alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 1770]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00478]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) 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 on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel; AD Models.
    Date: January 11, 2022.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Video Meeting).
    Contact Person: Greg Bissonette, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute on Aging, 
National Institutes of Health, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Gateway 
Building, Suite 2W200, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-1622, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#83e1eaf0f0ecede6f7f7e6e4e1c3eee2eaefadedeaebade4ecf5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a1c3c8d2d2cecfc4d5d5c4c6c3e1ccc0c8cd8fcfc8c98fc6ced7">[email protected]</span></a>.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 7, 2022.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-00478 Filed 1-11-22; 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>
Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-0106

Discussion Date: November 20, 2013

Participants: FAA –Chris Parker, Victor Wicklund Boeing – Helen Biller, Everett Groat, Pete r Louden, Paul Maue, Nasser Vaziri, James

Wilkinson

Discussion Summary: The FAA and Boeing discussed specific aspect s of the Boeing petition for exemption for fuel quantity processor unit (FQPU) replacem ent affecting the fuel quantity indication system (FQIS) on the 777-200/-300 series airp lanes. Boeing shared data showing that other 777 model airplanes such as the 777- 200LR/-300ER and 777F are fully compliant with 14 CFR 25.981, Amendment 25-102. It was noted that the exemption, if granted, would only be needed for in-service 777-200/-300 aircraft to allow re trofit of the FQPU replacement.

. The FAA requested additional information on the design changes necessary to make the FQIS on 777-200/-300 series airplanes fully compliant with 14 CFR 25.981, Amendment 25-102. Boeing explained aspects of the desi gn changes necessary and why the changes were significant and/or extensive.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

IN RE: Case No. 2:18-mc-2

LAWRENCE W. BERMAN Judge Michael H. Watson

Magistrate Judge Jolson

ORDER

On Januaty 24,2018, Magistrate Judge Jolson, to whom this case was

referred. Issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the

Court dismiss this action for failure to prosecute. R&R, EOF No. 4.

The R&R advised the parties of their right to file objections to the same

and specifically advised that the failure to timely object would result in a waiver of

the right to de novo review by the Undersigned as well as a waiver of the right to

appeal the decision of the District Court. Id. at 3. The time for filing objections

has passed, and none were filed.

Having received no objections, the Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the R&R

and DISMISSES Plaintiffs Complaint. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate this

case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Pharmaceutical Product Development Inc. Consolidated Balance Sheet and Statement
of Operations included within this Form 10-K and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    Dec-31-1997
<CASH>                          15,879
<SECURITIES>                    7,994
<RECEIVABLES>                   103,069
<ALLOWANCES>                    1,515
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                136,497
<PP&E>                          83,960
<DEPRECIATION>                  49,058
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  197,047
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           66,547
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        2,295
<OTHER-SE>                      125,310
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    197,047
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                235,272
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   130,199
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                90,861
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              478
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 15,676
<INCOME-TAX>                    6,074
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             9,602
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    9,602
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   0.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                   0.42


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2265
JAMES P. MAYER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (7:06-cv-00054-FL) Submitted: April 30, 2007 Decided: May 22, 2007 Before TRAXLER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James P. Mayer, Appellant Pro Se. Marian Ashley Harder, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: James P. Mayer appeals the district court’s order granting the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss Mayer’s action for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income payments. Mayer’s application was dismissed because a previous final decision concerning Mayer’s entitlement to benefits on the same facts and on the same issues had been entered. See20 C.F.R. § 404.957(c) (2005). A district court has no jurisdiction to review the Commissioner’s res judicata decisions unless the claimant has raised a colorable claim of a constitutional violation. Califano v. Sanders , 430 U.S. 99 (1977). Mayer has raised no such claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See Mayer v. Barnhart , No. 7:06-cv-00054-FL (E.D.N.C. Nov. 15, 2006). We also deny Mayer’s motion for monthly benefit payments. 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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

KREIGHAMMER VONNJORDSSON, 

 CASE NO. 2:17-CV-949 

 Petitioner, JUDGE JAMES L. GRAHAM 

 Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers 

 v. 

WARDEN, OHIO STATE 

PENITENTIARY, 

 Respondent. 

OPINION AND ORDER 

 On November 1, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation

pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District 

Courts recommending that this action be dismissed. (Doc. 2.) Although the parties were advised 

of the right to object to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and of the 

consequences of failing to do so, no objections have been filed. 

 The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 2) is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. This action 

is hereby DISMISSED. 

Petitioner has failed his right to appeal by failing to file objections. See Thomas v. Arn, 

474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Therefore, the 

Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: December 1, 2017 _____s/James L. Graham______ 

 JAMES L. GRAHAM 

 United States District Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

William E. Smith,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:17-cv-800

V. Judge Michael H. Watson

Magistrate Judge Deavers

Brigham Anderson, et ai.,

Defendants.

