alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 33 (Thursday, February 17, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 9077]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03442]



[[Page 9077]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; 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 of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID Resource-Related Research 
Projects (R24 Clinical Trial Not Allowed).
    Date: March 9, 2022.
    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3F58, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Mario Cerritelli, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3F58, 
Rockville, MD 20852, 240-669-5199, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3f5c5a4d4d564b5a527f525e56531151565711585049"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="93f0f6e1e1fae7f6fed3fef2faffbdfdfafbbdf4fce5">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 14, 2022.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-03442 Filed 2-16-22; 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>
Junior J. BATISTA, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.

No. 1D18-1459

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 28, 2018

Junior J. Batista, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Kristen J. Lonergan, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The petition seeking belated appeal is denied. *See**Powell v. Fla. Dep't of Corr.* , 727 So.2d 1103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).

Rowe, Kelsey, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
Copyrighted page/s removed. Copyrighted material is not available in 

Regulations.gov since it may not be reproduced without consent of 

the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center’s Public Reading Room to view 

or receive a copy of this document. 

Requests for copies may be made as follows: 

In person/writing: 

Environmental Protection Agency, Docket Center 

1301 Constitution Ave NW, 2822T, Room 3334 

Washington, DC. 20004 

Telephone: 

202-566-1744 

Fax: 

202-566- 9744 

Email: 

docket-customerservice@epa.gov 

Re: *Confidential: Fw: OAR-2003-0065-DRAFT-0287... 

Joe Sopata to

: 

docket 

Thank you for your email note. 

This is not "confidential" information. The contractor labs that prepare these draft reports for API 

sometimes mark them "confidential" instead of "draft". 

I have informed my contact at API to please make sure the word "confidential" does not appear on any 

reports. Hopefully, they will catch it for future reports. 

Please let me know if you have any questions. 

Best Regards, 

Joe Sopata 

Chemist 

USEPA/OAR/OTAQ/CISD/FPSG 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., 6406J 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Ph# 202-343-9034
#### Lance WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steven GARCIA, Parole Officer Individually and in his Official Capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-56854

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 17, 2017

Lance Williams, Pro Se

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Lanee Williams, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to pay the filing fee after denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. *O’Loughlin v. Doe,*920 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1990). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. *Id.*at 617. We affirm.

The district court properly denied Williams’ motion to proceed IFP because at the time Williams filed the complaint, he had filed three actions that qualified as “strikes,” and he did not plausibly allege that he was “under imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time he lodged the complaint. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); *Coleman v. Tollefson,*— U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1759, 1763, 191 L.Ed.2d 803 (2015) (“[Pjrior dismissal on a statutorily enumerated ground counts as a strike even if the dismissal is the subject of an appeal.”); *Belanus v. Clark,*796 F.3d 1021, 1030 (9th Cir. 2015) (dismissal for failure to state a claim because claims were time barred properly counted as a strike); *Andrews v. Cervantes,*493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing the imminent danger exception to § 1915(g)).

AFFIRMED,

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NOS. WR-74,256-03 & WR-74,256-04

EX PARTE TONY CURTIS WHITAKER, Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NOS. 241-1018-17-A & 241-1019-17-A IN THE 241ST DISTRICT COURT

FROM SMITH COUNTY 

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court these applications for writs of habeas corpus. Ex

parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of two counts

of possession of a controlled substance and sentenced to two terms of fifteen years’ imprisonment.

He did not appeal his convictions.

On October 2, 2018, the trial court entered orders designating issues. These applications were

forwarded, however, before the trial court made findings of fact and conclusions of law. We remand

these applications so the trial court can complete an evidentiary investigation and enter findings of

fact and conclusions of law.
These applications will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. 

The issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time must be

requested by the trial court and shall be obtained from this Court. 

Filed: July 3, 2019

Do not publish
S.R. v. SHELBY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160052

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 30, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
William N. EDWARDS, Appellant, v. WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, etc., Appellee.

No. 3D17-879

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed June 20, 2018.

Spittler & Associates, P.A., and John Spittler, Jr., for appellant.

Law Office of Gary Gassel, P.A., and Gary I. Gassel (Sarasota); Susan J. Silverman (Sarasota), for appellee.

