alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

# ACTION:

Notice; correction. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The National Institutes of Health published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on August 25, 2000, the final National Institutes of Health Guidelines for Research Using Human Pluripotent Stem Cells (65 FR 51976). The final Guidelines contained incorrect citations and other errors. The final Guidelines, with the corrections made in this notice, are available on the NIH stem cell information web site at:(                        *http://www.nih.gov/​news/​stemcell/​index.htm*). For additional information on human pluripotent stem cells, refer to this web site.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        NIH Office of Science Policy, Attention: HPSCRG, Building 1, Room 218, MSC 0166, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-7741 or e-mail                         *stemcell@mail.nih.gov.*

## Corrections

1. In Section II.A.2.d of the Guidelines (65 FR 51980, first column), change “human pluripotent stem cells,” at the end of the section, to “embryo.”

2. In Section II.B.1.a. of the Guidelines (65 FR 51980, second column), change “Section II.A.2” to “Section II.B.2.”

3. In Section II.B.2.a. of the Guidelines (65 FR 51980, third column), add the following at the end of the section: “and with 42 U.S.C. § 289g-2(b).”

4. In Section IV.B. of the Guidelines (65 FR 51981, first column), change “applications shall” in the first sentence to “documentation of compliance with the Guidelines will” and insert after “by HPSCRG and” the words, “all applications will be reviewed”.

Dated: November 15, 2000.

Ruth L. Kirschstein,

Principal Deputy Director, NIH.

[FR Doc. 00-29791 Filed 11-20-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
DENY; and Opinion Filed November 28, 2018.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-18-01192-CV

IN RE MARK STEVEN MCANDREWS, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 59th Judicial District Court

Grayson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. FA-18-0614

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Lang-Miers, Fillmore, and Stoddart

Opinion by Justice Fillmore

In the underlying suit affecting the parent-child relationship, the maternal grandparents of 

relator’s children sought possession and access to the children. In this original proceeding, relator 

seeks a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to vacate the trial court’s October 2, 2018 order 

granting possession of and access of relator’s children to the maternal grandparents and dismiss 

the underlying case. We deny the petition.

To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court has clearly 

abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 

148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The October 2, 2018 order at issue here 

disposes of all parties and all claims and is, therefore, final and appealable. See Lehmann v. Har–

Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 192 (Tex. 2001). Relator, therefore, has an adequate remedy by appeal. 

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a) (the 
–2–

court must deny the petition if the court determines relator is not entitled to the relief sought).

181192F.P05

/Robert M. Fillmore/

ROBERT M. FILLMORE

JUSTICE
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1263

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to direct the Secretary

of Health and Human Services to determine whether individuals entitled

to benefits under the medicare program meet the requirements for status

as qualified medicare beneficiaries under the medicaid program, and

for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 9, 1993

Mr. MCCLOSKEY introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to

the Committees on Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to direct

the Secretary of Health and Human Services to determine whether individuals entitled to benefits under the

medicare program meet the requirements for status as

qualified medicare beneficiaries under the medicaid program, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1263 IH

1 SECTION 1. DETERMINATION BY SECRETARY OF QUALI2 FIED MEDICARE BENEFICIARY STATUS.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Part B of title XVIII of the Social

4 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395j et seq.) is amended by in5 serting after section 1836 the following new section:

6 ‘‘DETERMINATION OF QUALIFIED MEDICARE

7 BENEFICIARY STATUS

8 ‘‘SEC. 1836A. (a) IN GENERAL.—At the time an in9 dividual becomes entitled to insurance benefits under part

10 A pursuant to section 226(a), the Secretary shall deter11 mine whether the individual meets the requirements for

12 status as a qualified medicare beneficiary under section

13 1905(p)(1).

14 ‘‘(b) CERTIFICATION TO STATES.—If the Secretary

15 makes a determination that an individual meets the re16 quirements for status as a qualified medicare beneficiary,

17 the Secretary shall certify such determination to the State

18 in which the individual resides.’’.

19 (b) ACCEPTANCE OF DETERMINATION BY STATE.—

20 Section 1905(p) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(p)) is

21 amended by adding at the end the following new para22 graph:

23 ‘‘(5)(A) If the Secretary certifies to the State that

24 an individual meets the requirements for status as a quali25 fied medicare beneficiary, the individual shall be deemed

26 to have met the requirements of paragraph (1).
3

•HR 1263 IH

1 ‘‘(B) Nothing in subparagraph (A) shall be construed

2 to prohibit a State from requiring an individual to con3 tinue to meet the requirements of paragraph (1) after the

4 individual is deemed to have met the requirements of such

5 paragraph under subparagraph (A).’’.

