alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 14 (Friday, January 21, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3370-3371]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01098]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research; 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:  MRSEC--Delaware 2nd Year Virtual Site Visit 
(1203).

DATE AND TIME:  May 23, 2022; 9:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m.

PLACE:  NSF, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314 [verbar] 
Virtual.

TYPE OF MEETING:  Part-Open.

CONTACT PERSON:  Dr. Miriam Deutsch, Program Director, Division of 
Materials Research, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower 
Avenue, Room W 9216, Alexandria, VA 22314; Telephone: (703) 292-5360.

PURPOSE OF MEETING:  Virtual site visit to provide an evaluation of the 
progress of the projects at the host site for the Division of Materials 
Research at the National Science Foundation.

AGENDA: 

                              May 23, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9:30 a.m.-10:00 a.m.........  Brief Charge to       CLOSED.
                               Panel.
10:00 a.m.-10:10 a.m........  Introduction........  OPEN.
10:10 a.m.-10:55 a.m........  Director's Overview.  OPEN.
10:55 a.m.-11:10 a.m........  Discussion/Questions  OPEN.
11:10 a.m.-11:30 a.m........  IRG-1 Presentation..  OPEN.

[[Page 3371]]

 
11:30 a.m.-11:35 a.m........  Discussion/Questions  OPEN.
11:35 a.m.-11:45 a.m........  Break...............  OPEN.
11:45 a.m.-12:05 p.m........  IRG-2 Presentation..  OPEN.
12:05 p.m.-12:10 p.m........  Discussion/Questions  OPEN.
12:10 p.m.-12:35 p.m........  Education and         OPEN.
                               Outreach, Diversity
                               Plan.
12:35 p.m.-12:45 p.m........  Discussion/Questions  OPEN.
12:45 p.m.-01:30 p.m........  Working Lunch.......  CLOSED.
01:30 p.m-02:30 p.m.........  Poster Session......  OPEN.
02:30 p.m.-02:45 p.m........  Site Visit            OPEN.
                               Discussion.
02:45 p.m.-03:30 p.m........  Executive Session...  CLOSED.
03:30 p.m-04:00 p.m.........  Debriefing..........  OPEN.
04:00 p.m...................  Adjourn.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------


REASON FOR CLOSING:  The work being reviewed during closed portions of 
the virtual site visit include information of a proprietary or 
confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, 
such as salaries and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the project. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 
552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: January 14, 2022.
Crystal Robinson,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2022-01098 Filed 1-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-15-00458-CV

Amy Lynn Dayringer, Appellant

v.

Gared Dayringer, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MILAM COUNTY, 20TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. CV34,454, HONORABLE JOHN YOUNGBLOOD, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The appellate record must include the clerk’s record from the trial court. The clerk’s 1

record in this cause was due in this Court on September 18, 2015, but no record was filed. We

received notice from the Milam County district clerk’s office on October 2, 2015, that appellant has

neither paid nor made arrangement for payment of the record. Nor has appellant filed an affidavit

of indigence.

2

Under these circumstances, this Court may dismiss the appeal for want of

prosecution. On October 5, 2015, we sent notice to appellant that the clerk’s record was overdue 3

and that the appeal may be dismissed for want of prosecution if appellant did not make arrangements

 See Tex. R. App. P. 34.1, 34.5(a).

1

 See id. R. 20.1(2). 2

 See id. R. 37.3(b). 3
for the record and submit a status report to this Court on or before October 15, 2015. To date,

appellant has not responded in any way and the clerk’s record has not been filed. Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.4

__________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Field

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: November 10, 2015

 See id. R. 37.3(b), 42.3(b), (c).

4

2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

NICHOLAS ALSTON, ete., ef al.,

Plaintiffs,
vs. Case No. 3:18cv247
PHIL PLUMMER, Sheriff of Montgomery JUDGE WALTER H. RICE
County, Ohio q
Defendant.