ORDER

William E. Smith ("PlaintifT'), an inmate proceeding pro se, brings this

§ 1983 action against Lawrence County Prosecutor Brigham Anderson,

Lawrence County Sheriff Jeff Lawless, Lawrence County Deputy Sheriff William

Winters, and Lawrence County. On December 4, 2017, Magistrate Judge

Deavers, to whom this case was referred, conducted an initial screening of

Plaintiffs Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b) and

issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that Court the

dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint for failure to state a claim. R&R 1, ECF No. 10.

The R&R advised the parties of their right to file objections to the same

and specifically advised that the failure to timely object would result in a waiver of

the right to de nova review by the Undersigned as well as a waiver of the right to

appeal the decision of the District Court. Id. at 4-5. The time for filing objections

has passed, and none were filed.
Having received no objections, the Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the R&R

and DISMISSES Piaintiffs Compiaint. The Cierk is DIRECTED to enter FINAL

JUDGMENT for Defendants and terminate this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 2:14-cv-2750 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION
CLIFFORD I. RUCKER, Case No. 1:17-cv-823
Plaintiff, Black, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.
vs.
POLICE OFFICER HARDY, et al., ORDER
Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motion for Kroger Limited Partnership
I/Kroger Company’ to provide him with copies of video surveillance footage. (Doc. 20).
Defendants The Kroger Limited Partnership I and Tom Herman filed a response on April 9,
2018, giving notice that they have complied with plaintiff's request and have sent a DVD of the
surveillance footage to him at the address listed on the docket sheet. (Doc. 21). Accordingly,
plaintiff's motion is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 5 Le iE Bhan 5

Karen L. Litkovitz _
United States Magistrate Judge

' Defendants state that the company’s correct name is “The Kroger Limited Partnership I” and plaintiff has
improperly identified defendant Tom Herman as “Kroger Manager Tom Holman.” (Doc. 21).
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO DEED OF GROUND LEASE

         THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO DEED OF GROUND LEASE (this "Amendment"),  dated
as of the 8th day of December,  1998, by and between  UPSHUR  PROPERTY,  INC., a
Delaware  corporation (the "Landlord") and COVOL TECHNOLOGIES,  INC., a Delaware
corporation (the "Tenant").

         WHEREAS,  the  Landlord and the Tenant are parties to that certain Deed
of Ground Lease dated as of May 5, 1998 (the "Lease"); and

         WHEREAS,  the Landlord and the Tenant  desire to amend the terms of the
Lease as set forth herein.

         NOW, THEREFORE,  in consideration for Ten Dollars ($10.00) cash in hand
paid by Tenant to  Landlord,  the  receipt  and  sufficiency  of which is hereby
acknowledged,  the Landlord and the Tenant agree to amend the terms of the Lease
as follows:

         1.  Section  6.1 of the Lease is hereby  deleted  in its  entirety  and
replaced  with the  following:  "Section 6.1 Right to Mortgage.  Except for that
certain Leasehold Credit Line Deed of Trust and Security Agreement,  dated as of
December 8, 1998, from Covol Technologies,  Inc. to  ______________________,  as
Trustee,  for the  Benefit of  Mountaineer  Synfuel,  L.L.C.  (the  "Mountaineer
Leasehold Deed of Trust"),  the Tenant shall not grant,  or cause to be created,
any deed of trust or other lien,  encumbrance or security  interest on or in all
or any part of this Lease or Tenant's  interest in the  Premises.  Tenant hereby
covenants  and  agrees  that it will not  agree to  amend,  change  or alter the
Mountaineer  Leasehold Deed of Trust without first obtaining the express written
consent of the Landlord, which consent may be withheld for any reason."

<PAGE>

         2.  Section  9.1(f) of the Lease is hereby  deleted in its entirety and
replaced with the following:  "(f)  Mountaineer  fails to exercise its option to
purchase the Facility and to require  Tenant to assign this Lease to Mountaineer
prior to March 31, 1999."

         3.  Except  as  expressly  set  forth  herein,  all  of the  terms  and
conditions of the Lease shall remain in full force and effect.

         IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the  parties  have caused  this  Amendment  to be
executed by their duly authorized  representatives  as of the day and year first
above written.

                                                UPSHUR PROPERTY, INC.,
                                                a Delaware corporation



                                                By:   /Michael M. Matesic/
                                                     -------------------------
                            Name: Michael M. Matesic
                                   Its: Treas.


