alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 72 (Wednesday, April 15, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 20268]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08607]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES


Meetings of Humanities Panel

AGENCY: National Endowment for the Humanities.

ACTION: Notice of meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The National Endowment for the Humanities will hold two 
meetings of the Humanities Panel, a federal advisory committee, during 
May, 2015. The purpose of the meetings is for panel review, discussion, 
evaluation, and recommendation of applications for financial assistance 
under the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965.

DATES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for meeting dates.

ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at Constitution Center at 400 7th 
Street SW., Washington, DC 20506. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for 
meeting room numbers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisette Voyatzis, Committee Management 
Officer, 400 7th Street SW., Room, 4060, Washington, DC 20506; (202) 
606-8322; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6a0f1c05130b1e1003192a040f02440d051c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="81e4f7eef8e0f5fbe8f2c1efe4e9afe6eef7">[email protected]</span></a>. Hearing-impaired individuals who prefer to 
contact us by phone may use NEH's TDD terminal at (202) 606-8282.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the 
following meetings:
    1. Date: May 13, 2015.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Room: 4002.
    This meeting will discuss applications on the subjects of Education 
and Public Programs for Digital Humanities: Implementation Grants, 
submitted to the Office of Digital Humanities.
    2. Date: May 14, 2015.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Room: 4002.
    This meeting will discuss applications on the subject of 
Visualization for Digital Humanities: Implementation Grants, submitted 
to the Office of Digital Humanities.
    Because these meetings will include review of personal and/or 
proprietary financial and commercial information given in confidence to 
the agency by grant applicants, the meetings will be closed to the 
public pursuant to sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6) of Title 5, 
U.S.C., as amended. I have made this determination pursuant to the 
authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close 
Advisory Committee Meetings dated July 19, 1993.

    Dated: April 8, 2015.
Lisette Voyatzis,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-08607 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7536-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 32.2

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 Annual Report of Covance Inc. ("Covance") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William E. Klitgaard, Corporate Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Covance, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



Date: March 1, 2006/s/William E. KlitgaardWilliam E. Klitgaard
Corporate Senior Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)


---



QuickLinks
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-13-00134-CR

JANET RENEE WALKER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 6th District Court

Lamar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 24969

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Janet Renee Walker has attempted to appeal from her conviction for driving while 

intoxicated. On our review of the clerk’s record, we noted that the trial court certified this to be 

a negotiated plea agreement case in which Walker has no right of appeal. By letter dated July 

11, 2013, we informed appellant of this potential jurisdictional defect and afforded her ten days 

in which to respond. Walker responded, through counsel, but her response contains nothing to 

persuade us that we have jurisdiction over this appeal.

In a negotiated plea agreement case, i.e., one in which the defendant entered a plea of 

guilty or nolo contendere and the punishment assessed does not exceed that recommended by the 

State and agreed to by the defendant, a defendant may appeal only (1) issues that were raised by 

a written motion that was both filed and ruled on before trial or (2) after obtaining the trial 

court’s permission to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Further, this Court is required to 

dismiss an appeal if, as in this case, the trial court’s certification indicates that there is no right of 

appeal. See id.

Because the trial court certified that Walker has no right of appeal and because the record 

before us contains nothing to suggest that the certification is incorrect, see Dears v. State, 154 

S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005), we must dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

25.2(d).
3

We, therefore, dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: July 25, 2013

Date Decided: July 26, 2013

Do Not Publish
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 73 (Thursday, April 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 20497]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08737]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

[CDC-2014-0013; Docket Number NIOSH-274]


Issuance of Final Guidance Publication

AGENCY:  National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 
of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of 
Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Notice of issuance of final guidance publication.

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

SUMMARY: The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 
(NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 
announces the availability of the following publication: ``NIOSH 
Current Intelligence Bulletin 67: Promoting Health and Preventing 
Disease and Injury through Workplace Tobacco Policies'' [2015-113].

ADDRESSES: This document may be obtained at the following link: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2015-113/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Martin, NIOSH Division of 
Respiratory Disease Studies, 1095 Willowdale Road, Mailstop H-2900, 
Morgantown, WV 26505-2888. (304) 285-5734 (not a toll free number).

    Dated: April 9, 2015.
John Howard,
Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2015-08737 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 70 (Monday, April 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 19734]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08403]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION


Intelligent Transportation Systems Program Advisory Committee; 
Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: ITS Joint Program Office, Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Research and Technology, U.S. Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Program Advisory 
Committee (ITSPAC) will hold a teleconference on May 13, 2015, from 
1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. (EDT).
    The ITSPAC, established under Section 5305 of Public Law 109-59, 
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 
Legacy for Users, August 10, 2005, and re-established under Section 
53003 of Public Law 112-141, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 
Century, July 6, 2012, was created to advise the Secretary of 
Transportation on all matters relating to the study, development, and 
implementation of intelligent transportation systems. Through its 
sponsor, the ITS Joint Program Office (JPO), the ITSPAC makes 
recommendations to the Secretary regarding ITS Program needs, 
objectives, plans, approaches, content, and progress.
    The following is a summary of the meeting tentative agenda: (1) 
Welcome, (2) Meeting Purpose, (3) Subcommittee Updates, (4) Review 
Action Items, (5) Summary and Adjourn.
    The teleconference will be open to the public, but limited 
conference lines will be available on a first-come, first-served basis. 
Members of the public who wish to participate in the teleconference 
must submit a request to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dc95888f8c9d9f9cb8b3a8f2bbb3aa"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cd84999e9d8c8e8da9a2b9e3aaa2bb">[email protected]</span></a>, not later than May 6, 2015. In 
addition, for planning purposes, your request must also indicate 
whether you wish to present oral statements during the teleconference.
    Questions about the agenda or written comments may be submitted by 
U.S. Mail to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, ITS Joint Program 
Office, Attention: Stephen Glasscock, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., HOIT, 
Washington, DC 20590 or faxed to (202) 493-2027. The ITS JPO requests 
that written comments be submitted not later than May 6, 2015.
    Notice of this teleconference is provided in accordance with the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act and the General Services Administration 
regulations (41 CFR part 102-3) covering management of Federal advisory 
committees.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on the 8 day of April, 2015.
Stephen Glasscock,
Designated Federal Official, ITS Joint Program Office.
[FR Doc. 2015-08403 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-22-P


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

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-21-00269-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 415th District Court

Parker County, Texas

Trial Court No. CV21-0600

Before Wallach, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Walker, J.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

TIMOTHY M. HALL AND PHILIP L. HALL, Appellants

V.

MELISSA ANN RIVAS, PHILLIP ANDREW RIVAS, AND ANNE VICKERS 

CRAWFORD-HALL, AS TRUSTEE OF THE ANNE VICKERS CRAWFORDHALL TRUST, Appellees
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

We have considered appellants’ “Motion to Dismiss Appeal.” We grant the 

motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Appellants must pay all costs of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d), 43.4.

Per Curiam

Delivered: November 4, 2021
Exhibit
10.24

    


    
      
        	
                BioPreferredSM

              	
                

              
	
                www.biopreferred.gov

              	
                United
      States Department
      of Agriculture

              


      

    

    


    October
29, 2009

    


    Sam
Jeffries

    President/CEO

    Organic
Sales and Marketing (OSM), Inc.

    114
Broadway

    Raynham,
MA 02767

    


    Dear Mr.
Jeffries:

    


    This
letter serves as official notification that OSM, Inc. is a participant in the US
Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) BioPreferredSM
program. BioPreferred is a Federally managed program that aims to increase the
purchase and use of renewable,
sustainable biobased products. Biobased products are defined by USDA as products
that are composed in whole or
in large part of agricultural or forestry materials. Biobased products may
include plant, animal, and marine
materials.

    


    BioPreferred
works with manufacturers such as OSM, distributors, and large-scale buyers (e.g.
the government and commercial markets) to increase awareness, purchase, and use
of biobased products. OSM manufactures natural cleaners, hand sanitizers, and
agricultural products. These products are identified by USDA as “BioPreferred”
or “BioPreferred-designated items.” You may also identify your products this way
and promote them as such.

     

    Your
cleaning products fall within the BioPreferred “glass and surface cleaners”
category; these products contain biobased content equal to or greater than 49%.
Additionally, OSM’s hand sanitizers fall within the “hand cleaners and
sanitizers” category; these products contain biobased content equal to or
greater than 73%.

    


    One major
way USDA shares information about the BioPreferred designated items is is
through a list of the products on our website. Please visit www.biopreferred.gov
and click on the link for the “Catalog” to view the entries for your designated
items. Only biobased products that meet or exceed the minimum content
established by USDA can be called “BioPreferred” and are listed in this
catalog.

    


    Federal
government agencies, military branches, and Federal contractors must give
preferred purchasing preference for BioPreferred biobased products — various
mandates, policies, and Presidential Executive Orders document this. Over the
coming years, we look forward to working with you to translate government
greening policy into practice and to creating lasting environmental change for
generations to come.

    


    
      
        	
                Sincerely,

              
	 
      
	
                

              
	 
      
	
                Ron
      Buckhalt

              
	
                BioPreferred
      Program Manager

              
	
                202-205-4008

              
	
                ronb.buckhalt@da.usda.gov

              


      

    

    


    342
Reporters Building, 300 7th St. S.W., Washington, DC 20024

     

    USDA
is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
0705

#### William Gary CURRY and B. W. Curry, Appellants v. Dennis BYRD, Respondent.

(344 S. E. (2d) 384)

Court of Appeals

*George W. Gregory, Jr.,*Cheraw and *Sidney S. Tison, Jr.,*Hartsville, *for appellants.*

*James A. Spruill, III,*Cheraw, *for respondent.*

Heard March 24, 1986.

Decided May 12, 1986.