DECISION AND ENTRY OVERRULING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
IMMEDIATE INSPECTION OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY JAIL (DOC. #3),
WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RENEWAL BASED UPON FUTURE EVENTS

Pursuant to the reasoning expressed by this Court during an August 7, 2018, telephone
conference call, the Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Immediate Inspection of the Montgomery County
Jail (Doc. #3) is overruled, without prejudice to renewal should Plaintiffs choose to file either a
motion for Temporary Restraining Order or for Preliminary Injunction

As discussed during the aforementioned telephone conference call, a Motion for an
Immediate Inspection is likened to a Motion for View of the Scene. As such, the inspection/view
is not evidence; rather, the sole purpose is to help the trier(s) of fact better understand the
evidence as it is presented during either a hearing or trial. Without the pendency of a proceeding,
requiring the introduction of testimony, exhibits or other evidence, the inspection/view serves no

purpose. Should Plaintiffs choose to file a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or a


Motion for Preliminary Injunction, requiring a hearing in open Court, Plaintiffs may renew their

promis

August 10, 2018 WALTER H. RICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Motion for Immediate Inspection/View.

Copies to:

Counsel of record
EXHIBIT 32.2



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



I, Richard A. Waldron, Chief Financial Officer of SciClone Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Registrant), do hereby certify in
accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:



|(1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |                        
|---------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: November 4, 2005 |  | /s/ Richard A. Waldron 
|                       |  | Richard A. Waldron     
|                       |  | Chief Financial Officer



A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by
Section 906, has been provided to SciClone Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by SciClone Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00393-CV

Towncreek Industrial, LLC; H&H 

Steel Fabricators, Inc.; Alltex Steel, 

Inc.; and James Tobey

v.

Wells Fargo Bank, National 

Association

§

§

§

§

From the 43rd District Court

of Parker County (CV15-0501)

October 27, 2016

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s summary judgment. It is ordered that the 

summary judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that appellant Towncreek Industrial, LLC, H & H Steel 

Fabricators, Inc., Alltex Steel, Inc., and James Tobey shall bear the costs of this 

appeal, for which let execution issue. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

 Justice Lee Gabriel
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 EASTERN DIVISION 

IZELL BROWN, JR., 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. Case No.: 2:18-cv-569 

 JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH 

 Magistrate Judge Vascura 

T. FRANCIS VENABLE, et al., 

 Defendants. 

 ORDER 

On August 27, 2019, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and 

Recommendation recommending that both Plaintiff and Defendant Venable’s Motions for 

Summary Judgment be denied. (See Report and Recommendation, Doc. 55). The parties were 

advised of their right to object to the Report and Recommendation. This matter is now before the 

Court on Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation. (See Doc. 56). The Court 

will consider the matter de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 

 In Plaintiff’s objections, he asks this Court to reconsider the recommendation to deny his 

motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff merely restates his version of the incident at issue in 

this case. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant’s Declaration of Nurse Trentman contradicts the 

interview by Institutional Inspector Zachary Gould of Nurse Trentman. He further points out 

inconsistencies in Defendant Venable’s testimony. Plaintiff’s objections, however, just reinforce 

the finding of the Magistrate Judge that “the record is replete with issues of material fact.” (Doc. 

55 at 6). When genuine issues of material fact exist, summary judgment is not proper. 
2 

Therefore, for the reasons stated in detail in the Report and Recommendation, this Court 

finds that Plaintiff’s objections are without merit and are hereby OVERRULED. The Report 

and Recommendation, Document 55, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment (Doc. 40) is DENIED. Defendant Venable’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment (Doc. 49) is DENIED. 

The Clerk shall remove Documents 40, 49, and 55 from the Court’s pending motions list. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/ George C. Smith__________________ 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

The Board of Trustees 

Universal Health RealtyIncome Trust:

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theregistration statements (Nos. 033-56843 and 333-57815) on Form S-8 and in the registration statements (Nos. 333-81763 and 333-60638) on Form S-3 of Universal Health Realty Income Trust of our reports dated March 11, 2005, with respect to theconsolidated balance sheets of Universal Health Realty Income Trust as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of income, shareholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period endedDecember 31, 2004, and the related financial statement schedule, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004 and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting as of December 31, 2004, which reports appear in the December 31, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K of Universal Health Realty Income Trust. 

 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

March 11, 2005
1

AMS - Beefcarcassrevisions

From: Mckenna, David <David.Mckenna@tyson.com>

Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 3:24 PM

To: AMS - Beefcarcassrevisions

Cc: Pfeifer, Jerry; Stouffer, Steve; Tjaden, Dan; Gerber, John; Hodne, Nathan; Worlow, Brett; 

Sorensen, Scott; Hueser, Kevin; Acheson, Rebecca

Subject: Tyson - beef carcass revisions comments

Attachments: Tyson - Beef Carcass Revisions.pdf

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Flagged

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the addressee. If 

you are not the intended addressee, then you have received this email in error and any use, dissemination, 

forwarding, printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of your 

unintended receipt by reply and then delete this email and your reply. Tyson Foods, Inc. and its subsidiaries and 

affiliates will not be held liable to any person resulting from the unintended or unauthorized use of any 

information contained in this email or as a result of any additions or deletions of information originally 

contained in this email.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Brandon Riffle,

Plaintiff,

v. Case NO. 2:18-cv-547

Fairfield County 

Department of Probation,

Defendant.

