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 Veterans Affairs

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. ch. 10, that the VA National Academic Affiliations Council (NAAC) will meet via conference call on December 4, 2024, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m., eastern standard time. The meeting is open to the public.

The purpose of the Council is to advise the Secretary on matters affecting partnerships between VA and its academic affiliates.

On December 4, 2024, the Council will receive project updates and have discussions on actions affecting the educational mission of VA. The Council will receive oral public comments from 2:25 p.m. to 2:55 p.m. EST.

Interested persons may attend and/or present oral statements to the Council.

                    The dial in number to attend the conference call is: 669 254 5252. At the prompt, enter meeting ID 161 789 6622, then press #. The meeting passcode is 267962 then press #. Individuals seeking to present oral statements are invited to submit a 1-2-page summary of their comments at the time of the meeting for inclusion in the official meeting record. Oral presentations will be limited to five minutes or less, depending on the number of participants. Interested parties may also provide written comments for review by the Council prior to the meeting or at any time, by email to                     *Nellie.Mitchell@va.gov,*                     or by mail to Nellie Mitchell, MS, RHIA, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Academic Affiliations (14AA), 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420. Any member of the public wishing to participate or seeking additional information should contact Ms. Mitchell via email or by phone at 608-358-9902.                

Dated: November 7, 2024.

Jelessa M. Burney,

Federal Advisory Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2024-26238 Filed 11-12-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# USS Nimitz: 50 Years of Teamwork and Tradition

By Navy Seaman Michael Prusiecki, USS NimitzUSS Nimitz (CVN 68)

                BREMERTON, Washington  –              **Numerous Deployments****Plank Owners**

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 20, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 91805]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27057]

[[Page 91805]]

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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Advisory Committee for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships; 
Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub., L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the 
following meeting:
    Name and Committee Code: Advisory Committee for Technology, 
Innovation and Partnerships (# 84684) (Hybrid).
    Date and Time: December 13, 2024; 11a.m.-3p.m. (eastern).
    Place: NSF, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314 (In-Person 
and Virtual).
    The meeting will be hybrid, with some Advisory Committee members 
participating in person and others participating virtually. Members of 
the public can view the meeting virtually. To attend the virtual 
meeting, please send your request for the virtual meeting link to the 
following email: [email protected].
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Contact Persons: Chaitanya Baru, Senior Advisor, National Science 
Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314; Telephone: 
(703) 292-8050.
    Additional meeting information, an updated agenda, and registration 
information will be posted on the AC's website at https://new.nsf.gov/tip/tip-advisory-commitee.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice to the National Science 
Foundation concerning the implementation of the provisions of the CHIPS 
and Science Act of 2022, Public Law 117-167, pertaining to the 
Directorate for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships (TIP), along 
with other related policies and activities of the Foundation.
    Agenda:
    Friday, December 13, 2024
     Welcome and overview of the TIP Advisory Committee's 
charge
     Introduction to TIP, including current portfolio of 
investments and partnerships
     Strategic recommendations for TIP
     Next steps and closing remarks.

