alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 62 (Wednesday, April 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 17441]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07326]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Office of Dietary Supplements VDSP Commutability Study 2

SUMMARY: NIH Office of Dietary Supplements (ODS) and the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), in collaboration with the 
College of American Pathologists (CAP) and Vitamin D External Quality 
Assessment Scheme (DEQAS), announce that as part of the Vitamin D 
Standardization Program (VDSP), they are recruiting laboratories to 
participate in a study of the commutability of pooled serum samples 
used in assays to measure total 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D].

DATES: The expected start date for the study is June 2015.

ADDRESSES: For more information about the study and to let us know if 
you are interested in participating, please contact us at: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fa8c9e898aba979b9396d4949392d49d958c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ff899b8c8fbf929e9693d1919697d1989089">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Drs. Johanna Camara, NIST, and 
Christopher Sempos, ODS, Director and Co-Director, respectively, for 
the VDSP Commutability Study 2. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5c0a180f0c1c313d353072323534723b332a">[email protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The objective of the study is to promote the 
standardized measurement of total 25(OH)D by evaluating the 
commutability of NIST Standard Reference Materials[supreg] (SRM) used 
as ``trueness'' controls and the materials used in the major 
Performance Testing/External Quality (PT/EQA) programs administered by 
CAP and DEQAS. Who Can Participate: (1) All commercial manufacturers of 
25(OH)D assays (requests from manufacturers with assays in development 
will be considered); (2) Clinical and research laboratories using a 
commercial assay platform; (3) Laboratories for national/subnational 
nutrition surveys; and (4) Laboratories using in-house developed 
assays.
    For details about the study design and time lines, see the recently 
published paper in the February 2015 edition of Clinical Laboratory 
News, (https://www.aacc.org/publications/cln/articles/2015/february/vitamin-d-commutability-study).

    Dated: March 24, 2015.
Lawrence A. Tabak,
Deputy Director, National Institutes of Health.
[FR Doc. 2015-07326 Filed 3-31-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6334

STEVE CARL CHADWICK,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

FRANK BISHOP, JR.; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF 

MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00416-RDB)

Submitted: April 25, 2017 Decided: April 28, 2017

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steve Carl Chadwick, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Steve Carl Chadwick seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A 

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable 

jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Chadwick has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
1/2 

EASA AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE 

AD No : 2006 - 0237 

Date: 09 August 2006

No person may operate an aircraft to which an Airworthiness Directive applies, except in accordance with the 

requirements of that Airworthiness Directive unless otherwise agreed with the Authority of the State of Registry.

Type Approval Holder’s Name : 

TURBOMECA 

Type/Model designation(s) : 

Turbo-shaft engine ARRIUS 2F 

TCDS Number: France No. M22 

Foreign AD : Not applicable 

Supersedure: DGAC AD F-2005-143R1, EASA Approval No. 2005-6192 

ATA 73 Fuel Control Unit (FCU) – Replacement of the constant delta 

Pressure valve diaphragm: incorporation of modification Tf55 

Manufacturer(s): TURBOMECA 

Applicability: ARRIUS 2F turbo-shaft engine (installed on EC120B helicopter) 

Reason: This AD is issued following the case of an increase in fuel flow resulting 

from deterioration of the constant delta pressure valve diaphragm. 

The increase in fuel flow led to an increase in gas generator speed which 

resulted in an increase in power turbine and helicopter rotor speed. This 

then led to an uncommanded in-flight engine shut down following power 

turbine blade-shedding (blades contained) due to over speed. 

This increase in fuel flow is attributed to the deterioration of the constant 

delta pressure valve diaphragm installed inside-out. 

DGAC AD F-2005-143R1 rendered mandatory the incorporation of 

modification Tf55 (replacement of the diaphragm potentially installed 

inside-out by one having two projections indicating proper direction 

through application of SB 319 73 4055) only on a limited number of 

engines listed in SB A 319 73 4825. 

The aim of this AD is to generalize the mandatory incorporation of 

modification Tf55 (through application of SB 319 73 4055) on the whole 

Arrius 2F fleet, and therefore to eliminate the possibility of having a 
2/2 

constant delta pressure valve diaphragm incorrectly installed on any 

Arrius 2F. 

