alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 137 (Friday, July 17, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 38661]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19070]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meetings

    Purusant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisons set forth in section 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 Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, ZDK1 GRB-8 02.
    Date: July 22-24, 1998.
    Time: July 22, 1998, 7:00 pm to Adjournment.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Holiday Inn Hotel, 625 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 
94301-2380.
    Contact Person: Robert J. Haber, Phd, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, Natcher Building, Room 
6AS-37, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892-6600, 
(301) 594-8898.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, ZDK1 GRB-D (01).
    Date: July 27, 1998.
    Time: 10:00 am to adjournment.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Sheraton Crystal City Hotel, 1800 Jefferson Davis 
Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.
    Contact Person: Ann Hagan, Chief, Review Branch, National 
Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National 
Institutes of Health, Phs, Dhhs, Rm. 6as37, Bldg. 45, Bethesda, MD 
20892, (301) 594-8886.
    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. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institute of Health, HHS)

    Dated: July 10, 1998.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 98-19070 Filed 7-16-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 136 (Thursday, July 16, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 38368]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18945]


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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Amended Notice of Public Meeting of the Maryland Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of 
the Maryland Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 9:30 
a.m. and adjourn at 4:30 p.m. on July 23, 1998, at the Holiday Inn 
Inner Harbor, 301 West Lombard Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21201. This 
notice originally published in the Federal Register on June 29, 1998, 
vol. 63, no. 124, FR 35188. This notice is change of address and day 
only.
    Persons desiring additional information should contact Ki-Taek 
Chun, Director of the Eastern Regional Office, 202-376-7533 (TDD 202-
376-8116). Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and 
require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the 
Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled 
date of the meeting.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission.

    Dated at Washington, DC, July 10, 1998.
Carol-Lee Hurley,
Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 98-18945 Filed 7-13-98; 11:42 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
No. 10-10508.

#### Theodore O. Wilson, Petitioner v. Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al.

565 U.S. 839, 132 S. Ct. 148,

181 L. Ed. 2d 65,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5984.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
No. 10-10934.

#### Thomas Shane Matherly, Petitioner v. Tracy W. Johns, Warden.

565 U.S. 932, 132 S. Ct. 375,

181 L. Ed. 2d 238,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6280.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 427 Fed. Appx. 257.
No. 10-7033.

#### Darrin A. Pordash, Petitioner v. Margaret A. Beightler, Warden.

562 U.S. 1114, 131 S. Ct. 832,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9746,

178 L. Ed. 2d 566,

December 13, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 388 Fed. Appx. 466.
116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3050 

AN ACT 

To require the Securities and Exchange Commission to carry 

out a study of the 10 per centum threshold limitation 

applicable to the definition of a diversified company 

under the Investment Company Act of 1940, and for 

other purposes. 

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

•HR 3050 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Expanding Investment 

3 in Small Businesses Act of 2019’’. 

4 SEC. 2. SEC STUDY. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Securities and Exchange 

6 Commission shall carry out a study of the 10 per centum 

7 threshold limitation applicable to the definition of a diver8 sified company under section 5(b)(1) of the Investment 

9 Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a–5(b)(1)) and deter10 mine the impacts of such threshold limits upon the protec11 tion of investors, efficiency, competition, and capital for12 mation. 

13 (b) CONSIDERATIONS.—In carrying out the study re14 quired under subsection (a), the Commission shall con15 sider the following: 

16 (1) The size and number of diversified compa17 nies that are currently restricted in their ability to 

18 own more than 10 percent of the voting shares in an 

19 individual company. 

20 (2) How the investing preferences of diversified 

21 companies have shifted over time with respect to 

22 companies with smaller market capitalizations and 

23 companies in industries where competition may be 

24 limited. 

25 (3) The expected impact to small and emerging 

26 growth companies regarding the availability of cap-
3 

•HR 3050 EH

1 ital, related impacts on investor confidence and risk, 

2 and impacts on competition, if the threshold is in3 creased or otherwise changed. 

4 (4) The ability of registered funds to manage li5 quidity risk. 

6 (5) Any other consideration that the Commis7 sion considers necessary and appropriate for the pro8 tection of investors. 

