alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 10 (Thursday, January 16, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4751-4752]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00980]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of 
Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
    The meetings 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 Center for Advancing Translational 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; NCATS RDCRC Grant Application 
Review.
    Date: February 3-5, 2025.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate cooperative agreement 
applications.
    Address: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, 
National Institutes of Health, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, 
MD 20892.
    Meeting Format: In Person and Virtual Meeting.
    Contact Person: M. Lourdes Ponce, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Center for Advancing 
Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 9609 Medical 
Center Drive, Suite 1E504, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-0810, 
[email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Center for Advancing Translational 
Sciences Special

[[Page 4752]]

Emphasis Panel; RDCRN Research Consortia B.
    Date: February 5-7, 2025.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate cooperative agreement 
applications.
    Address: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, 
National Institutes of Health, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, 
MD 20892.
    Meeting Format: In Person and Virtual Meeting.
    Contact Person: Victor Henriquez, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Office of Scientific Director, National Center for 
Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 
9609 Medical Center Drive, Suite 1E504, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 
451-2405, [email protected].

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.859, 
Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.350, 
B--Cooperative Agreements; 93.859, Biomedical Research and Research 
Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 10, 2025.
David W. Freeman,
Supervisory Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee 
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2025-00980 Filed 1-15-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
# C_2017168EN.01002701.xml

| 29.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 27 March 2017 — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-157/17)

(2017/C 168/35)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: X

Applicant:

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant:

Other parties: Nederlandse Orde van Belastingadviseurs, Loyens en Loeff NV

Other parties:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 56 EC (now Article 63 TFEU) mean that an investment fund established outside the Netherlands cannot be refused, on the ground that it is not subject to an obligation to withhold Netherlands dividend tax, a refund of Netherlands dividend tax which was withheld on dividends which that investment fund received from corporate bodies established in the Netherlands, whereas such a refund is granted to a fiscal investment institution established in the Netherlands, which, subject to the withholding of Netherlands dividend tax, distributes the proceeds of its investments to its shareholders or participants on an annual basis? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 56 EC (now Article 63 TFEU) mean that an investment fund established outside the Netherlands cannot be refused, on the ground that it is not subject to an obligation to withhold Netherlands dividend tax, a refund of Netherlands dividend tax which was withheld on dividends which that investment fund received from corporate bodies established in the Netherlands, whereas such a refund is granted to a fiscal investment institution established in the Netherlands, which, subject to the withholding of Netherlands dividend tax, distributes the proceeds of its investments to its shareholders or participants on an annual basis?

| 2. | Does Article 56 EC (now Article 63 TFEU) mean that an investment fund established outside the Netherlands cannot be refused a refund of Netherlands dividend tax — which is, however, granted to a Netherlands fiscal investment institution — in case this might constitute a hindrance to that fund’s efforts to attract investors living or established in the Netherlands? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Article 56 EC (now Article 63 TFEU) mean that an investment fund established outside the Netherlands cannot be refused a refund of Netherlands dividend tax — which is, however, granted to a Netherlands fiscal investment institution — in case this might constitute a hindrance to that fund’s efforts to attract investors living or established in the Netherlands?

---
EX PARTE Paul W. DUMAS

(In re Ruth Howell Walters v. Laura Walters Wood)

2170149

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

November 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
Antoinette BOYD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1705

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 11, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### E. M. Gollnick and Anna E. Gollnick, His Wife, *Appellants,*v. L. W. Barker, *Appellee.*

Division B.

Decision Filed November 7, 1927.

*Alto Adams,*for Appellants;

*Nisle & Vocelle,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

This was a suit to have a conveyance absolute on its face decreed to be in effect a mortgage and to require the conveyance of the property to the complainant upon the payment of the debt alleged to have been secured with interest thereon. The decree was in favor of the complainant.

“Sec. 3836, Revised General Statutes 1920, prescribing the effect of instruments conveying property for the purpose or with the intention of securing the payment of money,” is designed to insure effectuation of the genuine intention of the parties by subordinating thereto the ostensible form in which the transaction is finally' couched. Neither artifice of form nor superficial declaration of intention will successfully obscure the true nature of the transaction. Cary & Co. v. Hyer, 91 Fla. 322, 107 Sou. 689; Hull v. Burr, 58 Fla. 432, 50 Sou. 754.

