alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 87 (Friday, May 5, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 22437]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11305]





                Sunshine Act Meetings



Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 1995 / Sunshine 
Act Meetings
[[Page 22437]] 




U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

DATE AND TIME: Friday, May 12, 1995, 9:30 a.m.

PLACE: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 624 Ninth Street NW, Room 540, 
Washington, DC 20425.

STATUS:

Agenda

I. Approval of Agenda
II. Approval of Minutes of April 21, 1995 Meeting
III. Announcements
IV. Staff Director's Report
V. State Advisory Committee Appointments for Ohio and Louisiana
VI. Briefing on Public Service Announcements
VII. Future Agenda Items

    Hearing impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require 
the services of a sign language interpreter should contact Betty 
Edmiston, Administrative Services and Clearinghouse Division (202) 376-
8116 at least five (5) days before the scheduled date of the hearing.

CONTACT PERSON FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Barbara Brooks, Press and 
Communications (202) 376-8312.

    Dated: May 3, 1995.
Miguel Sapp,

Acting Solicitor.

[FR Doc. 95-11305 Filed 5-3-95; 3:49 pm]

BILLING CODE 6335-01-M
----

|   | (1) | The      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period      ended September 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the      requirements of Sections 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 results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By:    | /s/ Terrance M. McCarthy                                                  |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |            Terrance M. McCarthy                  |
|   |   |            President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   |            (Principal Executive Officer)         |

----
Kevin Dewayne MOORE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES MARSHAL, UNKNOWN.

No. 12-8713.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
1

iHealth Labs, Inc.: iHealth COVID-19 Antigen Rapid Test 

12-month to 15-month self-life extension granted by the FDA January 11, 2023

Lot Number

Tests with this printed 

expiration date 

(Year-month-day)

Now have this extended 

expiration date 

(Year-month-day)

221CO20505 2023-02-04 2023-08-04

221CO20509 2023-02-08 2023-08-08

221CO21226 2023-03-25 2024-03-25

221CO20629 2023-03-28 2023-09-28

221CO20505 2023-05-04 2023-08-04

221CO20509 2023-05-08 2023-08-08

221CO20815 2023-08-14 2023-11-14

221CO20820 2023-08-19 2023-11-19

221CO20826 2023-08-25 2023-11-25

221CO20901 2023-08-31 2023-11-30

221CO20905 2023-09-04 2023-12-04

221CO20907 2023-09-06 2023-12-06

221CO20908 2023-09-07 2023-12-07

221CO20909 2023-09-08 2023-12-08

221CO20913 2023-09-12 2023-12-12

221CO20917 2023-09-16 2023-12-16

221CO20927 2023-09-26 2023-12-26

221CO21017 2023-10-16 2024-01-16

221CO21018 2023-10-17 2024-01-17

221CO21101 2023-10-31 2024-01-31

221CO21114 2023-11-13 2024-02-13

221CO21219 2023-12-18 2024-03-18

221CO21220 2023-12-19 2024-03-19

221CO21226 2023-12-25 2024-03-25

231CO20106 2024-01-05 2024-04-05

231CO20109 2024-01-08 2024-04-08

234CO20314 2024-03-13 2024-06-13

234CO20315 2024-03-14 2024-06-14

234CO20317 2024-03-16 2024-06-16

234CO20320 2024-03-19 2024-06-19

234CO20321 2024-03-20 2024-06-20
<PAGE>


                                                                     Exhibit 99

          WINTHROP RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATES III, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
                        FORM 10-QSB SEPTEMBER 30, 1998



Supplementary information required pursuant to section 9.4 of the partnership
agreement:

1. Statement of Cash Available for Distribution for the three months ended
   September 30, 1998:

       Net Loss                                                   $  (57,000)
       Add:     Depreciation and amortization                         46,000
                Distribution received from Local Limited 
                Partnership                                          250,000
       Less:    Cash to reserves                                    (212,000)
                                                                  -----------
       Cash Available for Distribution                            $   27,000
                                                                  ===========
       Distributions allocated to General Partners                $    2,000
                                                                  ===========
       Distributions allocated to Limited Partners                $   25,000
                                                                  ===========


2. Fees and other compensation paid or accrued by the Partnership to the
   General Partners, or their affiliates, during the three months ended
   September 30, 1998:


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
     Entity Receiving                   Form of
       Compensation                   Compensation                    Amount
   ---------------------         ----------------------          -------------
<S>                             <C>                              <C>          

     General Partners           Interest in Cash Available
                                for Distribution                  $       2,000

     WFC Realty Co., Inc.
     (Initial Limited Partner)  Interest in Cash Available 
                                for Distribution                  $           5
</TABLE>


                                   13 of 13
Joshua Grant-Smith YOUNG v. STATE

CR-16-1045

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 129 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 129

 To allow a waiver or exemption of certain requirements for restricted 
                  airspace if security is not reduced.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2005

Mrs. Jones of Ohio introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
           the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To allow a waiver or exemption of certain requirements for restricted 
                  airspace if security is not reduced.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CERTAIN RESTRICTED AIR SPACE WAIVER.