Effective Date: 23 August 2006 

Compliance: The following measure is made mandatory from the effective date of this 

AD, unless previously accomplished: 

Before 31 July 2007, implement modification Tf55 as per paragraph 2 of 

the Turbomeca Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 319 73 4055. 

Ref. Publications:  TURBOMECA Service Bulletin No. 319 73 4055 original issue or later 

approved revisions. 

 TURBOMECA Mandatory Alert Service Bulletin No. A319 73 4825 

original issue or later approved revisions. 

Remarks : 1. If requested and appropriately substantiated the responsible EASA 

manager for the related product has the authority to accept Alternative 

Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) for this AD. 

2. This AD was posted as PAD 06-129 for consultation on 17 May 2006 with 

a comment period until 13 June 2006. No comment was raised during 

consultation period. 

3. Enquiries regarding this AD should be addressed to Mr. M. Capaccio, AD

Focal Point, Certification Directorate, EASA. E-mail ADs@easa.eu.int

4. For any questions concerning the technical content of the requirements in 

this AD, please contact: ARRIUS 2 Customer Support - TURBOMECA - 

40220 TARNOS – FRANCE; Fax: +33 5 59 74 45 15
In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

May 18, 2022. 

Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 2938) entitled ‘‘An Act to designate the United States Courthouse and 

Federal Building located at 111 North Adams Street in Tallahassee, Florida, as the ‘Joseph Woodrow Hatchett United 

States Courthouse and Federal Building’, and for other purposes.’’, do pass with the following 

AMENDMENT: 

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert: 

1 SECTION 1. JOSEPH WOODROW HATCHETT UNITED STATES 

2 COURTHOUSE AND FEDERAL BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The United States Courthouse and 

4 Federal Building located at 111 North Adams Street in 

5 Tallahassee, Florida, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘Joseph Woodrow Hatchett United States Courthouse and 

7 Federal Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regu9 lation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the United States Courthouse and Federal Build11 ing referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a 

12 reference to the ‘‘Joseph Woodrow Hatchett United States 

13 Courthouse and Federal Building’’. 
2 

•S 2938 EAH 

1 SEC. 2. LYNN C. WOOLSEY POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 120 4th Street in Petaluma, Cali4 fornia, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Lynn C. 

5 Woolsey Post Office Building’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regu7 lation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be 

9 deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Lynn C. Woolsey Post Office 

10 Building’’. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2938 

AMENDMENT
1The Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of

the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-1485

___________

William Thompson, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Michael Francis Young, Dr., Cummins * 

Unit, Arkansas Department of * [UNPUBLISHED]

Correction, originally sued as “Young,” *

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: December 26, 2000

 Filed: January 8, 2001

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, HANSEN, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

William Thompson, an Arkansas inmate, appeals the district court’s1 dismissal

of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which he claimed that Dr. Michael Young was

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical condition. After de novo review, see

Weaver v. Clarke, 45 F.3d 1253, 1255 (8th Cir. 1995), we agree with the district court
-2-

Thompson failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim against the prison doctor. The

Eighth Amendment does not prohibit a prison doctor from exercising his own

independent medical judgment, and inmates do not have a constitutional right to any

particular type of treatment. See Long v. Nix, 86 F.3d 761, 765 (8th Cir. 1996). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Information Only 
Information Only 
Information Only
Report Period : December 2009

Date Received Type wt. % Volume

or of Source Sulfur Transferred Tank wt. % Volume Tank wt. % Volume

Sampled Fuel (barrels) No. Sulfur (barrels) No. Sulfur (barrels)

12/2/2009 LSFO No Shipment

12/2/2009 HSFO Ship 

Norient Saturn 1.93 208,372.94 Tk 1935 1.69 36,273.55 Tk 1935 1.92 244,646.49

Receiving Tank Before Transfer Receiving Tank After Transfer

GUAM POWER AUTHORITY

Residual Fuel Oil No. 6 (RFO) Receiving Report
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2940 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the 7- 

year recovery period for motorsports entertainment complexes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 6, 2021 

Ms. STABENOW (for herself and Mr. BURR) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make 

permanent the 7-year recovery period for motorsports 

entertainment complexes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Motorsports Fairness 

