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

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 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 Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIDDK T1D Review.                    

*Date:*                         October 31, 2024.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, NIDDK, Democracy II, Suite 7000A, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Elena Sanovich, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Rm 7351. (Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-8886,                         *sanoviche@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 10, 2024.

Miguelina Perez,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2024-20957 Filed 9-13-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
1

Subject: FW: question re: EHP 2010 paper bone Pb DNA methylation

From: Wright, Robert [mailto:robert.wright@mssm.edu] 

Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 10:05 AM 

To: Patel, Molini 

Subject: RE: question re: EHP 2010 paper bone Pb DNA methylation 

Hi Molini, 

Bone Pb units are ug/g bone. 

Robert O. Wright MD MPH 

Professor of Pediatrics and Preventive Medicine 

Director, Division of Environmental Health 

Mount Sinai School of Medicine 

One Gustave L Levy Place; Box 1057 

New York, NY 10029 

212-824-7035 

From: Patel, Molini [mailto:Patel.Molini@epa.gov] 

Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 10:02 AM 

To: Wright, Robert 

Subject: question re: EHP 2010 paper bone Pb DNA methylation 

Hi Dr. Wright, 

We’re working on finalizing the Integrated Science Assessment for Pb, and I wanted to confirm the bone Pb 

units reported in your 2010 EHP paper (Environ Health Perspect 118:790–795 (2010)). The bone Pb units in 

the tables are reported in g/g; however, the methods describe uncertainties as > 10 ug/g and > 15 ug/g for tibia 

and patella Pb, respectively. Tables 2 and 3 also report the blood Pb units as g/dL. Please confirm the correct 

units for bone and blood Pb in the tables. 

Thank you! Molini

Molini M. Patel, PhD, MPH 

Epidemiologist 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

National Center for Environmental Assessment 

Mailcode: B243-01 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Phone: 919.541.1492, Fax: 919.541.1818, Email: patel.molini@epa.gov
## United States Court of Appeals
**For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________

No. 20 -1092

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

John Axelgard

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield

____________

Submitted: July 7, 2020

Filed: July 13, 2020 [Unpublished]

____________
Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

T he district court 1 order ed John Axelgard involuntarily committed based on a
“mental disease or defect.” 18 U.S.C. § 4246 (authorizing commitment when

1 The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the- 2 - releasing a person who suffers from a “mental disease or defect” would “create a substantial risk of bodily injury . . . or serious damage to property”) . On appeal, Axelgard’s counsel requests permission to withdraw and challenges the factual findings underlying the court’s commitment decision . Axel gard seeks unconditional release in a pro se supplemental brief and reque sts new counsel.

We conclude that the district court ’s factual findings were not clearly

erroneous. S ee 18 U.S.C. § 4246(d) (stating that a clear

- and -convincing- evidence
standard applies in this type of commitment proceeding); United States v. Williams

, 299 F.3d 673, 676 (8th Cir. 2002) (discussing the standard of review on appeal)

. Evidence in the record, including several expert opinions, established that Axelgard
has a mental illness, that his dangerous behavior is related to it , and that he would likely discontinue treatment if he were released. See United States v. Ecker , 30 F.3d 966, 970 (8th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, w e affirm the judgment, see 8th Cir. R. 47 B, deny Axelgard’s motion for new counsel, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Honorable David P. Rush, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
#### SMITH v. STATE.

No. 21054.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 8, 1940.

*792Denman & Fowler, of Nacogdoches, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is possessing whisky in a container to which no stamp tax showing payment of the tax due the State of Texas was affixed; the punishment, a fine of $100.

According to their version, officers went to appellant’s private residence for the purpose of looking for a man other than the appellant. As they drove up to the house they observed appellant in a back room and “saw him grab something from the table.” One of the officers ran to the back of the house just as appellant was pouring something from a pint bottle. Appellant had a quart jar of the same kind of liquid in his left hand. The containers had no stamp tax on them and there was no evidence that the tax due the State of Texas had been paid. After appellant had poured the liquid out the officers examined the containers and found a small amount of whis-ky in them.

Appellant did not testify and introduced ■no witnesses.

 The officers had neither a war^ rant of arrest nor a search warrant. Appellant timely and properly objected to their testimony touching the result of the search. The objection should have been sustained. The officers did not know at the time they entered upon appellant’s premises that his possession of the liquor in question was illegal. “Probable cause” does not authorize the search of a private residence. This court has in numerous decisions stated the rule as follows: “ ‘Probable cause’ for the belief that the accused possessed intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale did not authorize the search of the premises without a search warrant.” See Harbor v. State, 116 Tex.Cr.R. 306, 31 S.W.2d 650.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

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.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 177 (Thursday, September 12, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 74218]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-20706]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XE244]


Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council will hold a 
workshop to create a focused discussion on how aspects of alternative 5 
from the Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog Species Separation 
Requirements Amendment would be implemented by the Council and NOAA 
Fisheries.