6 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

7 The amendments made by section 1 shall apply to

8 individuals entitled to benefits under title XVIII of the So9 cial Security Act pursuant to section 226(a) of such Act

10 on or after January 1, 1994.

Æ
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

MARK A. TROUTT,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

Respondent-Appellee.

______________________ 

2014-7001

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 13-441, Judge William Greenberg.

______________________ 

PER CURIAM 

O R D E R

Upon review of this recently docketed appeal, it appears that this court may lack jurisdiction over Mark A. 

Troutt’s appeal. 

A March 2012 Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) 

decision remanded Troutt’s claim of entitlement to a feebasis outpatient identification card for further development and adjudication. Troutt subsequently appealed to 

the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

(“Veterans Court”), which dismissed his appeal because 

the Board’s decision was not final.

Case: 14-7001 Document: 4 Page: 1 Filed: 10/30/2013
2 TROUTT v. SHINSEKI

On July 15, 2013, the Veterans Court entered its 

judgment in Troutt’s case. Troutt’s notice of appeal was 

received on September 27, 2013, 74 days after the date of 

judgment. To be timely, a notice of appeal must be received by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims within 

60 days of the entry of judgment. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a); 

28 U.S.C. § 2107(b); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1).

Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) Troutt is directed to show cause, within 30 days of 

the date of filing of this order why this appeal should not 

be dismissed. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may also 

respond within that time. 

(2) The briefing schedule is stayed.

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Daniel E. O’Toole

 Clerk 

s26

Case: 14-7001 Document: 4 Page: 2 Filed: 10/30/2013
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 Quarterly Report of Apex Silver Mines Limited (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) 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 result of operations of the Company.



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|                                                 
|/s/ Jeffrey G. Clevenger                         
|Jeffrey G. Clevenger                             
|President and Chief Executive Officer            
|August 11, 2008                                  
|                                                 
|/s/ Gerald J. Malys                              
|Gerald J. Malys                                  
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|August 11, 2008
#### RAMIREZ v. SALINAS et al.

No. 1742—7077.

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section B.

June 1, 1938.

Pope & Pope, of Laredo, and Bismarlc Pope, of San Diego, for plaintiff in error.

Edward A. Mullally and C. H. Kazen, both of Laredo, for defendants in error.

SMEDLEY, Commissioner.

We find from examination of the application for writ of error, after submission of the cause, that the application was improvidently granted, because it fails to state, as required by Rule No. 1 for the Supreme Court, that the particular decision or ruling sought to be reviewed was assigned as error in motion for rehearing filed in the Court of Civil Appeals. The application for writ of error contains no reference to the motion for rehearing in the Court of Civil Appeals and does not state that a motion for rehearing was filed. It becomes necessary, therefore, to set aside the order granting the application and to dismiss it. Leonard Bros. v. Newton, 129 Tex. -, 101 S.W.2d 223; Glenn v. McCarty, Tex.Sup., 107 S.W.2d 363; Id., Tex.Sup., 110 S.W.2d 1148; Casualty Reciprocal Exchange v. Dawson, Tex.Com.App., 107 S.W.2d 994.

We have, however, examined the transcript, the statement of facts and the briefs, and if jurisdiction of the cause were retained we would affirm the judgments of the trial court and the Court of Civil Appeals, on the ground that it was not necessary to submit to the jury the question of proximate cause, because the .only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence is that the negligence of the operator of the truck in driving it on the public highway at night without lights proximately caused the death of defendants in error’s son. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. McCoy, 90 Tex. 264, 38 S.W. 36; St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. of Texas v. Missildine, Tex.Civ.App., 157 S.W. 245, application for writ of error refused; *57Crow v. Southwestern Transportation Co., Tex.Civ.App., 73 S.W.2d 607, application for writ of error refused; International-Great Northern R. Co. v. Hawthorne, Tex.Com.App., 116 S.W.2d 1056, decided May 25, 1938, and not yet reported [in State report].

The order granting the application for writ of error is set aside and the application is dismissed.

Opinion adopted by the Supreme Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM GEOSCIENCE CORPORATION FORM 10Q SECOND QUARTER 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000   
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           2,487
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   48,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     50,942
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               105,921
<PP&E>                                          31,743
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 149,185
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           58,298
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           105
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   149,185
<SALES>                                         66,512
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                           39,490
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   58,791
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,420
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,721
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,394
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,327
<DISCONTINUED>                                   4,250
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,577
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.96
        

</TABLE>
**Avis juridique important**

*|*

# 22003D0048

**Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 48/2003 of 16 May 2003 amending Annex XII (Free movement of capital) to the EEA Agreement***Official Journal L 193 , 31/07/2003 P. 0020 - 0021*

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee

No 48/2003

of 16 May 2003

amending Annex XII (Free movement of capital) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement", and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Annex XII to the Agreement has not been amended previously.