5 and Permanency Act of 2021’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2940 IS

1 SEC. 2. 7-YEAR RECOVERY PERIOD FOR MOTORSPORTS EN2 TERTAINMENT COMPLEXES MADE PERMA3 NENT. 

4 Section 168(i)(15) of the Internal Revenue Code of 

5 1986 is amended by striking subparagraph (D). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
-79.5 -79.0 -78.5 -78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5 -76.0

 37.5

 38.0

 38.5

 39.0

★

▲

▲ ▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

07/09

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 09 Jul 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.77 N 77.11 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■

■

★ ■

■

■ ■

★

●

●

●

★ ● ●

●

●
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1157 

KA 14-01541 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

IMPERIAL DAVIS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

LINDA M. CAMPBELL, SYRACUSE, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (ROMANA A. LAVALAS

OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County

(John J. Brunetti, A.J.), rendered August 23, 2013. The judgment

convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first

degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Entered: November 13, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
#### Crandall vs. Bacon and another.

*Justice of the Peace*— Loss *of jurisdiction by adjournment without specifying time or place*— Injunction.

1. Where a justice of the peace adjourns a cause without specifying the *how'*of the day or *Vast place*to which it is adjourned, he loses jurisdiction; and the judgment is *void.*

2. Such yoid judgment may be reversed by *certiorari;*but its collection cannot be restrained by *injunction.*

APPEAL from tbe Circuit -Court for *Sauk*County.

This was an appeal by tbe defendants *Ira P.*and *Lyman Ba*con, from a judgment of said circuit court, perpetually restraining (for fraud in obtaining it) tbe collection of a judgment rendered by a justice of tbe peace of said county, in favor of *Ira P. Bacon*against *Orandall,*which judgment bad been assigned to *Lyman Bacon. Ira P. Bacon*answered, among other things, that he had no'interest legal or equitable in the judgment at the commencement of the suit, and insisted that the plaintiff’s only remedy was by *certiorari. Lyman Bacon*answered admitting the rendition of the judgment before the justice, the assignment to him, and that he was the owner of it; but denied all other allegations of the complaint.

*Hopkins &*Foote, for appellants,

argued, *inter alia,*that the judgment being void on its face, equity would not interfere to set it aside. *Meloy v. Dougherty,*16 Wis., 269 ; 11 id., 389 ; *Van Doren v. The Mayor, Sc.,*9 Paige, 388.

*G 0. Bemington,*for respondent:

1. This case is a proper one for interference by injunction. *640*Wright v.*Eaton, 7 Wis., 595; *Blalcesley v.*Johnson, 13 id., 530; 1 Waterman’s Eden on Inj., p. 69, note. 2. The appellants cannot evade the injunction on the ground that the proper remedy was by certiorari, (1.) Because they cannot take advantage of their own wrong. (2.) *Certiorari*would not stay proceedings to collect the justice’s judgment. 3. *Lyman Bacon,*the real owner of the judgment, sets up no defense that there was any defect in the judgment rendering it void or voidable. There was no question of that kind in the court below, and can be none here. The answer of *Ira P. Bacon*was in effect a disclaimer of all interest, and could not make for the real parties in interest an issue which they ignored.

Downer, *J.*

The judgment of the justice of the peace enjoined by the circuit court was void. The justice adjourned the cause one week, without specifying the *hour*of the day, or *tho> place*to which it was adjourned. He thereby lost jurisdiction of the cause. *Roberts v.*Warren, 3 Wis., 736; *Brown v.*Kellogg, 17 Wis., 475.

There was a plain, adequate remedy by common law *certi-orari*to reverse this void judgment.

*By the Court.-*— -The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint.

A motion for a rehearing was denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7457

JAMES MICHAEL MCGILL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GEORGE E. SNYDER; DAVID FARMER; W. BRANCH; R.

CHERRY; B. HEDSPETH; T. HOWELL; K. DUBOSE; S.

DORSEY; G. SEXTON; J. AGUILAR; D. GOODMAN;

D.D. DOUGLAS; M. YOUNG; S.D. STEVENSON; C.

