alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

JEFFREY VARNER, LISA ROBINSON,

AND MICHAEL HOSSLER,

Respondents

v.

SWATARA TOWNSHIP BOARD OF

COMMISSIONERS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 202 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 11th day of September, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is GRANTED . The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

1. Whether the Commonwealth Court committed an error of law in concluding that the First Class Township Code required Swatara Township to seek judicial approval of its by

- ward reapportionment effort despite the applicability of the Municipal Reapportionment Act and Article IX, Section 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and the legislative authority afforded to Pennsylvania mun icipalities to conduct reapportionment[?]

2. Whether the Commonwealth Court committed an error of law by interpreting the phrase “not entirely elected at large” contained in the Pennsylvania Constitution and Municipal Reapportionment Act in a

manner violatin g the rules of statutory construction[?] M.D. Appeal Dkt. 49 2017
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Thomas S. Smith, President and a Director of Superior Silver Mines, Inc. (the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.

This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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:  November 12, 2008

By:      /s/ Thomas S. Smith

Thomas S. Smith, President and Director
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC D/B/A

BRAZOS LICENSING AND 

DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

v.

DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., DELL 

INC., EMC CORPORATION, AND 

VMWARE, INC.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00473-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00474-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00475-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00476-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00477-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00478-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00479-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00480-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00481-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00482-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00485-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00486-ADA

PATENT CASE

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE 

Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos License and Development ( “Plaintiff”)

hereby notifies the Court that Defendants have complied with the Court’s February 5, 2021 to limit 

the claim terms in above cases to the thirty-six (36) for the four grpus of patents. Those terms are 

identified in Exhibit A. 

The parties also have agreed to maintain the overall OGP 3.2 limits for the four groups of 

patents, but shift the terms and pages as follows:

Group Terms Opening/Response Reply/Sur-reply

Group 1 (4 patents) ‘133 Patent, ‘800 Patent, 

‘309 Patent, and ‘360 Patent

15 36 19

Group 2 (2 patents) ‘144 Patent and ‘921 Patent 4 13 6

Group 3 (2 patents) ‘489 Patent and ‘020 Patent 4 13 5

Case 6:20-cv-00473-ADA Document 73 Filed 02/12/21 Page 1 of 3
2

Group Terms Opening/Response Reply/Sur-reply

Group 4 (4 patents) ‘435 Patent, ‘536 Patent, 

‘888 Patent, and ‘129 Patent

13 38 20

Dated: February 12, 2021

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Ryan S. Loveless

James L. Etheridge 

Texas Bar No. 24059147 

Ryan S. Loveless 

Texas Bar No. 24036997 

Brett A. Mangrum 

Texas Bar No. 24065671 

Travis L. Richins 

Texas Bar No. 24061296 

Jeff Huang 

Etheridge Law Group, PLLC 

2600 E. Southlake Blvd., Suite 120 / 324 

Southlake, TX 76092 

Tel.: (817) 470-7249 

Fax: (817) 887-5950 

Jim@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Ryan@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Brett@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Travis@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Jeff@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Mark D. Siegmund

State Bar No. 24117055

mark@waltfairpllc.com

Law Firm of Walt, Fair PLLC.

1508 North Valley Mills Drive 

Waco, Texas 76710

Telephone: (254) 772-6400

Facsimile: (254) 772-6432

Counsel for Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC

Case 6:20-cv-00473-ADA Document 73 Filed 02/12/21 Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served or delivered electronically 

to all counsel of record, on this the 12th day of February, 2021.

/s/ Ryan S. Loveless

Ryan S. Loveless 

Case 6:20-cv-00473-ADA Document 73 Filed 02/12/21 Page 3 of 3
Swanson, Brian (OST) t^OT- OiX-Tjooo - (aVf^S 

From: Devany, Dennis (OST) 

Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 2:28 PM 

To: Swanson, Brian (OST) 

Subject: FW: (no subject) 

From: Kalaupapatim@aol.com [mailto:Kalaupapatim(a)aol.com1 

Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 2:08 PM 

To: Devany, Dennis (OST) 

Subject: (no subject) 

Dear Mr. DeVany, 

•:l U 

> 

-.-? 

4=-

r o 

-.-•—'-"^ m-^

N

m 

T OF 

TATtON 

RATION 

c y j 

As a resident of Kalaupapa, it is essential that we have reliable, affordable air transportation, in and 

out of our community. There is no other way to do so other than hike up a nearly 2000ft cliff side. The 

current rate to fly from Kalaupapa to Hoolehua R/T is $487.65 (for a 5 min. flight). Round trip to 

Honolulu is $507.10 (30 min.). It is a great hardship on the staff and Patients that do not get a subsidy 

or reimbursement. The Round trip cost from Hoolehua to Honolulu is $67.50 but we have to pay the 

$487 to get to Hoolehua first. Kalaupapa very much needs the EAS so we can have affordable air 

fares to be able to get in and out of Kalaupapa. Thank You for your time. 