    Dated: November 14, 2024.
Crystal Robinson,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2024-27057 Filed 11-19-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
```
#### D. B. WOOD AND OTHERS *against*SAMUEL REEVES, *Ex'r*OF WILLIAM S. MACAY.

Where a female infant’s land was sold under a deoreo in Equity, for the benefit of the infant, and she married and died in 1850, before coming of age, leaving a child, who died in 1851, in infancy, its falhet surviving, it was *Held*that the money retained the character of real property, and that the heirs-at-law, of the last mentioned infant, had an equity to follow the fund and recover it from the executor of its father, into whose hands it had' come, as administrator of his wife.

*(Bateman*v. Latham, 3 Jones’ Eq. 35, cited and approved.)

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Rowan.-

The plaintiffs in this suit) are heirs-at-law of — — Macay, an *272infant child of William S. and Margaret I. Macay, who died before it was named. Isabella, the mother of Margaret Macaj, and grand-mother of the said infant, was the- wife of Richard Lowery. She died seized of a tract of land in the-county of Rowan, and, at her death, it descended to her daughter, Margaret I., then under age.. At September Term* 1838, of Rowan county court, Richard Lowery filed a petition-for the sale of this land, in bis own- name, as tenant by the-courtesy, and as the guardian of his daughter Margaret, and' obtained a decree for the same. Upon the- sale of the land.,, the purchase-money, $756.66, was paid by the clerk and master to Richard Lowery, wdio executed a bond for the payment of the money to his daughter, Margaret, when his life interest therein ^ should terminate. -Lowery kept tins money until his- death, which occurred in 1S5L In the mean time, Margaret I., his daughter, had intermarried with William S. Ma-cay, the defendant Reeves’ testator, and died under-twenty-one. Her child, the said infant, suivived her but a short time. After the death of Richard Lowery, the-administrator of Mrs. Macay, brought suit u-pon the bond, against the administrator of Lowery, and recovered the money, and paid it to William S. Macay, who retained the-same until his-death, in 1856. This suit is brought by the heirs-at-law of the said infant, against the executor of William S. Macay, to-recover this money.

The defendant demurred, and the cause was removed to.this Court by consent.

Fleming, for the plaintiff.

Boyden, for the defendant.

Battle, J.

The case of *Bateman*v. *Latham,*3 Jones’ Eq. 35, is a direct authority in favor of the claim of the plaintiffs. The fund received by the defendant’s testator, thongh retaining the character of real estate so far as its devolution and transfer are concerned, nevertheless, went into his bands in the form of money, and as such passed into the hands of the *273defendant as bis executor. The right of the plaintiffs to follow the fund, necessarily requires that they should be allowed to recover it from him or them, who at the time, may have it in possession, and in the present case, that is the executor,, and not the heirs-at-law of 'William S. Macay.

Per Curiam, Demurrer overruled.
**Exhibit 10.86**

In conjunction with the restructuring plan of the Company and the uncertainty surrounding the financial condition of the Company, the board of directors of the Company approved on November 8, 2008, grants ofretention bonuses to the Company’s remaining 16 employees, including the named executive officers, which required repayment if the respective employee terminated employment before February 9, 2009. Under the terms of retention bonusagreements, the retention bonus amounts were equal to two months of base salary for each respective retained employee, of which 50% was paid on November 17, 2008, 25% was paid on November 26, 2008 and 25% was paid on December 15,2008. Mr. Kranda, Jean-Frédéric Viret, the Company’s former chief financial officer, and Dr. Houghton received retention bonuses in the aggregate amounts of $75,000, $44,167 and $56,667, respectively. 

As a result of the continuing uncertainty surrounding the financial condition of the Company and in conjunction with the Company’s continuingoperations for 2009, the board of directors of the Company approved on February 12, 2009, grants of retention bonuses to the Company’s remaining employees to maintain ongoing operations and retain such employees, including the namedexecutive officers. Under the terms of retention bonus agreements, the retention bonuses must be repaid if the employee resigns from employment before the expiration of a 60 day period following the retention bonus payment. The retention bonuses areequal to a pre-determined amount for each remaining employee, of which 33% was paid on March 1, 2009 and of which the subsequent amounts will be paid on or about May 15, 2009, and on or about June 30, 2009, subject to further approvalby the board of directors. For Mr. Kranda, Mr. Tran, and Dr. Houghton, the retention bonuses paid on March 1, 2009 amounted to $66,667, $16,000 and $33,333, respectively.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7467 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DWAYNE DELESTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(2:99-cr-00751-DCN-6; 2:02-cv-03895-DCN)

Submitted: November 21, 2006 Decided: December 4, 2006

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dwayne Deleston, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Dwayne Deleston seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. We

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of

appeal was not timely filed. 

When the United States or its officer or agency is a

party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days

after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order,

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is

“mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr.,

434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361

U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). 

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on

May 2, 2005. The notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on

July 25, 2006. Because Deleston failed to file a timely notice of

appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period,

we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Abelardo Acevedo, Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 692]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Clifford A. Scott, J.), rendered March 26, 1993, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 5 to 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s argument that the court should not .have accepted his plea without inquiring into whether he understood that he had raised an affirmative defense to the first degree robbery charge by asserting that the gun possessed by his accomplice was not loaded (Penal Law § 160.15 [4]) is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law inasmuch as defendant never moved to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment and his recitation of the facts at the plea proceeding in fact did not raise an affirmative defense or otherwise cast significant doubt upon his guilt *(People v Toxey,*86 NY2d 725, *affg*202 AD2d 330; *People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 665-666). There being nothing in the record to indicate the existence of a possible affirmative defense, the court was under no duty to inquire further to ensure that the plea was being intelligently entered *(People v Lopez, supra,*at 666, n 2; *see, People v Caraballo,*208 AD2d 413, *lv denied*84 NY2d 1010; *People v Martinez,*127 AD2d 855). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# DOD Working Toward Networked Indo-Pacific

