alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 18 (Friday, January 26, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 5212]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-01561]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XD673]


Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery 
Management Council; Public Meetings

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of a Seminar Series presentation via webinar.

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

SUMMARY: The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will 
host a presentation on reproductive resilience in marine fishes.

DATES: The webinar presentation will be held on Tuesday, February 13, 
2024, from 1 p.m. until 2:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The presentation will be provided via webinar. The webinar 
is open to members of the public. Information, including a link to 
webinar registration will be posted on the Council's website at: 
https://safmc.net/safmc-seminar-series/ as it becomes available.
    Council address: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 
Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N Charleston, SC 29405.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Iverson, Public Information 
Officer, SAFMC; phone: (843) 302-8439 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; 
fax: (843) 769-4520; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5f3436327136293a2d2c30311f2c3e39323c71313a2b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="23484a4e0d4a554651504c4d635042454e400d4d4657">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Council will host a presentation on the 
reproductive resilience in fish, which is the ability of a population 
to maintain reproductive success to produce long-term population 
stability. Fish managed by the Council have diverse reproductive 
strategies and these reproductive strategies along with environmental 
variables and behavioral traits should be considered when developing 
assessments and management regulations. A case study on gag grouper 
will be presented. A question-and-answer session will follow the 
presentation. Members of the public will have the opportunity to 
participate in the discussion. The presentation is for informational 
purposes only and no management actions will be taken.

Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office 
(see ADDRESSES) 5 days prior to the meeting.

    Note: The times and sequence specified in this agenda are 
subject to change.

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: January 23, 2024.
Diane M. DeJames-Daly,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-01561 Filed 1-25-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 184

To establish an Office for Rare Disease Research in the National Institutes

of Health, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 9, 1995

Mr. HATFIELD introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

A BILL

To establish an Office for Rare Disease Research in the

National Institutes of Health, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Office for Rare Disease

5 Research Act of 1995’’.

6 SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE FOR RARE DISEASE

7 RESEARCH.

8 Part A of title IV of the Public Health Service Act

9 (42 U.S.C. 281 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end

10 thereof the following new section:
2

•S 184 IS

1 ‘‘SEC. 404F. OFFICE FOR RARE DISEASE RESEARCH.

2 ‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established within

3 the Office of the Director of the National Institutes of

4 Health an office to be known as the Office for Rare Dis5 ease Research (in this section referred to as the ‘Office’).

6 The Office shall be headed by a director, who shall be ap7 pointed by the Director of the National Institutes of

8 Health.

9 ‘‘(b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the Office is to pro10 mote and coordinate the conduct of research on rare dis11 eases through a strategic research plan and to establish

12 and manage a rare disease research clinical database.

13 ‘‘(c) ADVISORY COUNCIL.—The Secretary shall es14 tablish an advisory council for the purpose of providing

15 advice to the director of the Office concerning carrying

16 out the strategic research plan and other duties under this

17 section. Section 222 shall apply to such council to the

18 same extent and in the same manner as such section ap19 plies to committees or councils established under such sec20 tion.

21 ‘‘(d) DUTIES.—In carrying out subsection (b), the di22 rector of the Office shall—

23 ‘‘(1) develop a comprehensive plan for the con24 duct and support of research on rare diseases;

25 ‘‘(2) coordinate and disseminate information

26 among the institutes and the public on rare diseases;
3

•S 184 IS

1 ‘‘(3) support research training and encourage

2 the participation of a diversity of individuals in the

3 conduct of rare disease research;

4 ‘‘(4) identify projects or research on rare dis5 eases that should be conducted or supported by the

6 National Institutes of Health;

7 ‘‘(5) develop and maintain a central database

8 on current government sponsored clinical research

9 projects for rare diseases;

10 ‘‘(6) determine the need for registries of re11 search subjects and epidemiological studies of rare

12 disease populations; and

13 ‘‘(7) prepare biennial reports on the activities

14 carried out or to be carried out by the Office and

15 submit such reports to the Secretary and the Con16 gress.’’.

Æ
#### Clyde Eugene MASON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Secretary of Department of Corrections; David Mitchell, Superintendent of Mountain View Facility #4855; Roy Cooper, State of North Carolina Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 02-6359.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 27, 2002.

Decided Jan. 22, 2003.

Clyde Eugene Mason, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Clyde Eugene Mason seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and conclude Mason has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. *See Mason v. Cooper,*No. CA-02-11-1-2-2MU (W.D.N.C. filed Jan. 31, 2002; entered Feb. 4, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the *147appeal. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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.*
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Notices 3711 

Dated at Washington, DC, on January 10, 

2024. 

Theodore J. Dowd, 

Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of the 

Comptroller of the Currency. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System. 

Michele Taylor Fennell, 

Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board. 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. 

