alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 13, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 10082]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02876]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 1009(d), 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, and the Determination of the Director, Office of 
Strategic Business Initiatives, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, 
CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463. 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: Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and 
Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP)--GH24-033, Advancing Public Health 
Research in Bangladesh.
    Date: April 9, 2024.
    Time: 9 a.m.-2 p.m., EDT.
    Place: Teleconference.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    For Further Information Contact: Hylan Shoob, Ph.D., Scientific 
Review Officer, Global Health Center, Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop H21-9, Atlanta, Georgia 
30329-4027. Telephone: (404) 639-4796; Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#eba3b883848489ab888f88c58c849d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="eaa2b982858588aa898e89c48d859c">[email protected]</span></a>.
    The Director, Office of Strategic Business Initiatives, Office of 
the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register 
notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee 
management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Kalwant Smagh,
Director, Office of Strategic Business Initiatives, Office of the Chief 
Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2024-02876 Filed 2-12-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P


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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>               1
<CASH>                            583,721
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                     428,953
<ALLOWANCES>                       15,000
<INVENTORY>                     1,078,111
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                2,234,868
<PP&E>                          1,839,408
<DEPRECIATION>                    669,373
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  3,448,255
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             358,318
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                           16,366
<OTHER-SE>                      2,090,464
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    3,448,255
<SALES>                         4,136,685
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                4,136,685
<CGS>                           1,965,382
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   1,965,382
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                2,093,391
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                113,033
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    31,455
<INCOME-TAX>                        1,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                30,455
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                       30,455
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                         .02
        


</TABLE>
#### POUND MILL COAL COMPANY et al., Appellants, v. Rex PENNINGTON, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Jan. 31, 1958.

*773A. E. Cornett, Hyden, for appellants.

Denver Adams, Hyden, for appellee. •

PER CURIAM.

On July 30, 1955, appellee, Rex Pennington, filed complaint in the Leslie Circuit Court by which he sought to recover damages from appellants, Pound Mill Coal Company and Blue Ridge Mining Company. Appellants were properly served with summons. Appellants failed to file answer or otherwise make an appearance in the action. The case was assigned to the November term of court for trial. When the action was called for trial, appellants did not appear. Appellee moved that the allegations of the complaint be taken as true. The court sustained the motion; heard evidence as to the extent of appellee’s injuries, and awarded damages in the sum of $2,000.

On this appeal, it is argued (1) that the court’s failure to vacate the judgment upon appellants’ motion was an abuse of discretion, and (2) that the default judgment was not taken in accordance with the provisions of CR 55.01.

The affidavits filed in support of the motion to vacate the judgment offer no sound reason so to do. The part owner and agent who was served with process stated that he had previously consulted an attorney about a possible compensation claim, and that: “He believed that this was a claim for workmen’s compensation, and being wholly unfamiliar with court proceedings was unaware that the paper was a summons in a civil action.” This attitude requires little discussion. If he did not understand the simple language of the summons, he should have again consulted his attorney.

We find no merit in appellants’ second contention. Appellants had failed to “appear” in the action, and in such cases it is not necessary to serve written notice of the application under CR 55.01, and this section does not require a written motion for judgment to be filed during the course of a trial.

Motion for appeal overruled and judgment affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7589

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

HAROLD DEAN ENGLISH, a/k/a Harold Brown, Jr., a/k/a Bug, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (3:95-cr-00068-MJP) 

Submitted: September 10, 2009 Decided: September 14, 2009 

Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Harold Dean English, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Barrett Taylor, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Harold English appeals the district court’s order 

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United 

States v. English, No. 3:95-cr-00068-MJP (D.S.C. Aug. 22, 2008). 

We deny English’s motions for appointment of counsel, for leave 

to file a supplemental brief, and to place his appeal in 

abeyance. 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. 

AFFIRMED
#### Richard BURBRIDGE, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 25, 1955.

James A. Crumlin, Louisville, Louis P. McHenry, Hopkinsville, for appellant.

J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., Zeb A. Stewart, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

CAMMACK, Justice.

The appellant, Richard Burbridge, was indicted jointly with Willard Alexander for the willful murder of Tommie McClus-key. Alexander was tried first and sentenced to 10 years in prison. Burbridge was sentenced to prison for five years. The appeals were considered together in this Court. The evidence in both cases is practically the same, so it will be unnecessary to review the evidence in this case. See Alexander v. Commonwealth, Ky., 277 S.W.2d 17, for a statement of the evidence.

Burbridge argues that he was entitled to a directed verdict. Since the evidence was insufficient to justify submitting Alexander’s case to the jury, it follows that it was insufficient to justify the submission of Burbridge’s case. For the reasons stated in Alexander v. Commonwealth, the judgment is reversed, with directions to set it aside, and for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
EPA Registration No. 74530-11

Volume No. 3, Part 2.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Pages 13 through 15 contain Commercial/Financial Information and are not included in this 

copy.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
#### COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, Appellant, v. Charles PARKER, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 16, 1965.