By xxx JIM GARAMONEDOD NEWS

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
#### In re Wayne MINK, Debtor. SOUTHERN OHIO BANK, Plaintiff, v. Wayne MINK, Defendant.

Adv. No. 1-81-0376.

Related Case No. 1-81-02452.

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio, W.D.

Nov. 18, 1982.

Sylvan Reisenfeld, Cincinnati, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Benjamin Goodman, Hamilton, Ohio, for defendant.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIM.

BURTON PERLMAN, Bankruptcy Judge.

In the above identified Chapter 7 case, plaintiff filed a complaint to determine dis-chargeability of a debt and an objection to the discharge of the debtor pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(3). Defendant/debtor answered and filed a counterclaim for money damages alleging that creditor’s claim is in bad faith and without merit. Thereafter plaintiff responded and filed a motion to dismiss defendant’s counterclaim for failure to state a claim for relief. The matter came on for hearing. After oral argument, it was agreed that the question be submitted upon briefs to the Court.

Defendant contends that he is entitled to maintenance of his counterclaim in that plaintiff’s objection to discharge is frivolous, vexatious and constitutes willful and wanton misconduct towards the defendant. Damages sought by defendant are in the amount of $10,000.00 for compensatory and $2,000,000.00 in punitive damages. Plaintiff, on the other hand, contends that defendant’s counterclaim is premature and fails to state a cause of action in that it is in *534the nature of a claim for malicious prosecution or abuse of process, and should be dismissed. We agree with the latter contention.

Defendant’s counterclaim is in the nature of an action in tort for malicious prosecution which under Ohio law arises from the institution of proceedings against another with malice and without probable cause. *See: Malicious Prosecution,*35 O.Jur.2d § 5-35. But whether such action can be maintained depends upon establishing that the original proceeding which gave rise to the claim terminated in favor of the party bringing the action for malicious prosecution. Otherwise, the counterclaim is premature and warrants dismissal. *Sorin v. Board of Ed., Etc.,*464 F.Supp. 50 (N.D., Ohio, 1978); *Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. v. Marbon Corp.*32 F.Supp. 279 (D.Del., 1940).

Defendant’s counterclaim is premature and will be dismissed.

SO ORDERED.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                      THERMACELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                                         Computation of Earnings Per Common Share

                                                           For the Three Months Ended               For the Nine Months Ended
                                                                     June 30,                                 June 30,
                                                     ------------------------------------      ------------------------------------
                                                           1999                  1998               1999                   1998
                                                     --------------         -------------      -------------           ------------

<S>                                                 <C>                   <C>                <C>                    <C>
Shares outstanding:                                      8,149,769             4,245,021          8,149,769              4,245,021
Weighted average shares outstanding w/o options          7,495,761             3,902,338          6,495,413              3,181,202
Incremental shares attributed to outstanding options     2,170,000               700,000          2,050,000                350,000
Weighted average number of shares repurchased             (969,524)             (448,718)          (969,524)               (98,718)
                                                     --------------         -------------      -------------           ------------
Weighted average shares outstanding                      8,696,237             4,153,620          7,575,889              3,432,484
Net loss                                            $     (205,218)        $     (94,849)     $    (686,692)          $   (238,354)
Add preferred stock dividends                                                     16,836                                    33,488
                                                    ---------------         -------------      -------------           ------------
                                                          (205,218)             (111,685)          (686,692)              (271,842)


Net loss per share                                  $        (0.02)        $       (0.02)     $       (0.09)          $      (0.07)


</TABLE>
# C_2014129EN.01001801.xml

| 28.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2014 — Al Assad v Council

(Case T-202/12) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Entry of an individual on the lists of persons subject to restrictive measures - Personal ties to members of the regime - Rights of the defence - Fair hearing - Obligation to state reasons - Burden of proof - Right to effective judicial protection - Proportionality - Right to property - Right to privacy))

(2014/C 129/22)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bouchra Al Assad (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: G. Karouni and C. Dumont, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Étienne and M.-M. Joséphidès, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment in part, first, of Council Implementing Decision 2012/172/CFSP of 23 March 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2012 L 87, p. 103); secondly, of Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP of 29 November 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/782/CFSP (OJ 2012 L 330, p. 21); thirdly, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 363/2013 of 22 April 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2013 L 111, p. 1, corrigendum OJ 2013 L 127, p. 27); and, fourthly, of Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2013 L 147, p. 14), in so far as those acts relate to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Bouchra Al Assad to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Bouchra Al Assad to pay the costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RAYMARR DAQUAN ALFORD,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 266 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 19th day of April, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.