WARD,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief

District Judge. (5:05-ct-00249-FL)

Submitted: January 18, 2007 Decided: January 23, 2007

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Michael McGill, Appellant Pro Se. James Redfern Morgan, Jr.,

WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North

Carolina, for Appellees.

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

PER CURIAM:

James Michael McGill appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six

Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388

(1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. McGill v. Snyder, No. 5:05-ct-00249-FL (E.D.N.C. Aug. 8,

2006). 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.

AFFIRMED
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 30, 2016

No. 04-16-00002-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.C.W.,

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015EM504960

Honorable Nick Catoe, Jr., Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Appellant's motion for extension of time to file motion for reconsideration is hereby 

GRANTED.

It is so ORDERED on November 30, 2016.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: ________________________________

 Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
CAPHRA Meeting with EPA

November 7, 2013, 11:00 am

Potomac Yard South - 9100

Meeting Summary

The Council for the Advancement of Pyrethroid Human Risk Assessment (CAPHRA) provided 

individuals from the Office of Pesticide Program’s (OPP) Health Effects Division (HED) and 

Pesticide Re-evaluation Divison (PRD), as well as Office of Research and Development (ORD) 

staff with an update on their efforts to develop data to address age-dependent sensitivity to 

pyrethroids. CAPHRA is working towards presenting their research at a SAP sometime next 

year.

List of Participants

EPA

Dana Friedman (PRD), William Irwin (HED), Anna Lowit (HED), Marquea King (HED), Ed 

Scollon (EFED), Christina Swartz (HED), Mike Metzger (HED), Cathryn Britton (PRD), 

Garland Waleko (PRD); by phone: Tim Shafer (ORD), Kevin Crofton (ORD)

CAPHRA

Larry Sheets (Bayer CropScience), Tom Osimitz (Science Strategies), John Clark (University of 

Massachusetts), Steve Symington (Salve Regina), Nasser Assaf (Valent), Derek Gammon 

(FMC) , Monty Eberhart (Bayer), Moire Creek (Valent), Matt Brooks (Agchem Consulting for 

LG), Jan Sharp (MGK),
```

[Federal Register: May 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 103)]
[Notices]               
[Page 29995]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28my10-47]                         

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

 
Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE:  11 a.m., Friday June 25, 2010.

PLACE:  1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

STATUS:  Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:  Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:  Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-
5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010-13082 Filed 5-26-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-95,208-01

EX P A RTE DEQUENTUN TREY MITCHELL, Applicant
ON AP P LICATION F OR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 1482604-A IN THE 180TH DISTRICT COURT

F ROM HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam . O P I N I O N Applicant pleaded g uilty to delivery of a controlled substance and was sentenced to one y ear imprisonment. Applicant d i d n ot f ile a direct a

ppeal. Applicant filed this application for a writ of habeas c orpus in the c o unty of c o nviction, and the d istrict clerk forwarded it to this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R

I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. Applicant c laims that he was denied due process throug h the u se of material false evidence, and that his g u ilty plea was involuntary
. These claims relate to the dis co v e r y o f m i s conduct by former Houston Police Officer Gerald Goines, who was the primary officer involved in the alleg ed offense. B ased on the record, the habeas court finds that Applicant w as denied due process by the
use of material false evidence ag ainst him, and that Applicant’s g uilty p lea was involuntary
. Ex parte2

M a t h e w s , 6 3 8 S.W .3d 685 (Tex
. Crim. App. 2022); Ex parte Coty , 418 S.W .3d 597 (Tex
. Crim. App. 2014). T he habeas court recommends g ranting r elief o n false evidence and involuntary plea g rounds. W e agree. Relief is g ranted. E

x parte Chabot , 300 S.W .3d 768, 772 (Tex
. C r i m . Ap p . 2 009). The judg ment in cause number 148260401010 in the 180th District Court of Harris County is set aside. Appli ca n t s h all answer the charg es as set out in the indictment. The trial court shall issue any necessary orders within ten day s from the date of this Court’s mandate. Cop i e s o f t

h i s o p i n i o n s h a l l be sent to the Tex as Department of Criminal J u stice–Correctional I nstitutions Division and the B oard of Pardons and Paroles.

Delivered: December 13, 2023 Do not publish