While the findings and conclusions of a chancellor, where the testimony is not taken before him but before an examiner or master and the chancellor is not afforded the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses, are not entitled to the same weight as the verdict of a jury and are not so *886conclusive, yet even in that ease they should not be disturbed by an appellate court, unless they are clearly shown to be erroneous. Mock v. Thompson, 58 Fla. 477, 50 Sou. 673; Lucas v. Wade, 43 Fla. 419, 31 Sou. 231.

Affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
John Paul RICE v. STATE

CR-16-0723

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# THEATTORNEYGENERAL OF TEXAS AURTIN. **%bXAS** 78711

Honorable Joe Resweber County Attorney Harris County Courthouse Houston, Texas 77002 Opinion No. H-990 Re: Whether Harris County may charge tolls on the Lynchburg ferry. Dear Mr. Resweber: You have requested our opinion regarding whether the commissioners court of Harris County may charge tolls for crossings on the Lynchburg ferry. The commissioners court has formany years operated the Lynchburg ferry as a free ferry across theHouston Ship Channel. Its authority todo so isderived from article 2351,V.T.C.S., which provides, inpertinent part:

Each commissioners court shall:

. . . . 2. Establish public ferries whenever thepublic interestmay require. The commissioners court isnot authorized thereby, however, toassess tolls for ferriage. It iswell established that a county possesses only those powers specifically conferred

_ . by the Constitution and by statute. Canales v. Laughlin, 214 S.W.Zd 451, 453 (Tex.1948). Two statutes, articles 6801and 1476,V.T.C.S., authorize a commissioners court to assess rates of ferriage. Both'relate, however, to the imposition of tolls and charges onpri- ;;;;ly operated ferries. SeeV.T.C.S. arts. 6798-6812; 1474-

. Inour opinion, thesestatutes furnish nobasis for concluding that a commissioners courtmay charge tolls on county-operated ferries. Furthermore, anumber of other statutes clearly authorize a county to charge tolls on county-operated bridges and tunnels. SeeV.T.C.S. arts. 6795a; 6795b; 6795c. -

p. 4112Honorable Joe Resweber -page 2 (H-990)

See alsoAttorney General Opinion H-825 (1976). The absence -- of any such language inarticle 2351, or elsewhere, authorizing a commissioners court to assess and collect tolls on its county-operated ferries, compels the conclusion that itmay not do so. SUMMARY

The commissioners court of Harris County may not charge tolls for crossings on the county-operated Lynchburg ferry. -Very trulyyours,

/ j Attorney General of Texas APPROVED: u

Opinion Committee km1

p. 4113
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of International Isotopes, Inc and subsidiaries (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Form 10-K), I, Steve T. Laflin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, in my capacity as such, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)

To my knowledge, the Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and



(2)

The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





March 26, 2009

/s/ Steve T. Laflin

Steve T. Laflin

Chief Executive Officer
BOYES, FARINA & MATWICZYK, P.A., Appellant, v. Glenn SANDS and Sun Holdings Capital, LLC, Appellees.

No. 4D18-2741

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 7, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Walter A. BETANCOURT, Appellant, v. Patricia EDWARDS, Appellee.

No. 4D18-1518

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 6, 2019]

Walter A. Betancourt, Deerfield Beach, pro se.

Richard L. Rosenbaum of the Law Offices of Richard Rosenbaum, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed* . *See**Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a)* .

Levine, Conner and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.
Brandon TECKLENBURG, Appellant, v. Erika KOUREMETIS, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-332

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 5, 2019

J. Andrew Crawford of J. Andrew Crawford, P.A., St. Petersburg for Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

The motion for rehearing en banc is denied. The motion for written opinion is granted. The opinion dated January 23, 2019, is withdrawn, and the attached opinion is issued in its place. No further motions for rehearing will be entertained.

I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING IS A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL COURT ORDER.

PER CURIAM.