Before EMAS, LUCK and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee*, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 1979) ; *All Counties Surplus LLC v. Flamingo South Beach I Condo. Ass'n, Inc*, 211 So.3d 1096 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).
p. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1384 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews

Document

Number: 

# 109) ll-E-6 9 Docket Number: 

# A-94-5 2

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:06

AM Sheet 109 of 264 (

'i03

Mf? R2 7 '9 7 " * 1 f : 12fl~BPI_E:Y'fRfiN S PRODUC T ^ S * » N

C P. 2

..< •

From : Date : Contact : Company : p.2/2 | 02/00 2 

### A 945 2 Contac t Repor t Plasti c Composite s NESHA P Gre g LaFlam , Pacific Environmenta l Services , Inc . (PES ) Apri l 10,199 6 Mr . RaymondKovac s Bailey Transportatio n Products , Conneaut , O H Telephon e Number : (216)599-813 1 

## Mll^ FPA.AI R DOCKE T Contac t Summary : Aske d followu

p question s concerning th e company' s respons e t o th e Composite s Institute' s Marc h 199 6 surve y o f th e compression moldin g industry . Mr . Kovac s clarifie d that

SM C i s molde da t th e facilit y usin g bot

h compressio n an d injectio n molding . I n th e injection molding process , th e festoone d(folded ) SMC i s rolle dont o a shaf t a s th e filmi s removed . Th e SM C i s then loade d into abarre l o n th e moldin g machine . Th e machin e inject s par

t o f th e charg e a

t atime int o amol d t o mak

e th e part . Th e "past e dispersers " referredt o i n th e respons e ar

e th e open Cowl s paste mixers . Th e paste i s pumpe d t o anothe

r room , throug

h closedin-line mixers , an dinto th e uppe r an dlowe r doctor boxe s o f ih e SMC machine . Th e compan

y use s ethy l acetat

e ( anon-HA

P VOC ) fo r cleanin g al l part s o f

th e SM C machine . Th e effectivenes s of thi s cleane r i s comparable t o that

o f methylen e chloride ; however , i t doe s presen t

som e concern s due t o it s flanunability (which i s stil l les s tha n tha t o f acetone) . Th e plan t operate s tw o shift s pe

r da y i n orde r t o limi t their VO C emission s under

th e State' s restrictions . Th e SM C maclnn e mus t b e give n athoroug h cleanin g eac h da y at th e en do f th e secon d shif

t (I f th e fac|[irvoperate d 2 4 hr/day , thi s cleaning woul dprobably occur onc e pe r week. ) The y produc e Ht_B_B_ » formulation s of SMC ; sinc e part s ar

e prime d(there ) an d late r painted , th e rang e o f

SM C color s i s no t

grea t Mr . Kovac s referre d m e t o hi s forme r employer , Premix (whic h produce s S B SM C formulation s an d undergoe s alo t of colo r changes) , fo

r mor e information . Mr . E dtren n (environmental ) and Mr . Larr y Landis^e^mist ) wer

e given a s references . Premi x als o use s ethy l acetat e fo r

cleanin g it s SM

C i REPOR T I S ACCURAT

E
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 99

                        [ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP LETTERHEAD]


            REVIEW REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



To Catalina Marketing Corporation:

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of
Catalina Marketing Corporation (a Delaware corporation) as of December 31, 1997,
and the related condensed consolidated statements of income for the three-month
and nine-month periods ended December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the condensed
consolidated statements of cash flows for the nine-month periods ended December
31, 1997 and 1996. These financial statements are the responsibility of the
Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial
information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial
data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of which is the
expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole.
Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the financial statements referred to above, for them to be in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated balance sheet of Catalina Marketing Corporation as
of March 31, 1997, and the related consolidated statements of income,
stockholders' equity and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented
separately herein), and, in our report dated April 18, 1997, we expressed an
unqualified opinion on those financial statements. In our opinion, the
information set forth in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet
as of March 31, 1997, is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to
the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.