ORDER

Plaintiff, an inmate in an Ohio state prison who is proceeding

pro se, filed the instant civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.

§1983, against the Fairfield County Department of Probation. 

Plaintiff’s original complaint was dismissed pursuant to an initial

screen under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e). However, plaintiff was granted

leave to file an amended complaint concerning his Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendment claims alleging illegal detention. Plaintiff

filed an amended complaint on September 11, 2018. Defendant filed

a motion to dismiss the complaint on November 2, 2018. In an order

dated January 9, 2019, the magistrate judge denied plaintiff’s

motion to strike the motion to dismiss, and gave plaintiff twentyone days to respond to the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff did not

file a response. This matter is now before the court on the March

28, 2019, report and recommendation of the magistrate judge

recommending that the motion to dismiss be granted. 

The report and recommendation specifically advised the parties

that objections to the report and recommendation were due within

fourteen days, and that the failure to object to the report and

recommendation “will result in a waiver of the right to de novo

review by the District Judge and waiver of the right to appeal the
judgment of the District Court.” Doc. 19, p. 8. The time period

for filing objections to the report and recommendation has expired,

and no objections to the report and recommendation have been filed.

Accordingly, the court adopts the report and recommendation

(Doc. 19). The motion to dismiss (Doc. 14) is granted.

Date: April 22, 2019 s/James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge 

2
Regional Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region Ill

1650 Arch Street (Mail Code: 3RAOO)

Philadelphia, PA 19 103-2029Dear Mr. Garvin:

This letter pertains to a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by theDepartment ofEnvironmental Protection (DEP) on June 26,2008, concerning the Allegheny

County Health Department (ACHD) Rules and Regulations, Article XXI, Air Pollution Control,

relating to its Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. The SIP revision, at issue,

is identified as Rçvision 62 for the ACHD’s internal tracking.

To address “discretion” issues recently raised by your staff, DEP is hereby modifying its request

for approval ofthe entire ACHD PSD regulation as a SIP revision by redacting the exception

language at the end ofsubsection (d) ofArticle XXI § 2102.07. The SIP revision incorporating

Article XXI § 2 102.07(d) should read as follows:

d. Violation. Itshall be a violation ofthis Article giving rise to the remediesprovided by Section

2109.02 ofthis Articlefor any person to commence construction ofor to allow construction to

commence on, or to own, operate, or allow to be operated, any new or modWed major source in

an attainment or unclassj/led area ofthe County in a manner that does not comply with all PSD

requirements aspromulgated by the EPA and incorporated herein, except jfsuch person islanfully temporarily relieved ofthe duty to comply with such requirements.

We look forward to your expeditious action on this SIP revision. Should you have any questions

or need additional information, please contact Joyce E. Epps, Director ofAir Quality, by e-mailatjeeppspa.gov or by telephone at 717.787.9702. You may also contact James E. Thompson,

Manager, ACHD Air Quality Program, byail atjthbmpson@achd.net or by telephone at

• 412.578.7963.

EnclosuresSecretary

Rachel Carson State Office Building 1 P.O. Box 2063 I Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063

717.787.2814 Printed en Recycled Paper www.depweb.pa.gov
Exhibit No. 10.1

 

**AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**

 

This AMENDMENT NO. 3 made as of the 25th day of August, 2006, to the Employment Agreement made as of the 3rd day of September, 2004 (as amended, the “Agreement”), between **UNITED RETAIL GROUP, INC.**, a Delaware corporation, with principal offices at 365 West Passaic Street, Rochelle Park, New Jersey 07662-6563, and **RAPHAEL BENAROYA**, residing at 179 Lincoln Street, Englewood, NJ  07631. 

 

**WHEREAS**, capitalized terms used herein and defined in the Agreement shall have the same meaning as in the Agreement;

 

**WHEREAS**, the Executive has been employed by the Company as its Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer; 

 

**WHEREAS**, the Company desires to continue the services of the Executive, and the Executive desires to continue to provide such services to the Company, on the terms set forth in the Agreement; 

 

**WHEREAS**, the provisions of the Agreement and the compensation practices of peer companies were discussed by the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors on May 26, 2006 and August 17, 2006; and

 

**WHEREAS** on August 25, 2006, this Amendment was recommended by the Compensation Committee and approved by the Company’s Board of Directors in an executive session among the nonmanagement Directors.  

