alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Panel Member List for the Meeting of Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP)

to

Consider and Review

Two-dimensional Exposure Rainfall-Runoff Assessment (TERRA) Watershed

Model and its Use in the FIFRA Ecological Risk Assessment for Antimicrobial

Uses of Copper

October 25 – 26, 2011

FIFRA SAP Chair

Kenneth M. Portier, Ph.D.

Program Director, Statistics

American Cancer Society

National Home Office

Atlanta, GA

Designated Federal Official

Fred Jenkins, Ph.D.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Science Coordination & Policy

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

EPA East Building, MC 7201M

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Tel: 202-564-3327, Fax: 202-564-8382, jenkins.fred@epa.gov

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Members

Janice Chambers, Ph.D., DABT, ATS

William L. Giles Distinguished Professor

Director, Center for Environmental Health Sciences

College of Veterinary Medicine

Mississippi State University

Mississippi State, MS

Stephen Klaine, Ph.D.

Professor

Department of Biological Sciences

Director Clemson Institute of Environmental Toxicology

Clemson University

Clemson, SC
Martha Sandy, Ph.D.

Senior Toxicologist and Chief

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

California Environmental Protection Agency

Oakland, CA

Daniel Schlenk, Ph.D.

Professor of Aquatic Ecotoxicology & Environmental Toxicology

Department of Environmental Sciences

University of California, Riverside

Riverside, CA

FQPA Science Review Board Members

Linda Abbott, Ph.D.

Regulatory Risk Analyst

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Office of Risk Assessment and Cost Benefit Analysis

Washington, DC

Xuefeng Chu, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering

North Dakota State University

Fargo, ND

Richard H. Coupe, Ph.D.

Associate Water Science Director

U.S. Geological Survey

Pearl, MS

Bernard A. Engel, Ph.D.

Head, Agricultural & Biological Engineering

Purdue University

West Lafayette, IN

Robert J.M. Hudson, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Sciences

University of Illinois

Champaign, IL

Ian A. Kennedy, Ph.D.

Senior Evaluator/Pesticide Modeler

Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health Canada,

Ottawa, Canada
Yuzhou Luo, Ph.D.

Environmental Scientist

Department of Pesticide Regulation

California Environmental Protection Agency

Sacramento, CA

Thomas L. Potter, Ph.D.

Research Chemist

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Research Service 

Southeast Watershed Research Laboratory

Tifton, GA
### EO 12866 CMAS Reconsideration Final rule **Penny Lassiter** to: Cortney_Higgins 12/10/2012 03:17 PM Cc: Nick Parsons, Paul Versace, JohnB Chamberlin Cortney, Please find attached a clean final version of the final reconsideration package for the Chemical Manufacturing Area Source (CMAS) rule.

EO12866_CMAS Recon 2060-AQ89Final_20121210 Clean.doc I have also included for your convenience a redline/strikeout from the last version that we sent to you on November 29, 2012.

EO12866_CMAS Recon 2060-AQ89Final RLSO from 11-29-12 to 12-10-12.docx Please let me know if you need anything further. Thank you. Penny Lassiter Group Leader Refining and Chemicals Group (D205-01) Sector Policies and Programs Division Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. EPA Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 (919) 541-5396
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR ParI 39 [4910-13..1'1
"ru~~"NCES O\fW'GSYMOO~

(DOT). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department ofTransportation 

## 5.( {Docket No. FAA-2010-0J7]; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-185-AD; Amendme msGSYlo 

# 1~32-q fQ- ,k)I}H/1 39-*****' AD 2010-**-**1 t>oTIlALSlSK; 

## , D.-De> 

# !U~ RlN 2120 AA64 

# "'c.t, ( I" 

## - ~ ItOVTlNG SY'"""'l Ainvorthiness Directives; Airbus Model AJOOSeries Airplanes; Airbus Model ..t\300 

## fr;JJJ.1..

_ ib/ B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model C4-60SR Variant F airplan'~7~ 

## , , (Collectively Called A300-600 series airplanes); and Model A310 Series Airplanes •.

## c::1n"l."i.

## 0

~ 

# £

~ <OUTING

## SYM2 SUMMARY: We are adopting anew airworthiness directive (AD) for the products list{m'AL5''SIG above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MeAl) 'ATE originated by an aviation authority ofanother country to identify and correct anunsafe condition on an aviation product. The MeAl describes the unsafe condition as:

During amaintenance check performed by an A310 operator, the recommended modification ofthe lower attachment beam ofrack 101VU by accomplishment ofAirbus Service Bulletin (SB) A31O-S3-2076 was embodied on the aeroplane, leading the operator to fmd three cracks on the FR1SA crossbeam above the NLG [nose landing gear] box atthe splicing with rack l07VU fitting. This condition, ifnot detected and corrected, could degrade the structural integrity of the crossbeam onNLG FR15A web attachment fitting ofrack 107VU. Rack 107VU contains major tOU'IING ,VMOO[' N<TLAl.SISl<; >ATE ;(lUTING SYMBOL ~11'IAl.SISIG 'ATE
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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The TSPOC has been renewed in consonance with the public interest, and in accordance with the provisions of Pub. L. 92-463, the “Federal Advisory Committee Act.”

The TSPOC provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Defense regarding the priority treatment of national security and emergency preparedness telecommunications services. Functions include evaluating the currency of policies, procedures and system documentation requirements, and assessing the adequacy of the system in the light of technological advances.

The TSPOC will continue to be composed of 18 members, both federal, state and local government, and non-government individuals, who are experts in telecommunications services. Efforts will be made to ensure that there is a fairly balanced membership in terms of the functions to be performed and the interest groups represented.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Ms. Debbie Bea, National Communications                               ( print page 67719)                            System, Defense Information Systems Agency, telephone: 703-607-4933.                    

Dated: November 6, 2000.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 00-28862  Filed 11-9-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 12

- 00504

- CR

Cristian JAIMES , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the Criminal District Court 4, Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1255122D The Honorable Michael Thomas, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: April 10, 2013
AFFIRMED Cristian Jaimes was convicted by a jury of robbery and sentenced to nineteen years imprisonment. Jaimes’s court

- appointed attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of th e record in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel concludes that the appeal has no merit. Jaimes was provided with a copy of the brief and informed of his right to review the record and file his own brief. See Nichols v. Sta te , 954 S.W.2d 83, 85

– 86 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State , 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Jaimes did not file a pro se brief.04

- 12

- 00504

- CR

- 2

- After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we conclude that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. Nichols , 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns , 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Jaimes wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Jaimes must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or Jaimes must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the later of: (1) the date of this opinion; or (2) the date the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this court. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Proce dure. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 68.4. Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 156 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 156

 Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the coverage of members of 
             Congress under health care reform legislation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 28, 1993

 Mr. Barca of Wisconsin submitted the following concurrent resolution; 
      which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the coverage of members of 
             Congress under health care reform legislation.

Whereas Congress is expected to consider health care reform legislation in the 
        near future that would offer a standard benefit package with several 
        different options for the delivery of these benefits;
Whereas the standard benefits offered under all plans will be the same, and 
        quality standards will apply to all plans;
Whereas consumers will have the ability to choose a plan on an annual basis, and 
        will have access to full information about all plans so that they may 
        make their choice based on the quality of plans and consumer 
        satisfaction of plans; and
Whereas members of Congress should be treated the same and afforded the same 
        choices as every American in the health care system: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that any health care reform 
legislation approved by Congress should provide health care plans of 
comparable high quality and that members of Congress should participate 
on an equal basis with all other Americans in the health care system 
that results from health care reform legislation.