James P. Sheesley, 

Assistant Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–00970 Filed 1–18–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–33–P; 6210–01–P; 6714–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of Foreign Assets Control 

Notice of OFAC Sanctions Action 

AGENCY: Office of Foreign Assets 

Control, Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the 

Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets 

Control (OFAC) is publishing a removal 

of an aircraft currently included on 

OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals 

and Blocked Persons List (SDN List). 

DATES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section for applicable date(s). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

OFAC: Bradley T. Smith, Director, tel.: 

202–622–2490; Associate Director for 

Global Targeting, tel.: 202–622–2420; 

Assistant Director for Licensing, tel.: 

202–622–2480; Assistant Director for 

Regulatory Affairs, tel.: 202–622–4855; 

or the Assistant Director for Sanctions 

Compliance & Evaluation, tel.: 202–622– 

2490. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Availability 

The SDN List and additional 

information concerning OFAC sanctions 

programs are available on OFAC’s 

website (https://www.treasury.gov/ofac). 

Notice of OFAC Action(s) 

A. On January 8, 2024, OFAC 

removed from the SDN List the aircraft 

listed below, which was subject to 

prohibitions imposed pursuant to 

Executive Order 14024 of April 15, 

2021, ‘‘Blocking Property With Respect 

To Specified Harmful Foreign Activities 

of the Government of the Russian 

Federation,’’ 86 FR 20249, 3 CFR, 2021 

Comp., p. 542 (Apr. 15, 2021) (E.O. 

14024). 

1. 9H–OKO; Aircraft Manufacture 

Date 2018; Aircraft Model G650; Aircraft 

Manufacturer’s Serial Number (MSN) 

6356; Aircraft Tail Number 9H–OKO 

(aircraft) [RUSSIA–EO14024] (Linked 

To: EMPEROR AVIATION LTD). 

Dated: January 12, 2024. 

Bradley T. Smith, 

Director, Office of Foreign Assets Control, 

U.S. Department of the Treasury. 

[FR Doc. 2024–00971 Filed 1–18–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AL–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1656

To permit individuals to continue health plan coverage of services while

participating in approved clinical studies.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 29, 1996

Ms. SNOWE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

A BILL

To permit individuals to continue health plan coverage of

services while participating in approved clinical studies.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Improved Patient Ac5 cess to Clinical Studies Act of 1996’’.

6 SEC. 2. COVERAGE FOR INDIVIDUALS PARTICIPATING IN

7 APPROVED CLINICAL STUDIES.

8 (a) PERMITTING PARTICIPATION IN APPROVED CLIN9 ICAL STUDIES.—A health plan may not deny (or limit or
2

•S 1656 IS

1 impose additional conditions on) coverage of items and

2 services furnished to an enrollee if—

3 (1) the enrollee is participating in an approved

4 clinical study,

5 (2) the items and services are furnished accord6 ing to the design of the study or to treat conditions

7 resulting from participation in the study, and

8 (3) the items and services would otherwise be

9 covered under the plan except for the fact that they

10 are provided in connection with participation in such

11 a study.

12 A health plan may not discriminate against an enrollee

13 on the basis of the enrollee’s participation in such a study.

14 (b) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in subsection (a) shall

15 be construed as requiring a health plan to provide for pay16 ment for items and services normally paid for as part of

17 an approved clinical study.

18 (c) APPROVED CLINICAL STUDY DEFINED.—In this

19 section, the term ‘‘approved clinical study’’ means—

20 (1) a research study approved by the Secretary

21 of Health and Human Services, the Director of the

22 National Institutes of Health, the Commissioner of

23 the Food and Drug Administration, the Secretary of

24 Veterans Affairs, the Secretary of Defense, or a

25 qualified nongovernmental research entity (as de-
3

•S 1656 IS

1 fined in guidelines of the National Institutes of

2 Health), or

3 (2) a peer-reviewed and approved research pro4 gram, as defined by the Secretary of Health and

5 Human Services, conducted for the primary purpose

6 of determining whether or not a treatment is safe,

7 efficacious, or having any other characteristic of a

8 treatment which must be demonstrated in order for

9 the treatment to be medically necessary or appro10 priate.

Æ
#### Behne E. WALLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Terry L. STEWART, Director, et al., Respondents-Appellees.

No. 01-15798.

D.C. No. CV-98-01803-RGS.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 13, 2003.*

Decided Jan. 21, 2002.

Before BEEZER, KLEINFELD and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Behne E. Waller, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his convictions under Arizona law for transportation and possession of narcotic drugs for sale. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and we affirm.

Waller contends that the Arizona state courts did not afford him a full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim. This contention is belied by the two-day evidentiary hearing and subsequent appeal of this issue in the Arizona state courts, all of which preclude federal habeas relief. *See Stone v. Powell,*428 U.S. 465, 494-95, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976); *Siripongs v. Calderon,*35 F.3d 1308, 1321 (9th Cir.1994) (as amended on denial of reh’g en banc).