DATES: The meeting will be held from 1 p.m. Wednesday, October 2, 2024 
through 3 p.m. Thursday, October 3, 2024. For agenda details, see 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Philadelphia Marriott 
Downtown, 1201 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107; telephone: (215) 
625-6763. The meeting will be partially streamed by webinar for 
portions of the agenda that are held in plenary. Connection information 
will be posted to the calendar prior to the meeting at www.mafmc.org.
    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. 
State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331 or 
on their website at www.mafmc.org.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive 
Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 
526-5255.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 
will hold a workshop from 1 p.m. Wednesday, October 2 through 3 p.m. 
Thursday, October 3, 2024, to create a focused discussion on how 
aspects of alternative 5 from the Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog 
Species Separation Requirements Amendment would be implemented by the 
Council and NOAA Fisheries. Alternative 5 is one of 6 alternatives in 
the Amendment under consideration by the Council to address the issues 
of mixed catches occurring in the Atlantic surfclam and ocean quahog 
individual transferable quota fisheries. Meeting materials will be 
posted to www.mafmc.org.

Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Shelley Spedden at the Council Office, (302) 526-
5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: September 9, 2024.
Rey Israel Marquez,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-20706 Filed 9-11-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6374
JONATHAN IDEMA, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ARTHUR MARKS, Community Corrections Manager, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-83-5-HC-BO-2) Submitted: March 12, 1998 Decided: March 23, 1998 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jonathan Idema, Appellant Pro Se. Fenita Talore Morris, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Since Appellant has already been released from prison, we dismiss his appeal and his motion to expedite as moot. We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
## NUMBER 13

- 2 2

- 0 0 204

- CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

MINERVA M. PENA

, Appellant

,

v.

MARISA F. LEAL

, Appellee

.

_ ___________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 107th District Court

of Cameron County, Texas.

_ ___________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Hinojosa and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina

On April 2 7 , 2022 , appellant filed a notice of appeal

. On April 29 , 2022 and May

11, 2022 , the C lerk of the Court notified appellant that s he was delinquent in remitting a

$ 20 5.00 filing fee. The Clerk of this Court notified appellant the appeal was subject to

dismissal if the filing fee was not paid within ten days from the date of th e letter s

. T EX

. R.

A PP

. P . 42.3( b),(c).2

Appellant has not paid the filing fee nor otherwise responded to the notice s from

the clerk requiring a response or other action within the time specified; accordingly, the

appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See id. 42.3(b),(c).

JAIME TIJERINA

Justice

D elivered and filed on the

30th day of June , 202 2

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          64,452
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   97,098
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    632,676
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,581
<PP&E>                                       2,627,325
<DEPRECIATION>                                 799,601
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,668,591
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          584,713
<BONDS>                                          7,421
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       353,407
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,723,050
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,668,591
<SALES>                                      2,177,150
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,177,150
<CGS>                                        2,754,860
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,754,860
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                23,107
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,965
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (600,817)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (281,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (319,817)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.09)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                              
<ARTICLE>                                          5
<CIK>                                              0001013167
<NAME>                                          SB Mid-West Futures Fund L.P.II
                                                    
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                       SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                                  90,080,984
<SECURITIES>                                             7,463,787
<RECEIVABLES>                                              302,676
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        97,847,447
<PP&E>                                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          97,847,447
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    1,576,740
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                              96,270,707
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            97,847,447
<SALES>                                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         7,972,125
<CGS>                                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         3,669,881
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          4,302,244
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                             4,302,244
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                78.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    0
        

</TABLE>
#### KNOX et al. v. MORRISON et al.

No. 9349.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Nov. 22, 1933.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 16, 1933.

James A. King, of Austin, for appellants.'

Terrell, Davis, Hall & Clemens, of San Antonio, for appellees.

On Appellants’ Motion to Issue Temporary Restraining Order.

MURRAY, Justice.

In view of the fact that the Honorable Court of Civil Appeals for the Fifth District, at Dallas, has recently upheld the constitutionality of House Bill No. 231 (known as the Moratorium Law [Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. art. 2218b]) in Lingo Lumber Company v. W. J. Hayes, 64 S.W.(2d) 835, which decision is in direct conflict with the opinion of this court in Malachy Murphy v. E. O. Phillips, 63 S.W.(2d) 404, we have decided to set aside our order hereto made dissolving the temporary injunction issued in this cause and reinstate such injunction until this cause can be submitted and fully disposed of in this court.

We deem it necessary to take this action so that appellants may have a final disposition of this appeal in this court before our temporary injunction heretofore granted is dissolved, in view of the fact that after a final disposition of this appeal here appellants may be able to secure further relief in the Supreme Court.

This cause is advanced and set for submission November 15,1933.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from an order dissolving an injunction, theretofore issued, restraining the sale of real property by trustee under deed of trust given to secure appellant’s debt to ap-pellees.

The injunction was sought, and originally granted, solely by virtue of the provisions of the so-called Moratorium Act, passed by the 43d Legislature (H. B. No. 231, Acts 1933, Reg. Sess. ch. 102, p. 225 [Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. art. 2218b]).

This court has previously held the act to be invalid in so far as it grants the right to restrain sales by trustees under powers conferred by deed of trust, as in this case. Murphy v. Phillips (Tex. Civ. App.) 63 S.W.(2d) 404, and for the reasons stated in the opinion in that case the judgment here appealed from must be affirmed. This order carries with it a further order dissolving the injunction heretofore issued, dissolved and reinstated by this court.

The injunction is.dissolved, and judgment affirmed.
| INDIANA                                        | 35-1544218                        |
|------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
| (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation) | (IRS Employer Identification No.) |

|   | o Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | o Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12) |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c)) |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----

----

| 99.1   |  Press Release, dated January 27, 2011, issued by First Merchants Corporation |
|------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:**

___ 2012

_______ - NM -

____ 118

______ - AD **Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significan t? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)