alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 223 (Friday, November 17, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 69567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29436]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of General Medical Sciences; 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 of General Medical 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: November 17, 2000.
    Time: 9 am to 1 pm.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Holiday Inn Bethesda, 8120 Wisconsin Ave, Bethesda, MD 
20814.
    Contact Person: Rebecca H. Hackett, PhD, Office of Scientific 
Review, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National 
Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, Room 1AS19J, Bethesda, MD 
20892, (301) 594-2771, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#563e37353d3322222416383f313b2578383f3e78313920"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="543c35373f31202026143a3d3339277a3a3d3c7a333b22">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, 
Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and 
Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and 
Biological Chemistry Research; 92.862, Genetics and Developmental 
Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, 
Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)


    Dated: November 7, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-29436 Filed 11-16-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


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

No. 22474.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 2, 1943.

*890Aubrey Morris, of Waco, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

By motion in the nature of a bill of review, filed in the District Court of Johnson County, appellant sought to set aside the final judgment of that court, rendered some eleven months prior thereto, finding him guilty of the offense of highway robbery, and sentencing him to serve ten years in the penitentiary as punishment.

This is an appeal from the order of' the judge of said court overruling the motion.

The equitable bill of review has no application to criminal cases, nor is it recognized as being applicable to review the judgment in this case. The right of an accused to be relieved of an invalid judgment in a criminal case in this state is by appeal to this court, where allowed, or by resort to the writ of habeas corpus. Moreover, the order overruling the motion is not such a final judgment in a criminal case of which this court has jurisdiction upon appeal.

The appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-20-00212-CV

R. G. and S. G., Appellants

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 98TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY 

NO. D-1-FM-19-000005, THE HONORABLE DARLENE BYRNE, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant R. G. filed his notice of appeal on March 24, 2020. The appellate 

record was complete April 10, 2020, making appellant’s brief due April 30, 2020. To date, 

appellant’s brief has not been filed.

The rules of judicial administration accelerate the final disposition of appeals 

from suits for termination of parental rights. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (providing 180 days 

for court’s final disposition). The accelerated schedule requires greater compliance with 

briefing deadlines. Therefore, we order Karen J. Langsley to file appellant’s brief no later than 

May 22, 2020. If the brief is not filed by that date, counsel may be required to show cause why

she should not be held in contempt of court.

It is ordered on May 6, 2020.

Before Justices Goodwin, Kelly, and Smith
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   1-MO
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-04-1998<F1>
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-04-1998
<CASH>                                          52,572
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  131,998
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    126,795
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               327,175
<PP&E>                                         281,904
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,197
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 627,067
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          214,808
<BONDS>                                        184,501
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           293
<OTHER-SE>                                     626,774
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   627,067
<SALES>                                         53,866
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                53,866
<CGS>                                           40,199
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   54,203
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (499)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (1,206)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,072)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (525)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (547)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (547)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.02)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Filed due to a change in financial reporting year-end to the Sunday nearest
to December 31 of each year. Previously, the fiscal year ended the Sunday
nearest December 1. As a result of this change the Company is disclosing interim
financial results for the one month transition period.
<F2>Reflects Basic EPS  and a 3 for 2 stock split which was effected in the form
of a 50% dividend paid on March 6, 1998. Financial data schedules previously
filed have not been restated to reflect this stock split.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### ALLISON v. STATE.

No. 21781.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 10, 1941.

*528J. A. Veillon and D. F. Sanders, of Beaumont, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of a statutory offense by a jury which returned into open court a verdict of guilt on June 9, 1941, which was read by the clerk in open court in the presence of the jury and which contained a recommendation that the sentence of five years assessed by them be suspended. Accordingly, the trial judge in open court announced this verdict; took the recognizance of the party on trial and discharged him. After this was done one of the jurors complained to the court that they did not recommend that a suspended sentence be given. An investigation of the record revealed that two verdicts had been signed, one recommending that the sentence be suspended and one that it be not suspended, each fixing a term of five years.

The jury having been discharged from further service, the court sent for them on the following day, called them into the court room, reassembled them as jurors and heard them declare that they had returned the verdict without a recommendation of a suspension of the sentence. The other verdict was then read and filed. In conformity with it, the court entered judgment assessing punishment at five years in the penitentiary and passed sentence on appellant. A motion was filed to correct and amend the judgment so entered, giving to appellant the benefit of the suspended sentence in accordance with the verdict which was read on June 9. This motion was overruled.