Tim Richmond 

Food Service Supervisor 

Kalaupapa Settlement 

808.567.6925
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2814 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2814

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 100 North Main Street in Strawberry, Arkansas, as the ``Noel Austin 
                       Harris, Jr. Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 24, 2013

Mr. Crawford (for himself, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Griffin of Arkansas, and Mr. 
   Womack) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 100 North Main Street in Strawberry, Arkansas, as the ``Noel Austin 
                       Harris, Jr. Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. NOEL AUSTIN HARRIS, JR. POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 100 North Main Street in Strawberry, Arkansas, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Noel Austin Harris, Jr. Post Office''.
    (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 ``Noel 
Austin Harris, Jr. Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  /s/ Joseph V. Gulfo, M.D.Joseph V. Gulfo, M.D.President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)March 3, 2010/s/ Richard I. SteinhartRichard I. SteinhartVice President & Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)March 3, 2010 
 *
    
    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 has been provided to Electro-Optical Sciences, Inc. and will be retained by
Electro-Optical Sciences, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request. This written statement accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is
not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and will not be incorporated by
reference into any filing of Electro-Optical Sciences, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933
or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, irrespective of any general incorporation language
contained in such filing. 80
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-30596

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Eriston Wilson, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:19-CR-34-3

______________________________

Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Eriston Wilson challenges his conviction and sentence for conspiracy 

to commit Hobbs Act robbery and aiding and abetting the brandishing of a 

firearm during a crime of violence, in connection with his role in a string of 

robberies. 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 12, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-30596 Document: 54-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2024
No. 23-30596

2

We affirm the district court’s denial of his motion for a new trial based 

on newly discovered evidence, as the motion was not timely filed. See Fed. 

R. Crim. P. 33(b)(1). We also affirm the court’s application of U.S.S.G. 

§ 1B1.2(d) because Wilson has failed to show that the court clearly erred by 

implicitly finding that it would have still convicted him of the object offenses 

of the Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy despite the alleged newly discovered 

evidence. See United States v. Lockhart, 844 F.3d 501, 513 (5th Cir. 2016). 

Finally, Wilson has not demonstrated that the district court abused its 

discretion in denying his request for a downward variance. See United States 

v. Douglas, 957 F.3d 602, 609 (5th Cir. 2020). His within-guidelines sentence 

is presumptively reasonable, and he has not shown that the sentencing court 

failed to account for a factor that should have received significant weight, 

gave significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or made a clear 

error of judgment in weighing the sentencing factors. See id.

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 23-30596 Document: 54-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/12/2024
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

VINCENT LEACH,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 596 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of May, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Thomas S. Smith, President and a Director of Superior Silver Mines, Inc. (the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.

This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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:  May 13, 2009

By:    /s/ Thomas S. Smith

Thomas S. Smith, President and Director



---
Exhibit 32





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 Report of Strateco Resources Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003, which contains the Companys financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Guy Hébert, President and Chief Executive 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) of 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;



and



(2)

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



/s/ Guy Hébert

________________________________

Guy Hébert

President and Chief Executive Officer



March 26, 2004
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

BRYNNE SOUKUP, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § 1:20-CV-648-RP

§

FRONTEIR AIRLINES, INC. and §

FLIGHT SERVICES & SYSTEMS, LLC, §

§

Defendants. §

ORDER

Defendant Frontier Airlines, Inc. filed its response to Plaintiff Brynne Soukup’s complaint 

on August 4, 2020. (Mot. Dismiss, Dkt. 10). Contrary to this Court’s local rules, the parties have not 

yet submitted a proposed scheduling order. See W.D. Tex. Loc. R. CV-16(c) (requiring that the 

parties to a case submit a proposed scheduling order to the court no later than 60 days after any 

appearance of any defendant). 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties consult the website for the United States 

District Court for the Western District of Texas (www.txwd.uscourts.gov), the “Judges’ Info” tab, 

“Standing Orders,” “Austin Division,” and submit an agreed proposed scheduling order using 

District Judge Robert Pitman’s form on or before October 22, 2020.

SIGNED on October 15, 2020. 

_____________________________________

ROBERT PITMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00648-RP Document 21 Filed 10/15/20 Page 1 of 1
#### WRIGHT v. STATE.

No. 22143.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 20, 1942.

F. A. Craven, of Waco, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for theft from the person, punishment being assessed at six years in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without a statement of facts. The only bills of exception are complaints because of the refusal of two special requested charges. Obviously, the pertinency of the requested charges cannot be appraised in the absence of the facts in evidence.

The judgment is affirmed.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD

ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498

 OFFICE OF

 AIR AND RADIATION

July 2, 2015

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Files on CD for EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-DRAFT-0418

FROM: Christine Brunner

Assessment and Standards Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

TO: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and 

Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2 - Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827

The enclosed CD contains the following files associated with docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-201-0827-

DRAFT-0418. 