H. C. Smith, Frankfort, Reed D. Anderson, Madisonville, for appellant.

Gross C. Lindsay, Henderson, for appel-lee.

DAVIS, Commissioner.

This appeal presents a question whether a summons on an appeal to the circuit court from an award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board was properly served. The trial court dismissed the appeal as improperly prosecuted; the Department of Highways contends that the lower court’s ruling was erroneous.

Appellee Parker, an employee of the appellant Department, filed claim for compensation arising from an injury alleged to have been suffered by him in his employment. The Workmen’s Compensation Board made an award to him; the Department appealed to the Henderson Circuit Court, pursuant to KRS 342.285. The filing of the appeal was timely.

*900The Department caused summons to be issued against appellee Parker; this process was placed in the hands of the Henderson County Sheriff and promptly served. Summons was also issued for the Workmen’s Compensation Board, hut, pursuant to the directions of the Department’s attorney, was caused to be served by leaving a copy with the Attorney General. The plain provision of KRS 342.285(1) requires that in such appeals the service of process upon the Workmen’s Compensation Board shall be had on the Executive Secretary of the Board — not the Attorney General. CR 4.04 (6) prescribes that service of process shall be made upon the Commonwealth or any agency thereof by serving the Attorney General or any assistant attorney general, and may account for the mistake of the Department’s attorney.

Appellee Parker moved for dismissal of the appeal from the Board on the ground that service upon the Board had not been made properly. Subsequently, and after the time allowed for the appeal from the Board to the circuit court, alias summons was issued and duly served upon the Executive Secretary of the Board. It is significant that the Board does not raise any question as to the adequacy of service.

It is our view that the trial court erred in dismissing the appeal. There is no showing of any “bad faith” upon the part of appellant. CR 3 and KRS 413.250 provide that a civil action is commenced by the filing of the complaint with the court and the issuance of summons or warning order thereon in good faith. As recently as Roehrig v. Merchant’s and Businessmen’s Mutual Ins. Co., Ky., 391 S.W.2d 369, we treated the question of “good faith” as applied in this type situation. It is our view that the rationale expressed in that opinion, and the authorities there cited and discussed, are dispositive of the question before us, and require reversal. Blue Grass Mining Co. v. North, 265 Ky. 250, 96 S.W.2d 757, and Appleton v. Southern Trust Co., 244 Ky. 453, 51 S.W.2d 447, relied on by the trial court, are distinguishable on their facts from the case at bar and are not controlling here.

The judgment is reversed for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Syms Corp
Secaucus, New Jersey

We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Forms S-8 (Nos. 2-9703, 333-44254 and 333-127399) of Syms Corp of our reports
dated May 1, 2009, relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness
of Syms Corp internal control over financial reporting which appears in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference
of our report dated May 1, 2009 relating to the financial statement schedule,
which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/ BDO
Seidman, LLP

BDO Seidman,
LLP
New York, New York
May 1, 2009

---
Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants

We have issued our report dated March 15, 2003, accompanying the consolidated
financial statements included in the Annual Report of Telebyte, Inc. on Form
10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002. We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statement of
Telebyte, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-89038) effective May 24, 2002 and Form
S-8 (File No. 333-02091) effective March 29, 1996.




                                                 /s/ HOLTZ RUBENSTEIN & CO., LLP
                                                     HOLTZ RUBENSTEIN & CO., LLP
Melville, New York
March 31, 2003
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, March 08, 2017.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, March 08, 2017

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17I0155. SEAN NILES v. DESTINEE BRITT, et al..

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

16C01834
At C^M^a u APR 062015

Velva L Price, District Clerk

Causa Kloi DH-feivH't-ooiqaCi

FredJia Lee. ^JolK^tDC^OO'Bms * Xn Yne. District Court

rlaintitf #

Census * latHi Judicial Outriri

ftissie O^enSj ftesiJfnj 6ffi&r, Texas *

fioarj of Pardons Afl/ParoleSj et qLj X YrauiS County, YeX*LS

OefiAJon-ts -#-

of Travis County, TexasAPR 0 6 2015

At Iftfrft M. \

Wot/on in Request Br ATfue And Complete Copu Of Yhe Clerte

Records Pursuant Yo (?ute 3fi5 Yex.ft. Cm. Proct

To; YeUfl L« Price

Yraviis County District Clerk

Cjvj, Ofviij 3oQ. Courtnousa.

IDOO Guadalupe. Street

Ausiin, Texas 1&%1-9oo3

Comes MduS freddi'e Le. liialKeTj PLainfifT In the aLoue-stuLeJ Qnd

referenced Cause.} ly and through fiimselfj In Propria Person^ and pre

sents this "fDo-t/on in Rarjue^-t Br A"ifue AnJ Complete Copi| frP. The Clerks

Record Pursuant Yo ftuleJWiS Te^jRi C?vti Prod') and »n .Support o-Pjuch,

Plaintiff presents "The Following I

l) On Jw£ 11*3101+, Plaintiff Wed Ordinal Due. Process of Lauj Compl

aint Pursuant Yo United .States Constitution Amendment fiurkenj Texas

Constitution Article 1,Section I9j

5) fteauest for Serufce. of Process;

3) Application Yo Proceed Yh forma Pauperis-Ynatilltvj Yo^Pqi) Costs)
m

33H

an

W)

\\)

o

m >rD

-= ~s = o

-sr.r

= .P

w t> (?2

ri-^ [2.

