alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARLON ALCIDES PALMAPLATERO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-70652

Agency No. A078-323-612

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 19, 2010** 

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Marlon Alcides Palma-Platero, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his

motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen.

FILED

OCT 27 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-70652

See He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny the petition

for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Palma-Platero’s motion to

reopen because the BIA considered the evidence submitted and acted within its

broad discretion in determining Palma-Platero did not show prima facie eligibility

for the relief sought. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988) (the BIA may

deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish a prima facie case for the

underlying relief sought). 

We decline to consider Palma-Platero’s challenge to the BIA’s July 21, 2005

order because it has already been considered and rejected by this court in PalmaPlatero v. Gonzales, No. 05-74902 (9th Cir. Aug. 28, 2007). See Merritt v.

Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir. 1991) (explaining under the ‘law of the

case doctrine’ one panel of an appellate court will not reconsider questions which

another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same case). 

Finally, we lack authority to consider Palma-Platero’s claim that the court

should reconsider its holding in Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738 (9th Cir.

2008). See Murray v. Cable Nat. Broadcasting Co., 86 F.3d 858, 860 (9th Cir.

1996) (“[O]nly a panel sitting en banc may overturn existing Ninth Circuit

precedent.”) (internal quotation and citation omitted). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
# Eiropas Savienības C 32I/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0952 |
| --- | --- |
| Eiropas Savienības
  Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 032I |
| | |
| Izdevums latviešu valodā | Informācija un paziņojumi | 64. gadagājums2021. gada 29. janvāris |

ISSN 1977-0952

Eiropas Savienības

Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 032I

Izdevums latviešu valodā

Informācija un paziņojumi

64. gadagājums2021. gada 29. janvāris

---

| Saturs | Lappuse |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Paziņojumi |
| | EIROPAS SAVIENĪBAS IESTĀŽU UN STRUKTŪRU SNIEGTI PAZIŅOJUMI |
| | Eiropas Komisija |
| 2021/C 32 I/01 | Eiropas Savienības lēmumu kopsavilkums par zāļu tirdzniecības atļaujām 2021. gada 29. janvārī(Publicēts saskaņā ar 13. vai 38. pantu Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes Regulā (EK) Nr. 726/2004) | 1 |

Saturs

Lappuse

IV   Paziņojumi

EIROPAS SAVIENĪBAS IESTĀŽU UN STRUKTŪRU SNIEGTI PAZIŅOJUMI

Eiropas Komisija

2021/C 32 I/01

Eiropas Savienības lēmumu kopsavilkums par zāļu tirdzniecības atļaujām 2021. gada 29. janvārī(Publicēts saskaņā ar 13. vai 38. pantu Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes Regulā (EK) Nr. 726/2004)

(Publicēts saskaņā ar 13. vai 38. pantu Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes Regulā (EK) Nr. 726/2004)

1

---

| LV | |
| --- | --- |

LV

---

IV Paziņojumi

EIROPAS SAVIENĪBAS IESTĀŽU UN STRUKTŪRU SNIEGTI PAZIŅOJUMI

Eiropas Komisija

| 29.1.2021 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | CI 32/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2021

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

CI 32/1

---

Eiropas Savienības lēmumu kopsavilkums par zāļu tirdzniecības atļaujām 2021. gada 29. janvārī

(Publicēts saskaņā ar 13. vai 38. pantu Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes Regulā (EK) Nr. 726/2004 (1))

(2021/C 32 I/01)

| — | Tirdzniecības atļaujas izsniegšana (13. pants Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes Regulā (EK) Nr. 726/2004): Pieņemtas













  Lēmuma datums | Zāļu nosaukums | INN (starptautiskais nepatentētais nosaukums) | Tirdzniecības atļaujas turētājs | Ieraksta numurs Kopienas reģistrā | Farmaceitiskā forma | AĶT kods (Anatomiski ķīmiski terapeitiskais kods) | Paziņojuma datums |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 29.1.2021. | COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca | COVID-19 vakcīna (ChAdOx1-S [rekombinants]) | AstraZeneca AB |
| 151 85 Södertälje, Sverige |

—

Tirdzniecības atļaujas izsniegšana (13. pants Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes Regulā (EK) Nr. 726/2004): Pieņemtas

Lēmuma datums

Zāļu nosaukums

INN (starptautiskais nepatentētais nosaukums)

Tirdzniecības atļaujas turētājs

Ieraksta numurs Kopienas reģistrā

Farmaceitiskā forma

AĶT kods (Anatomiski ķīmiski terapeitiskais kods)

Paziņojuma datums

29.1.2021.

COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca

COVID-19 vakcīna (ChAdOx1-S [rekombinants])

AstraZeneca AB

151 85 Södertälje, Sverige

EU/1/21/1529

Suspensija injekcijai

J07BX03

29.1.2021.

Ikvienam, kurš vēlas apskatīt publisko novērtējuma ziņojumu par attiecīgajām zālēm un ar tām saistītos lēmumus, jāsazinās ar:

| European Medicines Agency |
| --- |
| Domenico Scarlattilaan 6 |
| 1083 HS Amsterdam |
| NETHERLANDS |

European Medicines Agency

Domenico Scarlattilaan 6

1083 HS Amsterdam

NETHERLANDS

---

(1)  OV L 136, 30.4.2004., 1. lpp.

---
William Charles RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2436

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed April 4, 2018

William Charles Richardson, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SALTER, EMAS and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

*ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE*

PER CURIAM.

On February 21, 2018, the Court affirmed the denial of William Richardson's petition for writ of habeas corpus. On the same date, the Court ordered Richardson to show cause why he should not be prohibited from filing further pro se appeals, petitions, motions, or other pleadings in this Court relating to lower tribunal case F75-11762.

Upon consideration of Richardson's response to the order to show cause and the successive, duplicative, pro se petitions and appeals brought by Richardson, we conclude that good cause has not been shown. Richardson has engaged in the filing of meritless, frivolous, and successive claims, continuing to seek relief from this Court *1288notwithstanding prior adverse determinations on the merits.1

In accordance with *State v. Spencer*, 751 So.2d 47 (Fla. 1999), and *Concepcion v. State*, 944 So.2d 1069 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), Richardson is prohibited from filing any further pro se appeals, pleadings, motions, or petitions relating to his conviction, judgment, and sentence in lower tribunal case F75-11762. We direct the Clerk of the Third District Court of Appeal to refuse to accept any such papers relating to the circuit court case number unless they have been reviewed and signed by an attorney who is a duly licensed member of The Florida Bar in good standing. *See**Whipple v. State*, 112 So.3d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).

Additionally, any such further and unauthorized pro se filings by Richardson may subject him to appropriate sanctions, including the issuance of written findings forwarded to the Department of Corrections for its consideration of disciplinary action, including the forfeiture of gain time. *See* § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2017).

1

Richardson failed to provide any response that would justify such filings; see the trial court's orders in the circuit court case entered October 13, 2017, June 24, 2016, September 24, 2015, and April 12, 2013, as well as this Court's opinions and orders in Case Nos. 3D17-2051, 3D16-2162, 3D16-1825, 3D15-1936, 3D15-530, and 3D13-2045.
Yari CHEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2589

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

November 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
II 

Calendar No. 278 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1277 

[Report No. 118–134] 

To modify the boundary of the Mammoth Cave National Park in the State 

of Kentucky, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 25, 2023 

Mr. MCCONNELL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

DECEMBER 12, 2023 

Reported by Mr. MANCHIN, without amendment 

A BILL 

To modify the boundary of the Mammoth Cave National 

Park in the State of Kentucky, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Mammoth Cave Na5 tional Park Boundary Adjustment Act of 2023’’. 