Goolsby, Judge:

This is a negligence action arising out of an automobile accident. In the trial court, the jury returned a verdict for the defendant Dennis Byrd. The plaintiffs William Gary Curry and B. W. Curry appeal. They contend the trial court erred in failing to charge certain of their requests to charge as they originally submitted them. We affirm.

*16Prior to the jury charge, the Currys made several requests to charge. The trial judge charged their Requests Nos. 3 and 4; however, he slightly modified the language of both. Request No. 5 was given verbatim. At the end of the charge, the trial judge excused the jury and gave the parties an opportunity to object to any charge as given or to request any additional instructions. The only objection voiced by the Currys was to an instruction regarding an unrelated statute. They did not request additional instructions.

The Currys complain for the first time on appeal of the trial judge’s failure to charge their Requests Nos. 3, 4, and 5 as they were originally submitted.

As to the two requests which the trial judge modified, an issue not raised at trial cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. *Helms v. T & L Building Contractors, Inc.,*287 S. C. 602, 340 S. E. (2d) 548 (1986). Because the Currys did not object at trial to the modifications of their Requests Nos. 3 and 4, we will not address the issues the Currys now raise regarding them. *Irick v. Ulmer,*246 S. C. 178, 143 S. E. (2d) 126 (1965); *see also*4 C. J. S. *Appeal & Error,*Section 307 at 987 (1957) (“Where the court modifies a request to charge, and no exception is taken to the modification, error cannot be predicated thereon by the party making the request...”).

As to their Request No. 5, the trial judge did not delete a single word of it when instructing the jury. The exception therefore clearly has no merit. *Hook v. Rothstein,*281 S. C. 541, 316 S. E. (2d) 690 (Ct. App. 1984), *cert. denied,*283 S. C. 64, 320 S. E. (2d) 35 (1985).

Accordingly, the verdict of the jury is

Affirmed.

Shaw and Cureton, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

 
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8, No. 333-04991) pertaining to the 1995 Director Stock Option Plan, the
Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-04997) pertaining to the Amended and
Restated 1993 Stock Option Plan and the Registration Statement (Form S-8, No.
333-05001) pertaining to the 1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, of our report
dated May 7, 1998, (except as to Note 15 as to which the date is June 5, 1998)
with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Spacetec
IMC Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
March 31, 1998.



                                         ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
June 5, 1998
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 2/12/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 95-3250
v. D. Kansas DENNIS RAY WOODWARD, (D.C. No. 95-CV-3238)

Defendant - Appellant.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before ANDERSON, BARRETT , and LOGAN , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. This cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Dennis Ray Woodward appeals the district court’s sua sponte denial of his in forma pauperis pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He contends that 1) his conviction was obtained by use of a coerced- 2 -

confession and illegal tampering with evidence; 2) his sentence was improperly enhanced; and 3) his trial counsel was ineffective. We affirm. Following a jury trial, Woodward was convicted of arson under 18 U.S.C. § 844(i). On appeal, we affirmed his conviction, but remanded the case for resentencing. United States v. Woodward , No. 93-3123, 1993 WL 498178 (10th Cir. Dec. 2, 1993). The details and relevant background facts are fully set forth in our order and judgment. Id. On remand for resentencing, the district court relied on U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 to enhance Woodward’s sentence for obstruction of justice based on a finding that Woodward perjured himself during his testimony at trial. Woodward did not appeal. Rather, he has bundled his challenge to the sentence on remand with the ineffectiveness and other claims listed above. Except for the ineffectiveness claim, see United States v. Galloway , 56 F.3d 1239, 1242 (10th Cir. 1995) (en banc), Woodward’s claims are subject to procedural bar. United States v. Cook , 997 F.2d 1312, 1320 (10th Cir. 1993). However, the government did not assert, and the district court did not consider the issue of default. Therefore, we elect to address the merits, since we would examine them under the ineffectiveness claim, albeit under a different standard, and since Woodward had no opportunity to raise the mitigating factors of cause and prejudice below. See Hines v. United States , 971 F.2d 506, 509 (10th Cir. 1992).- 3 -

The district court thoroughly analyzed Woodward’s claims. See United States v. Woodward , 896 F. Supp. 1078 (D. Kan. 1995). Having considered Woodward’s argument on appeal, and the record, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion. See Id. AFFIRMED. ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephen H. Anderson Circuit Judge
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 215 (Monday, November 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 68808]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28805]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 7679]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition

    Determinations: ``Transition to Christianity: Art of Late 
Antiquity, 3rd-7th Century AD''
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 
257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Transition to Christianity: Art of Late 
Antiquity, 3rd-7th Century AD,'' imported from abroad for temporary 
exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The 
objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign 
owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display 
of the exhibit objects at the Onassis Cultural Center, New York, NY, 
from on or about December 6, 2011, until on or about May 14, 2012, and 
at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is 
in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these 
Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: (202) 
632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: October 28, 2011.
J. Adam Ereli,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2011-28805 Filed 11-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```