1) cafe_model_2015-03-16.zip

2) cafe_source-code_2015-03-16.zip

3) Central Analysis.7z

4) EIS Analysis.7z

5) Notice.txt

6) Sensitivity Analysis.7z

7) Uncertainty Analysis.7z

There are no restrictions on any of these files.
Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation Policy



 Exhibit 10.1 
 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION POLICY 
 For continued service as a non-employee director, each such individual shall
receive: 
 $1,800 per month in cash and, 
 25,000 share grant of restricted stock* 
 For service as Chairman of the Board or any Committee, each such individual shall receive an additional: 
 $400 per month in cash and, 
 12,500 share grant of restricted stock* 
 For service as a member of any Committee in a role other than as Chairman, each such individual shall receive an additional: 
 $300 per month in cash and, 
 7,500 share grant of restricted stock* 
  


	*	Grants of restricted stock shall be annual grants, to be earned during the expected 12-month time period between annual meetings of shareholders, with the intent that these grants
would be for approximately 12 months of continuous service between meetings. Shares of restricted stock granted under this Policy shall vest over one year on a quarterly basis each March 15, June 15, September 15, and
December 15 of each year.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6857** 

RAYMOND GRIFFIN , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,

v.

DONNIE HARRISON; OFFICER GILLIAM; OFFICER LAMAR; SERGEANT BRIDGES; OFFICER BEY

- ADAMS; SERGEANT SMITH; OFFICER HAMMONDS; JOHN AND JANE DOE , Defendants

– Appellees , and

CAPTAIN STEINBECK , Defendant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. ( 5:15

- ct

- 03276

- D )

Submitted : October 13, 2016 Decided: October 18, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Raymond Griffin, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Raymond Griffin seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing , in part, Griffin’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint

. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final
orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and
collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). The order Griffin seeks to appeal is neither a final
order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### HAYNES et ux. v. RIPPETOE et al.

Nos. 2746, 2747.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Eastland.

Dec. 6, 1946.

Holmes & Nicholson, of Comanche, for relators.

Fred G. Harmon, of De Leon, for respondents.

LONG, Justice.

Relators, S. R. Haynes and wife, have filed in this court a motion for leave to file a petition for mandamus to require the Hon. O. E. Rippetoe, County Judge of Comanche County, to enter a judgment sustaining their plea of privilege in a cause pending in said court. At a former day of this term, we denied such motion without a written opinion. Counsel for relators have filed a very able motion for rehearing, earnestly insisting that we grant such motion.

W. C. Mixon, one of the respondents herein, instituted a suit in the Justice Court, Precinct No. 5, Comanche County, against relators to recover a real estate commission in the sum of $35. Relators filed their plea of privilege to be sued in Erath County, the county of their residence. Such plea being overruled, appeal was taken to the County Court of said county where again the plea of privilege was overruled. There is no appeal to this court from such judgment and the same is final. Relators contend that the undisputed evidence shows that there was but one proper judgment that could have been entered in said cause, and that is one transferring the same to Erath County. They further contend that this court has the authority to issue such writ of mandamus under Articles 1823 and 1824 of Texas Revised Civil Statutes. We have given this question close study and have come to the conclusion that since the judgment of the trial court is final and this court has no jurisdiction over the controversy, that we are without power to grant the writ of mandamus. Davis et ux. v. Burnett, Judge, Tex.Civ.App., 179 S.W.2d 1014, 28 Texas Jurisprudence, p. 603. Rela-tors’ motion for rehearing of the motion for leave to file petition for mandamus is therefore overruled.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 2 02 2

- 3 600

_____________________________
J OSEPH L ANCE M ATHIS , Appellant,

v.

Y OMALIES W HITE N KA T HON , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Suwannee County

. William F. Williams
, III, Judge

. May 21, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
B.L. T HOMAS , R AY , and K ELSEY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Lucas J. Taylor of Sellers, Taylor & Morrison, P.A., Live Oak, for Appellant

. Yomalies White Nka Thon, pro se, Appellee

.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 203 (Thursday, October 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 62740]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26855]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), 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 Drug Abuse Special 
Emphasis Panel; The Development of Behavioral Methods for Drug Abuse 
Studies in the Mouse.
    Date: November 29, 2000.
    Time: 9:00 am to 6:00 pm.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Holiday Inn, 5520 Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy Chase, MD 
20815.
    Contact Person: Khursheed Asghar, PhD, Chief, Basic Sciences 
Review Branch, Office of Extramural Affairs, National Institute on 
Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, 6001 Executive Boulevard, 
Room 3158, Msc 9547, Bethesda, MD 29089-2954, (301) 443-2620.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.277, Drug 
Abuse Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, Scientist 
Development Awards, and Research Scientist Awards; 93.278, Drug 
Abuse National Research Service Awards for Research Training; 
93.279, Drug Abuse Research Programs, National Institutes of Health, 
HHS)


    Dated: October 12, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-26855 Filed 10-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M