The State’s Attorney has filed a brief in this case confessing error and suggesting that judgment should have been entered in accordance with the verdict of the jury which was read on June 9, recommending a suspended sentence. The State’s Attorney goes on the theory that when the jury was discharged it lost its identity as a jury so that the subsequent verdict of June 10 was a nullity. Reliance is had on Castro v. State, 118 Tex.Cr.R. 53, 42 S.W.2d 779; Hill v. State, 91 Tex.Cir.R. 561, 240 S.W. 552, and Perryman v. State, 102 Tex.Cr.R. 531, 278 S.W. 439. We agree with the conclusion reached by State’s Attorney.

It is, therefore, ordered that this judgment be reversed and remanded with instruction to the trial court to enter judgment in accordance with the verdict of the jury rendered on June 9, 1941, assessing punishment at five years with a suspended sentence as recommended by the jury at that time.
Message from the Secretary of the Treasury 

Dear Member: 

The Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 President's Budget capitalizes on Treasury's ongoing drive for 

efficiencies and improves stewardship of taxpayer dollars by focusing on the Department's core 

financial responsibilities. The Budget requests $12.3 billion for Treasury's operating bureaus 

and $1.4 billion for our international programs. 

Consistent with the Administration's priorities, the Budget provides increased resources for the 

Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network to 

combat terrorist financing, proliferation financing, and other forms of illicit finance. These 

additional resources will be deployed to economically isolate North Korea, stand up the Terrorist 

Financing Targeting Center in Saudi Arabia, implement the Countering America's Adversaries 

Through Sanctions Act, and counter the financial networks that support terrorists, organized 

transnational crime, weapons of mass destruction proliferators, and other threats. As Chair of the 

Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), I also look forward to working 

with Congress to strengthen national security by bolstering the CFIUS review process. 

The Budget includes $11.1 billion for the Internal Revenue Service from base discretionary 

appropriations to collect more than $3 trillion in revenue and continue administering the first 

comprehensive tax reform legislation in over 30 years, which delivers tax cuts to families, makes 

the tax code simpler and fairer for everyone, and makes American businesses more competitive. 

In addition, the Budget requests new and continuing investments funded through a program 

integrity cap adjustment to strengthen the enforcement of tax law, returning $28.8 billion to 

taxpayers over ten years. 

The Budget includes reform proposals that were identified as directed in the Executive Order on 

a Comprehensive Plan for Reorganizing the Executive Branch. Treasury's reform plan includes 

proposals that will drive efficiency and effectiveness within the Department and across 

government. Reflecting the significant breadth and depth of the Department's mission, 

Treasury's reform plan aims to consolidate overlapping functions within Treasury and with other 

agencies, modernize program administration, and streamline organizational structures and 

management layers. 

The FY 2019 Congressional Budget Justification includes the information required for the 

Annual Performance Report. I have validated the accuracy, completeness, and reliability of the 

performance data in this report. 

Sincerely, 

Steven T. Mnuchin
#### FULLERTON v. STATE.

No. 23108.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April *18,*1945.

A. A. Kern, of Dallas, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

*995BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

This appeal is from a conviction for the offense of burglary and the jury further found that he had been twice theretofore convicted of a felony. The appellant was accordingly sentenced to life imprisonment in the penitentiary.

The record comes before us without any bills of exception or statement of facts. The proceedings appear regular in every respect. There is nothing presented for our consideration.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SAMUEL W. SWOOPES,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

CHARLES L. RYAN; et al.,

 Respondents - Appellees.

No. 11-16918

D.C. No. 4:93-cv-00471-DCB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 11, 2014** 

San Francisco, California

Before: SILVERMAN and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and WATSON, District

Judge.*** 

FILED

AUG 13 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

 *** The Honorable Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge for the U.S.

District Court for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.
-2-

Arizona state prisoner Samuel Swoopes appeals the district court’s July 21,

2011 order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We review de novo, see,

e.g., Carrera v. Ayers, 699 F.3d 1104, 1106 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), and we

reverse and remand.

Swoopes filed his original federal petition in 1993, before the enactment of

the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). Review of

Swoopes’ petition is accordingly governed by the pre-AEDPA standard of review. 

See, e.g., Sivak v. Hardison, 658 F.3d 898, 905 (9th Cir. 2011). The district court,

however, applied the AEPDA standard, and denied relief, finding that the state

court did not unreasonably apply federal law. Compare 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)

(1996) with 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (1966). Under the pre-AEDPA standard, while a

federal habeas court does not defer to state courts’ ultimate determination of mixed

questions of law and fact, such as questions of harmlessness, it usually does defer

to the factual findings underlying such determinations. See, e.g., Mayfield v.