*915We affirm the order denying Brandon Tecklenburg's motion to determine confidentiality of court records. The trial court simply was not presented with evidence sufficient to satisfy the burden placed on Mr. Tecklenburg by Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420. However, our affirmance does not preclude Mr. Tecklenburg from again seeking a determination of confidentiality provided that he sufficiently justifies the need for closure of the records. *See* Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(e)(1) (providing that a petition to determine the confidentiality of records must (1) "identify the particular court records or a portion of a record that the movant seeks to have determined as confidential with as much specificity as possible without revealing the information subject to the confidentiality determination"; (2) "specify the bases for determining that such court records are confidential without revealing confidential information"; and (3) "set forth the specific legal authority and any applicable legal standards for determining such court records to be confidential without revealing confidential information"); *Barron v. Fla. Freedom Newspapers, Inc.*, 531 So.2d 113, 118 (Fla. 1988) ("The burden of proof in [closure] proceedings shall always be on the party seeking closure."); *BDO Seidman, LLP v. Banco Espirito Santo Int'l, Ltd.*, 201 So.3d 1, 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) ("This ruling is without prejudice to BDO Seidman to file a new motion to seal ... if there is a good faith basis for asserting that any portion of the appendix qualifies for sealing ....").

Affirmed.

KHOUZAM, BLACK, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
T. MARC CALVERT

BOARD CERTIFIED PERSONAL INJURY TRIAL LAW

TEXAS BOARD OF LEGAL SPECIALIZATION

Phone (713) 290-0272

Fax (713) 290-0277 |

Email calvertfirm@calvertfirm.com

Web www.calvertfirm.com |

Mailing 15201 Mason Road, Suite 350

Address Cypress, Texas 77433

May 14, 2018 

Christopher A. Prine, Clerk of the Court 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

301 Fannin, Room 245 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Re: Court of Appeals Number : 14-17-00532-CV

 Trial Court Case Number : 2016-33632 

Style: Darnell Pettway, MD v. Maria Olvera 

Dear Sir: 

 Please be advised that I designate the following weeks as my vacation schedule for 2018: 

 August 6, 2018 – August 10, 2018; 

 August 13, 2018 – August 17, 2018; 

 August 20, 2018 – August 24, 2018; and 

 August 27, 2018 – August 31, 2018. 

 I would request that no hearings, depositions or trial be scheduled during this time 

 Sincerely, 

 CALVERT & ASSOCIATES 

T. Marc Calvert 

cc: 

Kirk L Pittard 

Peter M. Kelly 

Morgan A. McPheeters 

Kelly, Durham & Pittard, LLP 

PO Box 224626 

ACCEPTED

14-17-00532-CV

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

5/14/2018 11:03 AM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 5/14/2018 11:03:56 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
Christopher A. Prine, Clerk of the Court 

May 14, 2018 

Page 2

Corey S. Gomel

Gomel & Associates, P.C.

1177 West Loop South, Suite 1400

Houston, Texas 77027

TMC/cjs

14th Court of Appeals – 2018 Vacation Letter
® Check this box if debtor has no creditors holding unsecured nonpriority claims to report on Schedule F.

IN RE: Annie Christine Walker, M.D.

Debtor

Joint Debtor

CASE NO 02-32368-HCA-13

(If Known)

CHAPTER 13

AMENDED 2/4/04

SCHEDULE F (CREDITORS HOLDING UNSECURED NONPRIORITY CLAIMS)

CREDITOR'S NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS

INCLUDING ZIP CODE AMOUNT OF CLAIM

DATE CLAIM WAS INCURRED AND 

CONSIDERATION FOR CLAIM. IF CLAIM 

IS SUBJECT TO SETOFF, SO STATE.

CODEBTOR

CONTINGENT

UNLIQUIDATED

DISPUTED

HUSBAND, WIFE, JOINT

OR COMMUNITY

xx-x9-114

co Kenneth J. Ferguson

P.O. Box 1148

Austin, TX 78767

-

Cathy V. Hickman-Martin Notice Only Notice Only 

ACCT #: DATE INCURRED:

CONSIDERATION:

REMARKS:

xx-x9-114

P.O. Box 1148

Austin, TX 78767 -

Kenneth J. Ferguson Attorney at Law Notice Only 

ACCT #: DATE INCURRED:

CONSIDERATION:

REMARKS:

xx-x9-114

co Kenneth J. Ferguson

P.O. Box 1148

Austin, TX 78767

-

Linda Stephens Notice Only Notice Only 

ACCT #: DATE INCURRED:

CONSIDERATION:

REMARKS:

xx-x9-114

co Kenneth J. Ferguson

P.O. Box 1148

Austin, TX 78767

-

Mary l. Krumnow Notice Only Notice Only 

ACCT #: DATE INCURRED:

CONSIDERATION:

REMARKS:

xx-x9-114

co Kenneth J. Ferguson

P.O. Box 1148

Austin, TX 78767

-

Paula M. Gilbert Notice Only Notice Only 

ACCT #: DATE INCURRED:

CONSIDERATION:

REMARKS:

$0.00 

Total for this Page (Subtotal) > $0.00 

Running Total > 

________________continuation sheets attached No

Case 02-32368-bjh13 Doc 28 Filed 02/04/04 Entered 02/04/04 14:32:06 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

IN RE: Annie Christine Walker, M.D. CASE NO 02-32368-HCA-13

CHAPTER 13

VERIFICATION OF CREDITOR MATRIX

AMENDED 2/4/04

Debtor(s)

 The above named Debtor hereby verifies that the attached list of creditors is true and correct to the best of his/her 

knowledge. 

Date

Date

Signature

Signature

/s/ Annie Christine Walker, M.D.

Annie Christine Walker, M.D.

P.O. Box 886

Crandall, TX 75114

24002066

(972) 427-8888

Jenny C. Teague

Law Office of Jenny C. Teague

/s/ Jenny C. Teague

Case 02-32368-bjh13 Doc 28 Filed 02/04/04 Entered 02/04/04 14:32:06 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 3
Cathy V. Hickman-Martin

xx-x9-114

co Kenneth J. Ferguson

P.O. Box 1148

Austin, TX 78767

Kenneth J. Ferguson

xx-x9-114

P.O. Box 1148

Austin, TX 78767

Linda Stephens

xx-x9-114

co Kenneth J. Ferguson

P.O. Box 1148

Austin, TX 78767

Mary l. Krumnow

xx-x9-114

co Kenneth J. Ferguson

P.O. Box 1148

Austin, TX 78767

Paula M. Gilbert

xx-x9-114

co Kenneth J. Ferguson

P.O. Box 1148

Austin, TX 78767

Case 02-32368-bjh13 Doc 28 Filed 02/04/04 Entered 02/04/04 14:32:06 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 3
No. 30,018.

#### The State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Daniel Young, *Appellant.*

(3 P. 2d 653.)

Opinion filed October 15, 1931.

*Hugh C. Larimer,*of Topeka, for the appellant.

*Roland Boynton,*attorney-general, *R. O. Mason,*assistant attorney-general, *J. Glenn Logan,*county attorney, and *Frank E, Miller,*assistant county attorney, for the appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Dawson, J.:

The defendant was convicted as a persistent violator of the prohibitory law on separate counts of possession and transportation of intoxicants. He appeals, presenting two questions, which challenge the sufficiency of the information and of the evidence.

Touching the first of these, it is urged that the second count did not charge a felony because of the want of an allegation that prior to the commission of the offense for which he was being prosecuted he had theretofore been duly convicted of an offense against the prohibitory law. But in the counter abstract supplied by the state the information is set out in full and it contains no such defect as that suggested by counsel for defendant.

As regards the sufficiency of the evidence, it was fairly shown that while defendant was driving his automobile in a Topeka locality known as the “bottoms” he was pursued by two deputy sheriffs, and on hearing their siren he increased his speed and threw out of his car a gallon jug which broke and its contents were spilled on the railway track, but enough of the contents was found in a piece of the jug to show that it was whisky. Counsel for defendant has a talking point based on the fact that the deputy sheriffs captured defendant and took him to jail before they went back to the place where the jug was broken, and because the contents of the broken *797jug were not chemically analyzed. Witnesses for the state testified that the broken pieces of the jug were still wet with the liquid which it had contained, and from its smell they identified it as whisky. That fact, with the attendant circumstances, was sufficient to take the case to the jury. *(State v. Brown,*119 Kan. 874, 241 Pac. 112; *State v. Eccleston,*ante, pp. 354, 356, 299 Pac. 646.)

The judgment is 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 this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Language Line Holdings, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dennis G. Dracup, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:



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



|(ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Language Line Holdings, Inc.
|---- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: May 12, 2005



/s/ Dennis G. DracupDennis G. DracupChief Executive Officer and Director(Principal Executive Officer)




The foregoing certification is
being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of this Report.



20
**Exhibit 32.3**

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**Required by Rule 13a-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 1350, created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

The undersigned officer of ECC Capital Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that: 

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated. 

Dated: November 14, 2006

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof,regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been providedto the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.