9 (c) SOLICITATION OF PUBLIC COMMENTS.—In car10 rying out the study required under subsection (a), the 

11 Commission may solicit public comments. 

12 (d) REPORT.—Not later than the end of the 180-day 

13 period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the 

14 Commission shall issue a report to the Congress, and 

15 make such report publicly available on the website of the 

16 Commission, containing— 

17 (1) all findings and determinations made in car18 rying out the study required under subsection (a); 

19 and 
4 

•HR 3050 EH

1 (2) any legislative recommendations of the 

2 Commission. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 9, 2019. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3050 

AN ACT 

To require the Securities and Exchange CommisCompany Act of 1940, and for other purposes. a diversified company under the Investment threshold limitation applicable to the definition of sion to carry out a study of the 10 per centum
No. 10-7580.

#### Bobby Hazel, Petitioner v. Harley G. Lappin, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons, et al. (two judgments).

562 U.S. 1187, 131 S. Ct. 1015,

178 L. Ed. 2d 842,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 872.

January 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

*843Same case below, 380 Fed. Appx. 343 (first judgment) and 389 Fed. Appx. 224 (second judgment).
#### *State, Respondent, v. Eaglespeaker, Petitioner,*

No. 91809-1.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 44998-6-II, May 12, 2015, 187 Wn. App. 1027. *Denied*November 4, 2015.
No. 11-5377.

#### Eric Watkins, Petitioner v. Anthony Haynes, Warden.

565 U.S. 904, 132 S. Ct. 303,

181 L. Ed. 2d 185,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5582.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
No. 10-10737.

#### Roy D. Moraga, Petitioner v. E. K. McDaniel, Warden, et al.

565 U.S. 847, 132 S. Ct. 166,

181 L. Ed. 2d 79,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6573.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 415 Fed. Appx. 784.
1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3202

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Joel J. Knott, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 18, 2007

Filed: April 19, 2007 

___________

Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After Joel Knott pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), the district court1

 sentenced him to a year and a day

in prison and two years of supervised release. On appeal, he argues that the district

court erred by declining his request to apply U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(2), which provides

a reduced base offense level to felon-in-possession defendants who possess firearms

solely for collection purposes. Given the state of the record and the fact that it was

Knott’s burden to prove his entitlement to the reduced base offense level, we conclude
-2-

that the district court did not clearly err by determining that Knott (or alternatively,

the owner of the shotgun that Knott possessed) did not possess the firearm solely for

collection purposes. See United States v. Lussier, 423 F.3d 838, 843 (8th Cir. 2005)

(burden of proof and standard of review; clear error does not occur when evidence

supports two reasonable inferences), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1120 (2006).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________
No. 11-5281.

#### Curtis White, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 899, 132 S. Ct. 291,

181 L. Ed. 2d 176,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5687.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
# C_2014061EN.01001001.xml

| 1.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/10

---

Action brought on 3 December 2013 — IOIP Holdings v OHIM (GLISTEN)

(Case T-648/13)

2014/C 61/16

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: IOIP Holdings LLC (Fort Wayne, United States of America) (represented by: H. Dhondt and S. Kinart, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 September 2013 given in Case R 1028/2013-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 September 2013 given in Case R 1028/2013-2;

| — | Order the Office to register the Community trade mark applied for; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Office to register the Community trade mark applied for;

| — | Order the defendant to bear the costs of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to bear the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘GLISTEN’ for goods in Class 3 — Community trade mark application No 11 305 273

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the application

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) CTMR

Pleas in law:

---
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 140 (Wednesday, July 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 39341]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19491]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster #3106]


State of Alaska

    The Native Village of Port Graham and the surrounding areas in the 
Kenai Peninsula Borough in the State of Alaska constitute a disaster 
area as a result of damages caused by a fire that occurred on January 
13, 1998. Applications for loans for physical damage as a result of 
this disaster may be filed until the close of business on September 14, 
1998 and for economic injury until the close of business on April 14, 
1999 at the address listed below or other locally announced locations:

Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 4 Office, P.O. Box 13795, 
Sacramento, CA 95853-4795.
    The interest rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:                                                    
  Homeowners with credit available elsewhere.................      7.625
  Homeowners without credit available elsewhere..............      3.812
  Businesses with credit available elsewhere.................      8.000
  Businesses and non-profit organizations without credit                
   available elsewhere.......................................      4.000
  Others (including non-profit organizations) with credit               
   available elsewhere.......................................      7.125
For Economic Injury:                                                    
  Businesses and small agricultural cooperatives without                
   credit available elsewhere................................      4.000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The numbers assigned to this disaster are 310605 for physical 
damage and 993700 for economic injury.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 
59008)

    Dated: July 14, 1998.
Aida Alvarez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 98-19491 Filed 7-21-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and

is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-20777

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOHN TONY WASHINGTON, JR.,

also known as Benny Rue,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-98-CR-107-1

__________________________________________

May 24, 1999

Before POLITZ, BARKSDALE and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

John Tony Washington, Jr., was convicted of bank robbery, use of a firearm during a crime

of violence, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. On appeal, he argues that the trial court

erred in determining that t he eyewitness identifications of him were not the result of unduly

suggestive procedures, that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence that he had

used an alias when being questioned by police about an unrelated issue sever al months after the

robbery, and that the court abused i t s discret io n in failing to ask the jury panel about their views

concerning eyewitness testimony during voir dire.2

We have reviewed the briefs and the record and hold that the district court did not err in

admitting the identification evidence because the photographic spreads and the lineup were not

impermissibly suggestive. H errera v. Co llins

, 904 F.2d 944, 946 (5th Cir. 1990); Peters v. Whitley

,

942 F.2d 937, 939 (5th Cir. 1991). The district court also did not abuse its discretion in admitting

the alias evidence under United States v. Kalish

, 690 F.2d 1144 (5th Cir. 1982). Finally, we hold that

the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to question the members of the jury panel

about their views of eyewitness testimony, as there was an absence of evidence that “prejudice might

have influenced the jury.” R osales-Lopez v. United States

, 451 U.S. 182, 191 (1981)(racial and

ethnic prejudice).

AFFIRMED.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 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 Quarterly Report of Corinthian Colleges, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David
G. Moore, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to my knowledge:  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. /s/ David G. MooreDavid G. MooreChief Executive OfficerMay 12, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
REGISTRANT'S  FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER  ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY TO SUCH FORM 10-QSB.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         110,644
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               210,644
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 210,644
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,720
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           368
<OTHER-SE>                                     207,556
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   210,644
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,892
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (10,892)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (10,892)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (10,892)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.003)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.003)


</TABLE>
# C_2013377EN.01000601.xml

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Anotato Dikastirio Kiprou (Cyprus) lodged on 27 September 2013 — Alpha Bank Cyprus Ltd v Dau Si Senh and Others

(Case C-519/13)

2013/C 377/11

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Referring court

Anotato Dikastirio Kiprou

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: Alpha Bank Cyprus Ltd

Claimant:

Defendants: Dau Si Senh, Alpha Panareti Public Ltd, Susan Towson, Stewart Cresswell, Gillian Cresswell, Julie Gaskell, Peter Gaskell, Richard Wernham, Tracy Wernham, Joanne Zorani, Richard Simpson

Defendants:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is service of the standard form pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 (1) necessary in every case or can there be exceptions? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is service of the standard form pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 (1) necessary in every case or can there be exceptions?

1

| 2. | If it is considered that service is necessary in every case, does the omission in the present case constitute a reason why service is invalid? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If it is considered that service is necessary in every case, does the omission in the present case constitute a reason why service is invalid?

| 3. | If not, can it be effected, in keeping with the spirit of Regulation (ΕC) No 1393/2007, by service on the lawyer acting for the respondents appearing under protest, who is under an obligation vis-à-vis his clients to accept service, or must service be effected anew under the procedure provided for in Regulation (ΕC) No 1393/2007? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If not, can it be effected, in keeping with the spirit of Regulation (ΕC) No 1393/2007, by service on the lawyer acting for the respondents appearing under protest, who is under an obligation vis-à-vis his clients to accept service, or must service be effected anew under the procedure provided for in Regulation (ΕC) No 1393/2007?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 (OJ 2007 L 324, p. 79).

1

---