2 

•S 1277 RS

1 SEC. 2. MAMMOTH CAVE NATIONAL PARK BOUNDARY 

2 MODIFICATION. 

3 Section 11 of the Act of June 5, 1942 (56 Stat. 319, 

4 chapter 341; 16 U.S.C. 404c–11), is amended— 

5 (1) in the second paragraph, by striking ‘‘the 

6 sum of not to exceed’’ in the first sentence and all 

7 that follows through the period at the end of the 

8 paragraph and inserting ‘‘such sums as are nec9 essary.’’; and 

10 (2) by inserting after the second paragraph the 

11 following: 

12 ‘‘The Secretary of the Interior may acquire approxi13 mately 980 acres of the land and any interests in the land 

14 generally depicted on the map entitled ‘Mammoth Cave 

15 National Park Proposed Southern Boundary Expansion 

16 Edmonson and Barren Counties, Kentucky’, numbered 

17 135/177, 967, and dated April 28, 2022, for inclusion in 

18 the Mammoth Cave National Park.’’. 

Calendar No. 278 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1277 

[Report No. 118–134] 

A BILL 

To modify the boundary of the Mammoth Cave Naother purposes. tional Park in the State of Kentucky, and for 

DECEMBER 12, 2023 

Reported without amendment
Amendment No. 1 to the Petrohawk Third Amended and Restated 2004 Employee Plan


 Exhibit 4.2 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE PETROHAWK ENERGY CORPORATION 
 THIRD AMENDED AND RESTATED 2004 EMPLOYEE
INCENTIVE PLAN 
 Article V of the Petrohawk Energy Corporation Third Amended and Restated 2004 Employee Incentive Plan (the
“Plan”) is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following language: 
 “The aggregate number of shares of
Restricted Stock, shares of Incentive Stock and Shares which may be covered by Stock Options and issued upon exercise of Stock Appreciation Rights granted under the Plan shall not exceed 12,550,000. In addition, the aggregate number of shares of
Restricted Stock and Incentive Stock combined which may be issued under the Plan shall not exceed 3,668,000. Such shares may consist of authorized but unissued Shares, treasury shares of Common Stock, or previously issued Shares reacquired by the
Company. Any of such Shares which remain unissued and which are not subject to outstanding Stock Options or Stock Appreciation Rights at the termination of the Plan shall cease to be subject to the Plan, but, until termination of the Plan, the
Company shall at all times make available a sufficient number of Shares to meet the requirements of the Plan. Should any Stock Option or Stock Appreciation Right hereunder expire or terminate prior to its exercise in full, the Shares theretofore
subject to such Stock Option or Stock Appreciation Right may again be subject to a Stock Option or Stock Appreciation Right granted under the Plan to the extent permitted under Rule 16b-3; provided, however, that for purposes Article II any
such shares shall be counted in accordance with the requirements of Section 162(m) of the Code . Upon the forfeiture of any Restricted Stock, the forfeited shares of Restricted Stock shall thereafter be available for award under the Plan. The
aggregate number of Shares which may be issued under the Plan shall be subject to adjustment in the same manner as provided in Section VIII hereof with respect to Shares subject to Stock Options and Stock Appreciation Rights then outstanding.
Exercise of a Stock Option or Stock Appreciation Right in any manner shall result in a decrease in the number of Shares which may thereafter be available, both for purposes of the Plan and for grant to any one individual, by the number of Shares as
to which the Stock Option is exercised and the number of Shares issued upon exercise of Stock Appreciation Right. Separate stock certificates may be issued by the Company for those Shares acquired pursuant to the exercise of any Stock Option which
does not constitute an Incentive Stock Option.” 
 This Amendment No. 1 to the Plan is effective on July 18, 2007.
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

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Independence
Realty Trust, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, the President of the Company, certifies, to
his knowledge, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Date: March 25, 2011



/S/ JACK E. SALMONPresident and Chief Financial Officer (Chief Executive Officer & Chief Financial Officer)
Lenist KEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2148

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[January 25, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
| Australia                                                                                                 | Mission NewEnergy LimitedHead Office Unit B9, 431 RobertsRd, Subiaco, Western Australia, 6008, Australia.  |                                                                                             |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Malaysia                                                                                                  | Mission Biofuels Sdn BhdNo 5ENadayu 28 DagangJalanPJS 11/7BandarSunway47500Subang JayaSelangor,Malaysia         | M2Capital Sdn BhdNo 5ENadayu 28 DagangJalanPJS 11/7BandarSunway47500Subang JayaSelangor,Malaysia |
|  FGV Green Energy Sdn BhdLevel45, Menara Felda, Platinum ParkNo. 11,Persiaran KLCC50088Kuala Lumpur  |                                                                                                            |
D.M.M., the child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-1500