 

**NOW, THEREFORE**, in consideration of the mutual covenants and obligations hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows:

 

1. Section 1(i) of the Agreement is amended to read in its entirety as follows:  

 

“(i)     Contract Term shall mean the period of time commencing on November 20, 1998 and ending on September 3, 2011 or such later date as may be mutually agreed upon by the Company and the Executive. (For the avoidance of doubt, Contract Term as used herein may extend beyond the termination of the Executive’s employment under this Agreement.)”

2. All the other provisions of the Agreement shall remain in force unchanged. 

 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, the parties hereto have duly executed this Agreement in Rochelle Park, New Jersey, in duplicate originals on August 28, 2006.                

                

|   | **UNITED RETAIL GROUP, INC.**

 

By: /s/ GEORGE R. REMETA

Name:  George R. Remeta

Title:    Chief Administrative Officer |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |  

/s/ RAPHAEL BENAROYA

Raphael Benaroya                                                                                   |

 

 

 

*KPC:jmt*
#### School District v. Driver.

School Lawds; *Action to recover**

The legal title to the school lands is in the state; and an action to recover such land», cannot, therefore, he maintained hy a school district-. *Widmr v.*State, 49 *Arh.t*172*

APPEAL from *Mississippi*Circuit Court.

J. E. Riddick, Judge.

STATEMENT.

This was originally a proceeding in chancery to set aside and to declare fraudulent and void, a deed made by O. A. Hadley, governor, to E. R. Knight, for section 16, T. 10-W., R. 9 E. The court refused to take jurisdiction of the cause in equity, and it was transferred to the law docket, and, by an amended complaint, made ejectment for the recovery of the land. The plaintiff claimed title under the act of congress, entitled, “An' act for the admission of the State of Arkansas into the Union,” etc., approved June 15, 1836, and the act supplemental thereto, approved June 23, 1836; the ordinance and ¡[acceptance of compact of the-general assembly, approved October 18, 1836, and the provisions of the ordinance adopted by the convention of delegates assembled for the purpose of framing a constitution,, etc.; and also under the chapter of *Gould’s Digest,*entitled,. “ Schools and School Lands.” To these evidences of title the court sustained exceptions on the ground that they show no title in the plaintiff. The court, sitting'as a jury,. *347found for the defendant, dismissed the complaint, and rendered judgment against the plaintiff for costs. The court, in effect, held that the school district could not sue to recover the lands, and that the action must be brought in the name of the state, to the use of the district.

The plaintiff appealed.

*O. P.*Lyles, for appellant.

The school district had the right to sue for the lands. *Mansf. Dig., sees.*6172-3 ; 38 *Arle.,*454; *Gould’s Digest, p.*64, 65; *Ib.,p.*60-2; *lb.,*66; *lb., p.*981 *to*1012; *Mansf.. Dig., p.*151; *lb., p.*153. The state held the lands in trust, and passed the act making the townships bodies corporate, with power to sue, thus transferring the title to the school districts.

*JE. F. Adams,*for appellee.

OPINION.

CockrilXi,

C. J. The legal title to the school lands is in the state, and a school district cannot maintain an action for the possession of such lands. This follows from the judgment in *Widner v. State,*49 *Ark.,*172.

Affirm.
Abatement Order filed August 26, 2021.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-20-00850-CV

IN RE JLG INDUSTRIES, INC. AND OSHKOSH CORPORATION, 

Relators

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

412th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 94538-CV

ABATEMENT ORDER

On March 5, 2021, the parties to this original proceeding notified the Court 

that the parties had reached a settlement. On August 11, 2021, the Court requested 

that the parties advise the Court of the status. Both parties responded on August 

23, 2021, and indicated that settlement efforts are on-going. Accordingly, we issue

the following order.
2

This original proceeding is abated, treated as a closed proceeding, and 

removed from this Court’s active docket until November 1, 2021. The original 

proceeding will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket at that time, or when the 

parties file a motion to dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus. The Court will 

also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the original proceeding filed by 

any party, or the Court may reinstate the original proceeding on its own motion.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Bourliot, Zimmerer, and Poissant.