-- r-f- t» o

rt>

ZZ- w~ -S JC1> -.r»

<iT) 2 n2^_ CV—

ro JO gt=

Do —*

*

O rt>

^ r* ss. f? L^ C? fc. m E

_i TTJ sa

-J ZJC

Uo t^" C?

iS ~5»

LU cr. Vr ( rs OO

H^

©a

h£ ''.-„ o -f

>•1 -3

-s

(*•

;

Wo

1**

»J1
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Peer et al., Appellants.

(No. 27658

Decided June 21, 1939.)

*Mr. Howard JR. Butler,*prosecuting attorney, and *Mr. William G. WicJcens,*for appellee.

*Messrs. Adams $ Adams,*for appellants.

It is ordered and adjudged that said appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said canse.

. *Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Williams, Myers, Matthias and Hart, JJ;, concur.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 21

- 00061

- CV
Gabriel Miranda Jr., deceased, Maria Fuentes, Gabriel Miranda Sr., Alexandra Suzanne DeLeon, Reuben Antonio DeLeon III, and Jon Hidalgo Doe v. Norma Jean Farley
On Appeal from the 398th District Court o f Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. C

- 4899

- 17

- I(1)

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court . The Cou rt orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appell ee

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. January 6 , 202 2
FW: Cancel 333 exemption

9-AJV-115-UASOrganization (FAA) 

FYI

Kind Regards,

S D

Program Support Specialist

Federal Aviation Administration

From: LANCIOAIR [mailto:lancioair@gmail.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2016 10:46 AM

To: 9-AJV-115-UASOrganization (FAA)

Subject: Cancel 333 exemption

Hi

I’d like to request a remission or cancellation of my Section 333 exemption. 

I was granted exemption # 16633 May 4th 2016 but I never actually used it. 

I only flew my Phantom 3 (N739L) recreationally few times and never commercially. 

Also, with the new Part 107 regulations, I’m positive that I will not need the exemption anyway. 

Please rescind/cancel my exemption. 

Thank you very much.

Pierluigi Lanciotti

104 Windchase dr

Lafayette, LA 70508

337-356-1854

Exemption No 16633

Docket No FAA-2015-2943

Pierluigi Lanciotti

Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2016 4:23 PM 

To: 9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA) 

FW: Cancel 333 exemption Page 1 of 1

https://email.dot.gov/owa/9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions@faa.gov/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Not... 11/21/2016
EXHIBIT 22.1
                                                                    ------------

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

                                 State or Jurisdiction              Percentage
Name of Subsidiary                 of Incorporation                   Owned
------------------               ----------------------             ----------

Commodore Solution
Technologies, Inc.                    Delaware                         100%

Commodore CFC
Technologies, Inc.                    Delaware                         100%

CFC Technologies, Inc.                Ohio                             100%

Commodore Advanced
Sciences, Inc.*                       New Mexico                       100%

A.S. Environmental, Inc.*             Delaware                         100%

Commodore Remediation
Technologies, Inc.*                   Delaware                         100%

Commodore Government
Environmental
Technologies, Inc.*                   Delaware                         100%

Commodore Technologies, Inc.*         Ohio                             100%

Sandpiper Properties, Inc.*           Ohio                             100%

Environmental Alternatives, Inc.*     New Mexico                       100%

Advanced Sciences Integrated
Mexico, S.A. de C.V.*                 Mexico                           100%

Advanced Sciences Integradas S.A.*    Argentina                        100%

CORT Technologies, Inc.*              Delaware                         100%

Commodore Refrigerant
Technologies, Inc.                    Delaware                         100%

Commodore Nuclear, Inc.               Delaware                         100%

Dispute Resolution Management, Inc.   Utah                             81%


*  Wholly owned subsidiary of Commodore Solution Technologies, Inc.



                                        1
<PAGE>
* 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

July 13, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50163

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JORGE ALBERTO CRUZ-MONTALVO, also known as

Elias Gutierrez-Cruz,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:05-CR-2049

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

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jorge Alberto

Cruz-Montalvo raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held

that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a

separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary

affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                             395
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      664
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  3304
<PP&E>                                          135964
<DEPRECIATION>                                   55897
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   84442
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             8692
<BONDS>                                         103293
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (27543)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     84442
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 31459
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    13951
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  5196
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                9397
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   2915
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               2915
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     90
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      3005
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    21.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    21.25
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

WILLILAM LEE L. BAKER, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 202 EAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 1st day of November, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is DENIED.