appeals will not issue writ of habeas corpus where accused has appealed his judgment of conviction, the judgment is affirmed and question raised in habeas corpus proceedings were in existence and known to petitioner at time of appeal and were matters which properly should have been presented by appeal.” [338 P.2d 359.]

See also In re York, Okl.Cr., 283 P.2d 567; In re Goff, Okl.Cr., 312 P.2d 902; Perry v. Waters, 97 Okl.Cr. 17, 256 P.2d 1119.

We take notice that counsel who represented defendant were recognized as leaders of the Bar in southwestern Oklahoma.

This Court in the appeal was most indulgent in protecting the rights of this petitioner, and he apparently was satisfied with the reduction of the life sentence to *766thirty years, and has waited some eight years to complain.

We have no jurisdiction in this proceeding to entertain the matters now sought to be raised.

Writ denied.
**Exhibit
      32.2**




**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 on Form 10-QSB of Blast Energy Services,
      Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John
      O’Keefe, Co-Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Principal
      Accounting Officer of the Company, certify 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, as amended; and




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




Date: 
      August 10, 2006




By:
            /s/
                John O’KeefeJohn
                O’KeefeCo-Chief
                Executive OfficerChief
                Financial OfficerPrincipal
                Accounting Officer
Exhibit 10.10

March 23, 2005

TAG Entertainment Corp.
9166 South Santa Monica Blvd., 1st Floor
Beverly Hills, CA 90212

          RE: CONSULTING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TAG ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
              AND TRACY VON VECHREY
              DATED OCTOBER 1, 2004 ("AGREEMENT")

     Pursuant to the terms of this letter, Steve Austin (the "Guarantor"), for
good and valuable consideration, and any debtor-in-possession or trustee in
bankruptcy which succeeds to the interest of Guarantor, does hereby
unconditionally guarantee to TAG Entertainment Corp., TAG Entertainment Inc. and
their successors and assigns (collectively, "TAG") the full and prompt payment,
on demand, in lawful money of the United States of America, shares of common
stock of TAG Entertainment Corp. now or hereafter beneficially owned by
Guarantor, or otherwise, of any and all amounts payable by TAG to Mr. Tracy Von
Vechrey pursuant to the Agreement referenced above. Guarantor agrees that in the
event Mr. Vechrey would have any claim against TAG for any amounts under the
Agreement, Guarantor will pay to TAG or Mr. Vechrey, as Guarantor is directed by
TAG, upon demand, the entire amount of the amounts due to Mr. Vechrey under the
Agreement without any obligation on the part of TAG to endeavor to first pay
such amounts to Mr. Vechrey.

     This guaranty is and is intended to be a continuing guaranty of payment and
performance independent of and in addition any other guaranty, endorsement,
collateral or other agreement held by TAG therefor or with respect thereto,
whether or not furnished by Guarantor. Guarantor shall have no right of
subrogation with respect to any payments made by Guarantor hereunder until all
indebtednesss outstanding, or contracted or committed for (whether or not
outstanding), are paid in full. This guaranty is absolute and unconditional and
shall not be changed or affected by any representation, oral agreement, act or
thing whatsoever, except as herein provided. This guaranty shall be an open and
continuous one and shall continue in full force and effect until the termination
of the relationship between Mr. Vechrey and TAG as represented by the Agreement
and the satisfaction by TAG (or waiver of such performance by Mr. Vechrey) of
any obligations for payment thereunder to Mr. Vechrey.

Very Truly Yours,


/s/ Steve Austin
----------------------
Steve Austin
Relative High School Completion Rates in Appalachia, 2011–2015

(County Rates as a Percentage of the U.S. Average)

A high school completion rate is the percentage of persons ages 

25 and over with a high school diploma or more. The percent of the 

U.S. average is computed by dividing the county high school 

completion rate by the national average and multiplying by 100. 

The map uses critical breaks such as the national average to 

organize the data into groups of common values.

Map Created: August 2017

Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 

American Community Survey, 2011–2015

0 50 100

Miles

GEORGIA

ALABAMA

MISSISSIPPI

SOUTH

CAROLINA

NORTH CAROLINA

VIRGINIA

WEST

VIRGINIA

KENTUCKY

OHIO ILLINOIS INDIANA

WISCONSIN

MICHIGAN

DE

NJ PENNSYLVANIA

MARYLAND

NEW YORK

TENNESSEE

66.6% - 74.9%

75.0% - 84.9%

85.0% - 99.9%

100.0% - 108.8%

Percent of the U.S. Average

(Critical Breaks Classification)

U.S. average = 86.7%

Appalachian average = 85.5%
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF INCOME OF MONACO COACH CORPORATION
AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED JANUARY 2, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-02-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,470
<ALLOWANCES>                                       397
<INVENTORY>                                     59,566
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               106,901
<PP&E>                                          71,066
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,411
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 190,127
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           83,225
<BONDS>                                          5,400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           125
<OTHER-SE>                                      98,068
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   190,127
<SALES>                                        594,802
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               594,802
<CGS>                                          512,570
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  554,786
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,861
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 38,762
<INCOME-TAX>                                    16,093
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             22,669
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    22,669
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.78
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4722 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4722

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 111 Market Street in Saugerties, New York, as the ``Maurice D. 
                    Hinchey Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. MAURICE D. HINCHEY POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 111 Market Street in Saugerties, New York, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Maurice D. Hinchey Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Maurice D. 
Hinchey Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 7, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4722