                                                COVOL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
                                                a Delaware corporation



                                                By:   /Stanley M. Kimball/
                                                     -------------------------
                            Name: Stanley M. Kimball
                                                Its:  President


                                       2
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

IN THE MATTER OF THE CASE NO. 3:17MJ442-SLO

APPLICATION OF THE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR 

AN ORDER AUTHORZING THE

INSTALLATION AND USE OF PEN

REGISTERS AND TRAP AND TRACE

DEVICES

______________________________________________________________

MOTION TO SEAL ORDER, APPLICATION, SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT AND RETURN

______________________________________________________________

Now comes the United States Attorney and moves this Court, pursuant to Rule 16(d)(1) of 

the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the Court's inherent power to control papers filed 

with the Court, for a protective order sealing the Order, Application, Supporting Affidavit and 

Return until July 31, 2022.

In support of this Motion, the United States Attorney states:

1. An Order was issued on September 21, 2017.

2. That there is no Indictment or Information pending before any United States 

District Court which necessitates the disclosure of the Supporting Affidavit at this time. 

3. Pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure the proper time for 

moving to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to the search warrant is subsequent to the filing of 

an Indictment or Information and Arraignment thereon. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused 

to any defendant or potential defendant by the granting of this motion.

4. That the disclosure of certain information and statements contained in said 
2

documents would hamper an ongoing criminal investigation.

WHEREFORE, the United States of America respectfully requests that the Order, 

Application, Supporting Affidavit and Return be sealed and kept from public inspection until

July 31, 2022.

Respectfully submitted,

KENNETH L. PARKER

United States Attorney

s/Brent G. Tabacchi

BRENT G. TABACCHI (IL 6276029)

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorney for Plaintiff

200 West Second Street, Suite 600

Dayton, Ohio 45402

Office: (937) 225-2910

Fax: (937) 225-2564

E-mail: Brent.Tabacchi@usdoj.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule has been  restated to reflect the Company's  adoption of Statement
of Financial  Accounting  Standards No. 128,  "Earnings Per Share" (FAS 128) and
contains summary financial  information  extracted from the consolidated balance
sheets,  consolidated  statements of income and consolidated  statements of cash
flows  included in the Company's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997,
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such  financial  statements and
the notes thereto.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                              23,727
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        5,592
<ALLOWANCES>                                           196
<INVENTORY>                                          2,470
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    34,951
<PP&E>                                               5,516
<DEPRECIATION>                                       3,884
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      36,833
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                7,556
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 9
<OTHER-SE>                                          29,268
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        36,833
<SALES>                                             30,596
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    30,926
<CGS>                                               11,581
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       11,741
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        35
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       6
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      1,126
<INCOME-TAX>                                         1,126
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  2,252
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         2,252
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.24
        


</TABLE>
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**402 KA 10-00081**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, AND GREEN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V ORDER
BRIAN BOSLEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ROBERT L. KEMP OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
BRIAN BOSLEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.
FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (J. MICHAEL MARION OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Christopher J. Burns, J.), rendered September 14, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree. It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Entered: March 25, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
Exhibit 35.1

Servicer Compliance Statement of AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.

This Annual Statement as to Compliance is delivered to you pursuant to Section 4.10 (a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of
September 3, 2011 (the Agreement) and Item 1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of AmeriCredit Automobile Receivables Trust 2011-4 (the Trust), the issuance of the Notes by the Trust and
the closing of the transactions and the execution and delivery of the various documents by General Motors Financial Company, Inc. (f/k/a AmeriCredit Corp.), AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (the Servicer) and AFS SenSub Corp. in
connection therewith. The capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meanings as in the Agreement.

The undersigned certifies that
I am the Executive Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of the Servicer. I further certify as follows:



| | 1. | I have conducted, or caused to be conducted under my supervision, a review of the Servicer during the preceding period from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014, and its performance under the Agreement.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, following such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period, and, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no default in the
fulfillment of any such obligation.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.



|    |  |                                         |  |                      
|--- |  | --------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Connie Coffey                       |  | Dated: March 30, 2015
|    |  | Connie Coffey                           |  |                      
|    |  | Executive Vice President, Corporate     |  |                      
|    |  | Controller and Chief Accounting Officer |  |
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 28, 2018

No. 04-18-00858-CR

Evangelos PAGONIS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008CR6730

Honorable Catherine Torres-Stahl, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Evangelos Pagonis pleaded nolo 

contendere to the offenses of indecency with a child by exposure and indecency with a child by 

sexual contact. The trial court sentenced appellant on February 10, 2010.

On November 2, 2018, this court received a document titled “Appeal Order for 

Commutation of Sentence,” in which appellant appears to request that his sentences be 

commuted because his deportation to Canada is imminent.

Upon review, it appears this court lacks jurisdiction over this matter. A defendant may 

appeal a judgment imposing a sentence or another appealable order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.10. 

It does not appear that appellant is seeking to appeal the judgments imposing his sentences or 

any other appealable order.

Accordingly, we ORDER that appellant show cause in writing on or before December

10, 2018 why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 28th day of November, 2018.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court