                                             /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



Tampa, Florida,
     January 12, 1998
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT ADRIN DEVES DANIELS a/k/a ) ADRIAN DEVES DANIELS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D16-2380 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed February 7, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; William H. Burgess III, and Philip J. Federico, Judges. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Pamela H. Izakowitz, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kiersten E. Jensen, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and SILBERMAN and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arthur Edward WILLIAMSON, Jr., Fast Eddie, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7631

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2017

Decided: April 27, 2017

Arthur Edward Williamson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Aan Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Arthur Edward Williamson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing as unauthorized and successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to reconsider. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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 motion states a debatable claim of the *239denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williamson 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*
Missouri Court of Appeals

Southern District 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2015 

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b). 

1. Case No. SD33564 

 Re: CEBRON CORDELL FINLEY, 

 Movant-Appellant, 

 v. 

 STATE OF MISSOURI, 

 Respondent-Respondent.
ATTACHMENT HEADER SHEET

Attachment Number 010

Attachment Name

Attachment 10 CaCoPbSrTiWO Process Flow

Associated PMN Section Number

Pt.2, Sec.A, 1d. (#3)

Does not contain CBI

Report Number

CONSI 10317786855351
-4o

00 !

"00

000

z C.

O 0

""o 00

__ _ _ ___U

461

00

2 ~~ 4 - 0

00 (k,04 00

00 0 l x 

0~~~~~I _________________

00

o0 000

0 ~ ~~~~~ -4___________________

P

cn4 - O 4

-oo 0 ~ c 0 0 I c

tn +JC0

m ~ SC W)' u 

W

-4 cn

4 4

0_
0

0

00

m0 0 >

0.

uu

00 ~o

* 0O 0O 0k 0 0

C /) 40 cn0 C

-0 o o~S

0~ CZ >

(A G0 L60

o 0

n _ 00"

0 0

" 0 0 0 c

so 0 - \ 02

4- 2-

0..!-. 64 " 0 k

o o kc ~ '

U(. Ul 0 40 0 *5 -*.d

0 00

o 0 n

o 0

0 0 0 
00

00

0

u

0

-C4

CL9. '

cnC

c 

4- 4

I0 A '

ontE . . u*L.'2 -

'O C
John FELTON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3738

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 19, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Certiorari is dismissed.
In re V.O. Carden,

Jr. Appellant/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 7, 2014

No. 04-14-00154-CV

IN RE V.O. CARDEN Jr.

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

On March 6, 2014, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. This court is of the

opinion that a serious question concerning the mandamus relief sought requires further

consideration. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(b). The respondent and the real parties in interest

may file a response to the petition in this court no later than March 21, 2014. Any such

response must conform to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.4.

It is so ORDERED on March 7th, 2014. PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 13-0700176CVL, styled Brett Radcliffe, Robert Radcliffe and Mamba

Minerals, LLC v. Double Eagle Development, LLC and Tidal Petroleum, Inc.

, pending in the 218th Judicial District

Court, La Salle County, Texas, the Honorable Donna S. Rayes presiding.
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6244 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1535 East Los Ebanos Boulevard in Brownsville, Texas, as the ‘‘1st Lieutenant Andres Zermeno 

Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 6244 EH

1 SECTION 1. 1ST LIEUTENANT ANDRES ZERMENO POST OF2 FICE BUILDING. 

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

4 Postal Service located at 1535 East Los Ebanos Boule5 vard in Brownsville, Texas, shall be known and designated 

6 as the ‘‘1st Lieutenant Andres Zermeno Post Office Build7 ing’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

11 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘1st Lieutenant Andres 

12 Zermeno Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 16, 

2024. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6244 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Posttenant Andres Zermeno Post Office Building’’. levard in Brownsville, Texas, as the ‘‘1st Lieu- al Service located at 1535 East Los Ebanos Bou-
#### James MCCODE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joel ZIEGLER, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-6651

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 24, 2017

Decided: May 10, 2017

James McCode, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Michael Horn, Assistant United States Attorney, Meredith George Thomas, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James McCode, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the district court’s conclusions that McCode failed to satisfy his burden of demonstrat*235ing that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) is an inadequate or ineffective means of challenging the validity of his detention and that it lacked jurisdiction over his petition. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, see *McCode v. Ziegler,*No. 5:13-cv-21542, 2015 WL 362657 (S.D. W. Va. Jan. 27, 2015), but modify the dismissal to be without prejudice, 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (2012). 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.

*AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED*
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2012 - 0 798 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 2 - CE - 0 23 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **:** 

### G. Keith Noles **Date**

**Branch Manager Date**