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 111 Market Street in Saugerties, New York, as the ``Maurice D. 
                    Hinchey Post Office Building''.
```
# C_2009193EN.01003501.xml

| 15.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/35

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 June 2009 — Spee v Europol

(Case F-43/08) (1)

1

(Staff case - Europol staff - Vacant post - Selection procedure)

2009/C 193/57

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: David Spee (Rijswijk, Netherlands) (represented by: P. de Casparis, lawyer, initially, and I. Blekman, lawyer, subsequently)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol) (represented by: D. Neumann, D. El Khoury, B. Wägenbaur and R. Van der Hout, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of Europol’s decision to withdraw an offer of employment in respect of which the applicant had submitted an application and subsequently to republish it, along with an claim for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Spee to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Spee to pay all the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008, p. 33.

1

---
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 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Topics in Anti-Infective Therapeutics.                    

*Date:*                         January 10, 2024.                    

*Time:*                         1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Marcus Ferrone, PHARMD Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 402-2371,                         *marcus.ferrone@nih.gov*.                    

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: December 22, 2023.

David W. Freeman, 

Supervisory Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-28722 Filed 12-28-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Exhibit 10.6(e)

               Fourth Amendment to BPIA Agreement

This Fourth Amendment to BPIA Agreement (the "Fourth Amendment") is
entered into as of December 10, 2000, by and between Bedford Property
Investors, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the "Company") and Bedford
Acquisitions, Inc. (formerly known as Westminster Holdings, Inc.), a
California corporation ("BPIA") with reference to the following facts.

                            RECITALS

     A.   Company and BPIA entered into that certain BPIA Agreement
dated as of January 1, 1995, as amended by the Amendment to BPIA
Agreement dated as of January 1, 1997; the Second Amendment to BPIA
Agreement dated January 1, 1999 and the Third Amendment to BPIA
Agreement dated December 10, 2000 (collectively the "Agreement"),
under the terms of which BPIA performs certain services for Company.

     B.   Company and BPIA desire to amend the Agreement to extend
the term of the Agreement.

                           AMENDMENT

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing and
the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows:

1.   Commencing as of January 1, 2001 the development fee
payable to BPIA per section 3 of the Agreement shall be six percent
(6%) of the total design, construction and soft cost with respect to
any Development, subject to all the limitations set forth in the
Agreement.

2.   This Fourth Amendment shall be binding upon and shall inure
to the benefit of the parties hereto, their respective heirs,
executors, and assigns.

3.   Terms not otherwise defined in this Fourth Amendment but
which are defined in the Agreement shall have the meanings given to
them in the Agreement.

     In Witness Whereof, the parties hereto have executed and
delivered this Fourth Amendment as of the day and year first above
written.


"Company"

Bedford Property Investors, Inc.,
a Maryland corporation


By:
________________________________
       James R. Moore
       Executive Vice President

"BPIA"

Bedford Acquisitions, Inc., a
California corporation


By:
______________________________
       Peter B. Bedford
       President
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 125 (Monday, September 17, 2012)]
[Daily Digest]
[Page D870]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                    COMMITTEE MEETINGS FOR TUESDAY,

                           SEPTEMBER 18, 2012

        (Committee meetings are open unless otherwise indicated)

                                 Senate

  No meetings/hearings scheduled.

                                 House

  No hearings are scheduled.
```
## Sancap Aerial

1119 Periwinkle Way Unit 50 Sanibel , Florida 33957 970-819-3379 jim@sancapaerial.com

April 29, 2016 To Whom it May Concern FAA 333 Exemptions Amendment to exemption # 14748

I am submitting this amendment to my Approved 333 Exemption # 14748. I would like to have my exemption amended in condition one to allow the use of my listed aircraft plus the new Approved Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Make/Model under Section 333 list that has been recently introduced, FAA-2007-3330-0007. Sincerely yours, James R Szabo Snap Aerial
- 740 - Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets 29 Nebraska Appellate Reports WALTERS v . FRAKES Cite as 29 Neb. App. 740

Richard Walters, appellant, v. Scott Frakes et al., appellees. ___ N.W.2d ___ Filed April 13, 2021. No. A-19-532.

supplemental opinion Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County: Robert R. Otte , Judge. Affirmed. F. Matthew Aerni, of Berry Law Firm, for appellant. Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and James D. Smith for appellees. Pirtle , Chief Judge, and Bishop and Welch , Judges. Per Curiam

. This case is before us on a motion for rehearing filed by the appellee, State of Nebraska, concerning our opinion in Walters v. Frakes , 29 Neb. App. 315, 953 N.W.2d 831 (2021). We over

rule the motion, but we modify the opinion as follows. In the analysis section of the opinion under the heading “1. Jurisdiction ,” and the subheading “(b) Application of § 81-8,219(1),” the sixth paragraph is withdrawn and substi

tuted with the following: Because we hold that the standard of care announced in Goodenow v. State , 259 Neb. 375, 610 N.W.2d 19 (2000), is properly reflective of the standard of care owed by the prison guards to Walters in these circum

stances, we disagree with the Appellees’ contention that Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 04/13/2021 09:07 AM CDT- 741 - Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets 29 Nebraska Appellate Reports WALTERS v . FRAKES Cite as 29 Neb. App. 740 Walters failed to properly plead his claim against DCS by failing to articulate a “community standard” of care. In short, Walters alleged that the DCS’ prison guards breached their duty by failing to immediately report his medical complaints to prison medical staff following his disclosures to them. That pleading created a fact issue for the trier of fact under the standard of care by prison offi

cials to inmates articulated in Reiber v. County of Gage , 303 Neb. 325, 928 N.W.2d 916 (2019), and Goodenow, supra , as set forth previously. In this case, the district court determined that Walters failed to meet his burden of proof. The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified. Former opinion modified. Motion for rehearing overruled.