    Section 521(a)(2) of the Transportation, Treasury, and Independent 
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108-199, div. F) is 
amended--
            (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B)(v);
            (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (C) 
        and inserting the following: ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(D) to allow the operation of an aircraft 
                participating in an air show in restricted airspace if 
                the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
                Administration, in consultation with the Secretary of 
                the Department of Homeland Security, determines that 
                the safety of an event is not compromised.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          35,521
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  381,436
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    786,655
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,521,608
<PP&E>                                      10,395,204
<DEPRECIATION>                             (3,560,076)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,505,186
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,595,437
<BONDS>                                     13,605,686
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     8,318,431
<OTHER-SE>                                 (9,014,368)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,505,186
<SALES>                                      5,509,571
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,920,556
<CGS>                                        1,079,304
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,211,912
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,079,656
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             111,073
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (561,389)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (190,900)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (370,489)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (370,489)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.09)
        

</TABLE>
USPPS, Ltd., petitioner, v. AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION, et al.

No. 12-539.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for further consideration in light of *Gunn v. Minton,**1795--- U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 1059, 185 L.Ed.2d 72 (2013).
InBios International Inc: SCoV-2 Ag Detect Rapid Self-Test 

10-month to 13-month shelf-life extension granted by the FDA May 26, 2022

Lot Number Test with this 

printed expiration

date

Now have this 

extended expiration

date

BA6335, BA6336, BA6349, BA6560, BB6177, BB6241, 

BB6242, BB6243, BB6294, BB6295, BB6323, BB6324, 

BB6515, BB6550, BC6184, BC6526, BC6528, BC6529

July 2022 February 2023

BB6463, BB6513, BC6527 August 2022 March 2023

BC6139, BC6141, BC6142 September 2022 April 2023

BB6468, BB6469, BB6470, BB6471, BB6512, BB6514 November 2022 March 2023

BC6424, BC6488, BC6579, BC6581, BD6435, BD6446 December 2022 April 2023

BC6312, BC6140, BC6309, BC6310, BC6311, BC6423, 

BC6425, BC6426, BC6427, BC6462, BC6463, BC6578, 

BC6580, BC6582, BC6583, BC6584, BC6585, BD6038, 

BD6436, BD6437, BD6438, BD6439, BD6440, BD6441, 

BD6445

January 2023 April 2023

BD6039, BD6040, BD6041, BD6042, BD6043, BD6044, 

BD6045, BD6392, BD6393, BD6394, BD6395, BD6431, 

BD6432, BD6434, BD6468, BD6471, BD6484, BD6551, 

BD6555, BD6556, BD6594, BD6605, BD6606, BD6636, 

BD6640, BD6641, BD6655, BD6684, BD6696, BD6757, 

BD6758, BD6759, BD6760, BD6847, BD6848, BD6863, 

BD6864, BE6034, BE6092, BE6137, BE7018, BD6690

February 2023 May 2023

BD6931, BE6024, BE6089, BE6091, BE6138, BE6178, 

BE6206, BE6235, BE6274, BE6289, BE6290, BE6291, 

BE6368, BE6418, BE6419, BE6445, BE6474, BE6491, 

BE6530, BE6538, BE6589, BE6599, BE6637, BE6638, 

BE6646, BE6687, BE6696, BE6697, BE6698, BE6737, 

BE6786, BE6787, BE6788, BE6788, BE6806, BE6844, 

BE6845, BE6856, BE6909, BE6978, BE6979, BE7015, 

BE7079, BF6041, BF6127

March 2023 June 2023

BF6181 April 2023 July 2023

BE6408, BE7058, BE7059, BE7060 May 2023 June 2023

BF6034, BF6035, BF6120, BF6121, BF6243, BF6253, 

BF6299, BF6361, BF6398, BF6449, BF6451, BF6564, 

BF6565, BF6566, BF6567

May 2023 July 2023
Brian K. BARNER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10261.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

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

Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-10293

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TRONNALD LOUIS DUNAWAY,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:99-CR-98-2-T

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

November 2, 2000

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender (FPD) appointed to represent

Tronnald Louis Dunaway moves for leave to withdraw and has filed

a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Dunaway has received copies of counsel’s motion and brief, but he

has not filed a response.

Dunaway filed a notice of appeal five months after judgment. 

The 10-day limit for filing a notice of appeal in a criminal case
No. 00-10293 

-2-

is "mandatory and jurisdictional." United States v. Coscarelli,

149 F.3d 342, 343 (5th Cir. 1998) (en banc)(internal quotation

and citation omitted); Fed. R. App. P. 4(b). This court’s

briefing notice directed counsel to address whether the notice of

appeal was timely. The FPD’s brief does not address the issue. 

It merely asserts that the notice of appeal was timely.

We have examined counsel’s Anders brief and the record and

have determined that the appeal raises no nonfrivolous issue. 

Therefore, we need not require additional briefing on the

timeliness of the notice of appeal. See United States v.

Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000). 

The appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. See id.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is DENIED as moot.
John Ray RODRIGUEZ, petitioner, v. William SULLIVAN, Warden.