(2) Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions(1) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following point shall be inserted after point 1 (Council Directive 88/361/EEC) of Annex XII to the Agreement:

"2. 32000 L 0035: Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payments in commercial transactions (OJ L 200, 8.8.2000, p. 35).

The provisions of the Directive shall, for the purposes of the present Agreement, be read with the following adaptation:

The following paragraph shall be added to Article 6:

'6. The EFTA States shall put into effect the measures necessary to comply with this Directive before 31 December 2003.'"

Article 2

The texts of Directive 2000/35/EC in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 17 May 2003, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee(2).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 16 May 2003.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

P. Westerlund

(1) OJ L 200, 8.8.2000, p. 35.

(2) Constitutional requirements indicated.
================================================================================

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1








            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
            --------------------------------------------------------



To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
Groen Brothers Aviation, Inc.
Salt Lake City, Utah


We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  registration
statement of Groen Brothers Aviation,  Inc. on Form S-8 No.  333-125732,  of our
report dated September 26, 2006,  which is included in the Form 10-KSB for Groen
Brothers Aviation, Inc. for the year ended June 30, 2006.

Our report covering the June 30, 2006 consolidated financial statements of Groen
Brothers  Aviation,  Inc.  contains  an  explanatory  paragraph  relating  to an
uncertainty as to the Company's ability to continue as a going concern,  for the
year ended June 30, 2006.


/s/ HJ & Associates, LLC

HJ & Associates, LLC
Salt Lake City, Utah
October 12, 2006








--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No . FAA - 20 14 - 0577 Directorate ID : 20 13 - SW - 042 - AD Helicopter Model: Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Helicopters Model EC135P1, EC135T1, EC135P2, EC135T2, EC135P2+, EC135T2+, and MBB - B K 117 C - 2 helicopters. Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 385 Helicopters in the US Registry . Reason : The proposed actions are intended to prevent loss of concerned control axis and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. Costs : In specting for movement of the washers would require 1.5 work hours for a labor cost of $128 per helicopter and $49,280 for the U.S. fleet. Replacing the screws and related work would require an additional 0.5 work- hours for a labor cost of $43. Screws would cost $4 each while washers would cost $10 each. We estimate the cost would be $79 per repair. Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory Flexibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Matt Wilbanks
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Henry Kelley, Appellant.

Judgement unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying, without a hearing, defendant’s *pro se*motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The record discloses that defendant voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently entered his plea of guilty. During the plea allocution, defendant acknowledged his guilt of the crime without hesitation or claim of innocence *(see, People v Kafka,*128 AD2d 895, *Iv denied*69 NY2d 951; *People v Stubbs,*110 AD2d 725, 728). On his subsequent motion to withdraw his guilty plea, defendant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to advance his claims by the court, which had presided over the suppression hearing and thus had the benefit of testimony implicating defendant in the burglary that was the subject of the indictment *(see, People v*
      *899
      *Kafka, supra,*at 895; *People v Colon,*114 AD2d 967, *Iv denied*67 NY2d 650). Nothing in the record lends credence to defendant’s belated conclusory assertions that confusion and misunderstanding at the time his guilty plea was entered resulted in an involuntary guilty plea *(see, People v Kafka, supra,*at 895; *People v Colon, supra).*(Appeal from judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J.—attempted burglary, third degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1223 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1223

  To require the Secretary of the Army to expand the First Sergeants 
Barracks Initiative (FSBI) throughout the Army in order to improve the 
      quality of life and living environments for single soldiers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 26, 2009

 Ms. Foxx (for herself, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. 
   Engel, and Mr. Kissell) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the Secretary of the Army to expand the First Sergeants 
Barracks Initiative (FSBI) throughout the Army in order to improve the 
      quality of life and living environments for single soldiers.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Sustain, Support and Defend Act of 
2009''.

SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF FIRST SERGEANTS BARRACKS INITIATIVE.

    (a) Expansion of Initiative.--Not later than September 30, 2011, 
the Secretary of the Army shall expand the First Sergeants Barracks 
Initiative (FSBI) to include all Army installations in order to improve 
the quality of life and living environments for single soldiers.
    (b) Progress Reports.--Not later than February 15, 2010, and 
February 15, 2011, the Secretary of the Army shall submit to Congress a 
report describing the progress made in expanding the First Sergeants 
Barracks Initiative to all Army installations, including whether the 
Secretary anticipates meeting the deadline imposed by subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```