                                 <all>
```
Exhibit
32.2
 CERTIFICATION
 
 The
undersigned, Thomas C. Shields, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of ANADIGICS, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that the Quarterly
Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 4, 2009 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.
 
 
 Dated:
August 10, 2009
  By:
                  /s/
      Thomas C. ShieldsThomas
      C. ShieldsExecutive
      Vice President and
      Chief Financial Officer
  This
certification shall not be deemed to be “filed” for the purpose of Section 18 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and will not be incorporated by
reference into any registration statement filed under the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, unless specifically identified therein as being incorporated
by reference.
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to ANADIGICS, Inc. and will be retained by
ANADIGICS, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
#### RAY et ux. v. METZGER.

No. 8060.

Supreme Court of Texas.

June 16, 1943.

Rehearing Denied July 14, 1943.

Mays & Mays and Charles ■ Mays, all of Fort Worth, for appellants.

Fay W. Prescott and Arthur Haddaway, both of Fort Worth, for appellee.

HARVEY, Commissioner.

This is a suit by A. S. Metzger on a promissory note executed to him by T. R. Ray and his wife, Emma Ray. No personal liability is charged against Mrs. Ray, but foreclosure of a land mortgage, executed by the Rays to secure said note, is sought. The note was executed August 5, 1938, and, to secure payment of same according to its terms, the Rays, on the same day, executed a mortgage on eight lots of land described in the mortgage as lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10 in the T. R. Ray subdivision of 33⁄4 acres of land, a part of the T. Akers Survey in Tarrant County, Texas. The liability of Ray on the note is shown by undisputed evidence, and the trial court rendered judgment against him for the amount of the note. The jury, in answer to special issues submitted to them on the subject, found that at the time the mortgage was executed, the property mortgaged was not used by Ray for purposes of the family home, and that he had abandoned the use of same for such purposes. Upon this finding by the jury, the trial court rendered judgment foreclosing the mortgage. ■ It is upon this branch of the trial court’s judgment that the controversy arises. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment. 165 S.W.2d 207. The Rays have been granted the writ of error.

Testimony introduced at the trial disclosed facts.substantially as follows: Several years prior to the year 1938, Ray acquired a tract of 33⁄4 acres of land in a rural section of Tarrant County, and established the family home on said tract. Thereafter he and his wife and children resided- — and still reside — in a dwelling house which stands on said tract. In June, 1938, Ray, for the orally declared purpose of selling a portion of the land, caused the said tract to be surveyed and subdivided into ten separate lots, and thereupon caused a plat of such subdivision to be prepared and duly placed of record in the office of the County Clerk of Tarrant County. The family dwelling *481house and appurtenant structures stood' on Lots 5 and 6 as described in said plat. The eight mortgaged lots are described in the mortgage by reference to said recorded plat. These eight lots constitute vacant parcels of land and, since said plat was placed of record in June 1938, none of them has been used by Ray or his family for any purpose. Prior to that time they had been used by Ray in growing vegetables for the support of his family ; but at the time said plat was made and at the time this mortgage was given, Ray intended to cease permanently the use of the vacant lots for home purposes. This testimony furnished a valid basis for the jury findings mentioned above. Peterman v. Harborth, Tex.Com.App., 300 S.W. 33 and cases there cited.

The judgment of the trial court and that of the Court of Civil Appeals affirming same, are affirmed.

Opinion adopted by the Supreme Court.
|                                                                          
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                          
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                            
|View History: Annual                                                      
|View History: Annual                                                      
|View History:                                                             
|                                                                          
|Florida Number of Operable Refineries as of January 1 (Number of Elements)
|                                                                          
|                                                                          
|Florida Number of Operable Refineries as of January 1 (Number of Elements)
|                                                                          

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 1      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 1      | 1      | 1      | 0     
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | NA     | 0      | NA     | 0     
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 1349** 

T. TERANCE BRYAN, a/k/a Terrence Terell Bryan, a/k/a T. Terell Bryan , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,

v. BRISTOL

- MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Beaufort

. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. ( 9:13

- cv - 01826

- TLW )

Submitted : December 15, 2014 Decided: December 19, 2014

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. T. Terance Bryan, Appellant Pro Se. Sara Theresa Eibling, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: T. Terance Bryan appeals the district court ’ s order s dismissing this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41( b ) and denying his motion for reconsideration . The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) ( 2012 ). The magistrate judge recommended dismissal and advised Bryan that failure to file timely , specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge ’ s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins , 766 F .2d 841, 845

- 46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Bryan has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

We deny the motions for stay, for intervention, and to place the case in abeyance. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately prese nted in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional p rocess.
AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.1

Certification by the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of HepaLife Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on the Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Harmel S. Rayat, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(i)

the Report filed by the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii)

The information contained in that Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company on the dates and for the periods presented therein.



|                       |  |                             |  |                                                      
|---------------------- |  | --------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|                       |  | HEPALIFE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
|                       |  |                             |  |                                                      
|Date: February 8, 2006 |  | By:                         |  | /s/ Harmel S. Rayat                                  
|                       |  |                             |  | Harmel S. Rayat
President and Chief Executive Officer



This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.