No. 12-8423.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

THOMAS LEGG, JR. )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Cause No. 3:12-cv-00844-JTM-CAN

)

NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING )

PHARMACY, INC. a/k/a NEW )

ENGLAND COMPOUNDING CENTER; )

AMERIDOSE, LLC; ALAUNUS )

PHARMACEUTICAL, LLC; BARRY )

CADDEN; LISA CADDEN; )

and GREGORY CONIGLIARO, )

)

Defendants. )

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT ALAUNUS PHARMACEUTICAL, LLC'S 

MOTION TO DISMISS

Pursuant to L.R. 6.1, Plaintiff Thomas Legg, Jr., by counsel, hereby moves this Court for 

an extension of time to respond to Defendant Alaunus Pharmaceutical, LLC's Motion to Dismiss 

through and including April 5, 2013. Plaintiff's response is currently due March 6, 23013. 

Defendant's counsel has been consulted and has no objection to the requested extension. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, by counsel prays for an Order allowing Plaintiff up to and 

including April 5, 2013 to respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and for all relief just and 

proper in the premises. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Douglas A. Mulvaney __________

Douglas A. Mulvaney, # 10263-20

STUTSMAN & MULVANEY

1300 Cassopolis Street

P.O. Box 1337

Elkhart, IN 46515-1337

(574) 266-8500

case 3:12-cv-00844-JTM-CAN document 19 filed 02/18/13 page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court 

on February 18, 2013 using the CM/ECF system which sent notification of this filing to all 

counsel of record.

/s/ Douglas A. Mulvaney____________ 

Douglas A. Mulvaney

case 3:12-cv-00844-JTM-CAN document 19 filed 02/18/13 page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH DESMOND TAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL SMITH,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00809-EMC 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Docket No. 1

Plaintiff, an inmate on death row at San Quentin State Prison, filed this action under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 against the judge who presided over his death penalty case in San Bernardino 

County Superior Court in 1996. Plaintiff alleges that Judge Smith erroneously allowed certain 

fingerprint evidence at the trial in 1996. Plaintiff requests damages and release from custody. 

Docket No. 1 at 3. 

The complained-of events and omissions occurred in San Bernardino County, which is 

located within the venue of the Central District of California. The only defendant apparently 

resides in San Bernardino County. No defendant is alleged to reside in, and none of the events or 

omissions giving rise to the complaint occurred in, the Northern District of California. Venue

therefore would be proper in the Central District, and not in this one. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

The court “shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer” an action that has been filed 

in the wrong venue. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). This is the third time Plaintiff has filed an action 

against Judge Smith for alleged errors in the trial in San Bernardino County Superior Court. In the 

first action against Judge Smith, Taylor v. Smith, et al., N. D. Cal. No. 09-cv-3009 MMC, the 

claims against Judge Smith were dismissed as filed in the wrong venue and without prejudice to 

Plaintiff filing an action in the Central District. The second action against Judge Smith, Taylor v. 
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

Smith, N.D. Cal. No. 13-cv-4550 EMC, was dismissed as filed in the wrong venue, with an 

explanation that transfer was not appropriate since Plaintiff already had been informed that the 

Central District, rather than the Northern District, of California was the proper venue for his 

claims. In light of the earlier orders explaining that the Northern District is not the correct venue 

for an action against Judge Smith, there was no reason for Plaintiff to repeat his mistake. It is not 

in the interest of justice to transfer this action because it unnecessarily consumes limited judicial 

resources for the transferring court to process a case filed by a plaintiff who knowingly files his 

case in the wrong district. 

Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED because it was filed in the wrong venue. This 

dismissal is without prejudice to Plaintiff pursuing his claims in the Central District of California. 

The Clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 9, 2017

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         640,107
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,691,989
<ALLOWANCES>                                   812,603
<INVENTORY>                                  5,517,862
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,529,153
<PP&E>                                       5,597,751
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,543,732
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,287,998
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,620,913
<BONDS>                                      1,157,224
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  6,622,177
<COMMON>                                       446,153
<OTHER-SE>                                  (5,725,739)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,287,998
<SALES>                                      9,163,813
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,163,813
<CGS>                                        6,032,332
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               16,589,147
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                31,196
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,028,578
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (8,422,716)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (8,422,716)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (8,930,323)<F1>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.20)
<FN>
<F1>NET LOSS APPLICABLE TO COMMON STOCK.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Max Alexander SOFFAR, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 12-758.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HILARIO ARTURO CHICHIL,

Petitioner,

v.

A. KANE, warden,

Respondent.

 /

No. C 05-1958 SI (pr)

ORDER

Petitioner has filed a notice of appeal. He does not need a certificate of appealability to

appeal because his habeas petition challenged the parole authority's administrative decision to

deny parole. See Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229, 1232 (9th Cir. 2005).

Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED for failure to

provide the information required by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1). (Docket #

15.) This denial is without prejudice to him filing a request in the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5).

The clerk shall process the appeal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 9, 2006 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01958-SI Document 17 Filed 11/09/06 Page 1 of 1