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 22, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                         CONCURRENT COMPUTER CORPORATION
                                   EXHIBIT 12
                BASIC AND DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE COMPUTATION


                                    THREE MONTHS ENDED   NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                      MARCH 31, 1998      MARCH 31, 1998
                                     -----------------  -------------------
                                               FULLY                FULLY
                                      BASIC   DILUTED    BASIC     DILUTED
                                     -------  --------  --------  ---------
<S>                                  <C>      <C>       <C>       <C>
Average outstanding shares: . . . .   47,260    47,260   46,817     46,817 
Fully diluted options outstanding .        -     1,798        -      1,824 
                                     -------  --------  --------  ---------
Equivalent Shares . . . . . . . . .   47,260    49,058   46,817     48,641 
                                     =======  ========  ========  =========

Net income. . . . . . . . . . . . .  $ 1,005  $  1,005  $ 3,728   $  3,728 
Preferred stock dividends
  and accretion of preferred shares        -         -      (18)       (18)
                                     -------  --------  --------  ---------
Net income available to common
  stockholders. . . . . . . . . . .  $ 1,005  $  1,005  $ 3,710   $  3,710 
                                     =======  ========  ========  =========
Earnings per share. . . . . . . . .  $  0.02  $   0.02  $  0.08   $   0.08 
                                     =======  ========  ========  =========
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
Joseph M. DENNIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-4033

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed February 20, 2018 Rehearing Denied April 2, 2018

Joseph M. Dennis, Raiford, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

*192AFFIRMED. *See**Robbinson v. State*, 784 So.2d 1246, 1247 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (holding *Apprendi v. New Jersey*, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), does not apply to Florida's habitual offender statute).

ORFINGER, WALLIS and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
JOHN ALLEN BICKNAS JR.

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 5039

_ ____________________________/

Opinion filed June 15, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Gary L. Bergosh , Judge

.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Glenna Joyce Reeves, Assistant Public

Defender, Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Samuel B. Steinberg, Assistant Attorney

General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WETHERELL and KELSEY, JJ., and DEMPSEY, ANGELA C., ASSOCIATE

JUDGE, CONCUR.
Jermaine R. REED, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-0677

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 26, 2018 Rehearing Denied March 27, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 8, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 15965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-7892]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AC09-55-000]


Southern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Filing

April 1, 2009.
    Take notice that on March 30, 2009, Southern Natural Gas Company 
(SNG) submitted a request for approval of its accounting treatment for 
changes in deferred tax balances. These adjustments result from the 
formation of a master limited partnership, El Paso Pipeline Partners, 
L.P., and its acquisition of an approximately two percent partnership 
interest in SNG during the formation process, along with a 
corresponding Internal Revenue Code Section 754 election. SNG states 
these adjustments reduce its deferred tax balances and increase its 
equity by approximately $5.5 million.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f5b3b0a7b6ba9b999c9b90a68085859a8781b593908796db929a83"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d2949780919dbcbebbbcb781a7a2a2bda0a692b4b7a0b1fcb5bda4">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 16, 2009.

Kimberly Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-7892 Filed 4-7-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 14 (Monday, January 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 3004]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00963]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of General Medical Sciences; 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 General Medical 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel to review COBRE Phase II.
    Date: March 1-2, 2018.
    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Nina Sidorova, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical 
Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive, Room 
3An.22, Bethesda, MD 20892-6200, 301-594-3663, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#99eaf0fdf6ebf6eff8d9f7f0fef4eab7f7f0f1b7fef6ef"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="700319141f021f0611301e19171d035e1e19185e171f06">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, 
Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and 
Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and 
Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental 
Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, 
Special Minority Initiatives; 93.859, Biomedical Research and 
Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 16, 2018.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-00963 Filed 1-19-18; 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>