Waller next contends that counsel was constitutionally ineffective at trial and on appeal, by failing to address properly his Fourth Amendment claim and by failing to raise the government’s alleged breach of a cooperation agreement. We agree with the district court and the Arizona state courts’ findings that Waller was not prejudiced by any deficiency in counsel’s representation. *See Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); *Rupe v. Wood,*93 F.3d 1434, 1445 (9th Cir.1996) (holding that defendant suffered no prejudice because of reasonable probability counsel would not have prevailed on issue even had it been raised).

Finally, Waller contends his claim that the government breached a cooperation agreement is not procedurally barred by Rule 32.2(a) of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. We disagree. *See Stewart v. Smith,*536 U.S. 856, 122 S.Ct. 2578, 2582, 153 L.Ed.2d 762 (2002) (per curiam) (holding that Ariz. R.Crim. P. 32.2(a)(3) is an independent and adequate state procedural rule sufficient to bar federal habeas relief), *reh’g denied,*— U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 17, 153 L.Ed.2d 880 (2002). Moreover, Waller is not excused by cause and prejudice, because he has not shown that some objective factor external to the defense impeded efforts to comply with the state procedural rule. *See Murray v. Carrier, m*U.S. 478, 488, 106 S.Ct. 2639, 91 L.Ed.2d 397 (1986). Nor would failure to reach the merits of the claim result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. *See*
      *404
      *id.*at 495-96, 106 S.Ct. 2639 (holding that petitioner must show a “constitutional violation has probably resulted in conviction of one who is actually innocent” to demonstrate fundamental miscarriage of justice).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 23.1
Consent of Independent Accountants

                                SUSA Partnership, L.P.

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
of our reports included in this Form 10-K into the Registration Statements of
SUSA Partnership, L.P. on Forms S-3 (File Nos. 333-44641-01, 333-21991-01 and
333-03344-01) and to all references to our Firm included in this registration
statement.

Arthur Andersen LLP

Memphis, Tennessee,
March 29, 2002.

<PAGE>

Exhibit 23.2
Consent of Independent Accountants

                             SUSA Partnership, L.P.

                       Consent of Independent Accountants

We consent to the incorporation by reference into the Registration Statements of
SUSA Partnerships, L.P. on Forms S-3 (File Nos. 333-44641-01, 333-21991-01 and
333-03344-01) of our report dated January 31, 2001 relating to the financial
statements, which appears in this Form 10-K. We also consent to the reference to
us under the heading "Experts" in such Registration Statements.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Memphis, Tennessee
March 29, 2002
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1709 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  2d Session
                                S. 1709

  To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to adjust the maximum 
   hour exemption for agricultural employees, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 25, 1996

   Mr. Craig introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
         referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to adjust the maximum 
   hour exemption for agricultural employees, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938.

    Section 13(b)(12) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 
U.S.C. 213(b)(12)) is amended by inserting after ``water'' the 
following: ``, at least 75 percent of which is ultimately delivered''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Stephen B. ELLIOTT, Petitioner, v. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, Respondent.

No. 02-1277.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Feb. 11, 2003.

Rehearing En Banc Denied March 26, 2003.

Before GINSBURG, Chief Judge; SENTELLE and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

*575
      *JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This petition for review of an order of the Drug Enforcement Administration was considered on the briefs and appendix filed by the parties. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the petition for review be denied. Petitioner challenges a regulation transferring amphetamine and methamphetamine from Schedule III to Schedule II under the Controlled Substances Act. Although Congress initially placed these drugs on Schedule III, the Act expressly authorizes the Attorney General to “transfer ... any drug” — not just “new” drugs, as petitioner suggests — from one schedule to another if certain criteria are met. *See 21*U.S.C. § 811(a)(1). This does not represent an unconstitutional delegation of authority, *see, e.g., United States v. Gordon,*580 F.2d 827, 837-41 (5th Cir.1978), nor has petitioner demonstrated that the transfer of amphetamine and methamphetamine from Schedule III to Schedule II is otherwise objectionable. *See, e.g., United States v. Lafoon,*978 F.2d 1183, 1184-85 (10th Cir. 1992). The petition for review is therefore denied.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40027

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FREDI ARMANDO MENDOZA-CORTES, also known as Fredy Armando 

Mendoza-Cortez, also known as Bernardo Hernandez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:13-CR-1245-1

Before CLEMENT, PRADO, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Fredi Armando MendozaCortes raises an argument that he concedes is foreclosed by United States v. 

Rodriguez-Escareno, 700 F.3d 751, 753-54 (5th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 

S. Ct. 2044 (2013), which held that the sentence enhancement provided for in 

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) applies to a conviction for the federal crime of 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 29, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-40027 Document: 00512751147 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/29/2014
No. 14-40027

conspiracy to commit a federal drug trafficking offense. The unopposed motion 

for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court 

is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 14-40027 Document: 00512751147 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/29/2014
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2012 - 1 102 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 2 -NM - 0 62 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**