Calderon, 229 F.3d 895, 901 (9th Cir. 2000). Because the district court applied the

incorrect standard to its analysis of the petition, we reverse and remand for
-3-

consideration by the district court, in the first instance, of petitioner’s claims under

the appropriate standard.1

REVERSED and REMANDED.

1

 We decline to expand the certificate of appealability. The uncertified

issues are not before us and are not subject to this remand.
Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure

Part I - Crimes

Chapter 25 - Counterfeiting and Forgery

Section 492 - Forfeiture of Counterfeit Paraphernalia 

All counterfeits of any coins or obligations or other securities of the United States or of 

any foreign government, or any articles, devices, and other things made, possessed, or 

used in violation of this chapter or of sections 331-333, 335, 336, 642 or 1720, of this 

title, or any material or apparatus used or fitted or intended to be used, in the making of 

such counterfeits, articles, devices or things, found in the possession of any person 

without authority from the Secretary of the Treasury or other proper officer, shall be 

forfeited to the United States. 

Whoever, having the custody or control of any such counterfeits, material, apparatus, 

articles, devices, or other things, fails or refuses to surrender possession thereof upon 

request by any authorized agent of the Treasury Department, or other proper officer, 

shall be fined not more than $100 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. 

Whenever, except as hereinafter in this section provided, any person interested in any 

article, device, or other thing, or material or apparatus seized under this section files 

with the Secretary of the Treasury, before the disposition thereof, a petition for the 

remission or mitigation of such forfeiture, the Secretary of the Treasury, if he finds that 

such forfeiture was incurred without willful negligence or without any intention on the 

part of the petitioner to violate the law, or finds the existence of such mitigating 

circumstances as to justify the remission or the mitigation of such forfeiture, may remit 

or mitigate the same upon such terms and conditions as he deems reasonable and just. 

If the seizure involves offenses other than offenses against the coinage, currency, 

obligations or securities of the United States or any foreign government, the petition for 

the remission or mitigation of forfeiture shall be referred to the Attorney General, who 

may remit or mitigate the forfeiture upon such terms as he deems reasonable and just.
U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT 

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Press Release: June 15, 2018

Contact: Public Affairs (202) 622-2960 

Readout of Financial Stability Oversight Council Meeting

Washington – U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin today convened a meeting of the 

Financial Stability Oversight Council (Council) in executive session at the U.S. Department of 

the Treasury. 

During the meeting, the Council discussed potential amendments to the Council’s interpretive 

guidance regarding nonbank financial company designations. The Council received an update on 

ongoing staff discussions about potential changes, including those recommended in the Treasury 

Department’s November 2017 report on the Council’s designations processes. 

The Council also discussed an application to the Council from a bank holding company or its 

successor under section 117 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 

Act.

In addition, the Council discussed the ongoing annual reevaluation of its designation of a 

nonbank financial company.

The Council also received a brief update regarding its cryptocurrency working group, which is 

assessing potential risks related to digital assets.

The Council also heard an update on the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s proposed regulation 

on capital requirements for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Finally, the Council voted to approve the minutes of its previous meeting on April 12.

Additional information regarding the Council, its work, and the recently approved meeting 

minutes is available at http://www.fsoc.gov.

####
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 223 (Friday, November 17, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 69566]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29427]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; 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 of Child Health and Human 
Development Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: November 16-17, 2000.
    Time: 4:00 p.m. to 12:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Bethesda Holiday Inn, 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 
20814.
    Contact Person: Jon M. Ranhand, PhD., Scientist Review 
Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of 
Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 
5E03, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-6884.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program; 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93,929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: November 7, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-29427 Filed 11-16-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Revised MATS preamble and regulation 12/12/2011 06:16 PM

From: Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US

To: Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov

Cc: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cortney --

Attached is a revised MATS preamble and regulation and a redline vs. the November 4 version.

Thank you.

Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt

Bill Maxwell Energy Strategies Group Sector Policies and Programs Division U.S. EPA Mail Code D243-01 109 T.W. Alexander Drive Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Phone: 919-541-5430 FAX: 919-541-5450

EO12866NESHAPMACT_NSPSforUtilitiesMAT S2060_AP52Final20111212.docx

Redline 110411 vs. 121211.docx