alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 178 (Friday, September 17, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51907-51908]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20108]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Basic research to inform

[[Page 51908]]

vaccine and therapeutic development for non-polio human 
enteroviruses (NPEV) (R01 Clinical Trial Not Allowed).
    Date: October 18, 2021.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G42A, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Lynn Rust, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, 
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National 
Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G42A, Rockville, MD 
20852, (240) 669-5069, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4d213f383e390d23242c242963232425632a223b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="513d23242225113f383038357f3f38397f363e27">[email protected]</span></a>.

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

    Dated: September 13, 2021.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-20108 Filed 9-16-21; 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>
CAPACITY IN WHICH CHARGED BLOCK ON THE ENFORCEMENT 

SUMMARY 

Written By Unknown Author

Remember that not everyone on a vessel can be charged with a 

violation. Certain violations can only be charged to certain persons. 

That requires knowledge of the “applicability” language in the 

statute or regulation. You must know if the law or regulation applies 

to the person you intend to charge with the violation. For instance, 

only the “operator” of a vessel can be charged with boating under the 

influence. Other laws or regulations may apply to everyone such as 

the regulation prohibiting the draining of oil into the bilges of a 

vessel. It states “no one” may do the prohibited act. Still other laws 

or regulations may apply to two or three persons such as operator, 

master or person-in-charge.

The question to ask is what is the “capacity of party” (COP) being 

charged and does the law or regulation violated apply to that 

“capacity.” You can think about “capacity” as the role of the person 

such as operator or owner. A regulation may apply only to the vessel 

master meaning that the vessel owner cannot be charged with its 

violation. Similarly, a regulation may only apply to a facility owner 

meaning that the facility operator cannot be charged with violation 

of that regulation. 

If you identify a violation of a regulation, you must identify what 

capacity can be held responsible under the regulation. Ensure you 

correctly identify the party and the COP (owner, operator, master, 

person-in-charge, etc) in the boarding report, investigation or 

inspection report. Processing officials must be diligent to ensure that 

the Enforcement Summary reflects that the charged party’s 

“capacity” is one that can be held responsible under the cited law or 

regulation.
#### Bonn, Shortsleeve & Ray, LLP, et al., Respondents, v Timothy S. Shortsleeve, Appellant.

[946 NYS2d 913]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Kenneth R. Fisher, J.), entered October 28, 2011 in a breach of contract action. The order denied the motion of defendant to disqualify counsel for plaintiffs and granted the cross motion of plaintiffs for partial summary judgment dismissing defendant’s breach of contract counterclaim.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. Present — Centra, J.P., Peradotto, Carni, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.
(78 Hun, 336.)

#### BARNEY v. MAYOR, ETC., OF CITY OF NEW YORK.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.

May 18, 1894.)

Action by Charles T. Barney, as administrator of Ashbell H. Barney, deceased, against the mayor, aldermen, and commonalty of the city of New York, to recover taxes paid. Defendant moves for a new trial on exceptions ordered to be heard in the first instance at general term.

Granted.

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and FOLLETT and PARKER, JJ.

Geo. L. Sterling, for the motion.

J. A. Flannery, opposed.

VAN BRUNT, P. J.

This case, in its main features, is substantially the same as that of Barney v. Mayor, etc. (herewith decided) 29 N. Y. Supp. 175. The taxes in this case were for the years 1885 and 1886. and were paid while Ashbell H. Barney was living, this action being brought by his administrator. It is urged that there is no evidence to show whether Mr. Barney, Sr., had any *179knowledge of the facts which it is alleged rendered the assessment illegal, and that, therefore, there is a failure on the part of the plaintiff! to show ignorance of the fact and involuntary payment on his part, which it is incumbent upon him to show affirmatively. The evidence shows that Mr. Barney, Sr., was in infirm health at the time of the imposition of the tax in question; that he attended to but little, if any, of his business; and that his son, the plaintiff, had entire charge of the same. It seems to us that under these circumstances it would be carrying the inference of knowledge too far to hold that there was a failure of proof because the dead man was not examined as to what his knowledge in respect to these transactions was. For the reasons, however, stated in the opinion in the case cited, we think that the exceptions should be sustained, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the defendant to abide the event All concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 10.1

                          AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE
                          ----------------------------

     THIS AMENDMENT dated at of October 29, 1999, (the "Amendment") is made by
and between Dr. Douglas Reed (the "Borrower") and GelTex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation (the "Lender") and amends the Promissory Note in the
amount of $100,000 executed in Waltham, Massachusetts and dated December 1,
1998.


                                 R E C I T A L S

     WHEREAS, Dr. Douglas Reed and GelTex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. are parties to
that certain Promissory Note dated December 1, 1998;

     WHEREAS, Dr. Douglas Reed and GelTex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. desire to amend
the Promissory Note to extend the Maturity Date of said note;

     NOW, THEREFORE, the parties mutually agree as follows:

     The Maturity Date of this Promissory Note shall be the earlier of (i)
fifteen days following the closing date of the Borrower's sale of the property
located at 3021 E. Thackeray Place, Salt Lake City, Utah or (ii) March 31, 2000.

     Executed as a sealed instrument as of the day and year first above written.

BORROWER:

 /s/ Douglas Reed
----------------------------
Douglas Reed

LENDER:

GELTEX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

By:

 /s/ Paul J. Mellett, Jr.
---------------------------
Paul J. Mellett, Jr., Vice President
Finance and Administration
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Rhynes, Appellant.

Memorandum: We agree with Special Term that the showup of defendant was not impermissibly suggestive and that there was an independent basis for an in-court identification. Although police showups are disfavored as unduly suggestive *(see, People v Adams, 53*NY2d 241), exigent circumstances may justify such showups in the interest of prompt identification *(see, People v Love,*57 NY2d 1023, 1024; *People v Brnja,*50 NY2d 366, 372). Defendant and his codefendants were stopped at 11:55 p.m., approximately three hours after the report of the assault. They were less than a mile from the scene. They were immediately taken to the hospital where the victims were being treated and the showup was conducted within 30 minutes after defendant’s vehicle was stopped. The officers took the victims separately to view the defendant and did not allow them to converse with one another until after each had separately identified the defendants as their assailants. The officers testified that they decided to have a showup at the hospital rather than a lineup because of the lateness of the hour, the difficulty in locating 16 persons to participate in lineups with the four suspects, and the delay that would have been caused in waiting for the victims to become available for a lineup. Viewing the totality of the circumstances, we believe the showup was justified and defendant’s motion properly denied *(see, People v Thomas,*105 AD2d 1098).

We have reviewed defendant’s other arguments and find them to be lacking in merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Kennedy, J. — assault, second degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Boomer and Schnepp, JJ.
#### PEOPLE ex rel. ROSEBORN, Appellant, v. JEROLOMAN, Justice, et al., Respondents.

(Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.

May 10, 1894.)

Action by the People on relation of Harry W. Roseborn against John J. Jeroloman, justice, and others.

Argued before DALY, C. J., and BOOKSTAVER and PRYOR, JJ.

J. C. Roseborn, for appellant.

Edwin A. Pratt, for respondents.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs.
# C_2021043EN.01001501.xml

| 8.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 43/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 43/15

---

Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/740 and Council Regulation (EU) 2015/735 concerning restrictive measures in respect of the situation in South Sudan apply

(2021/C 43/06)

The attention of data subjects is drawn to the following information in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1).

The legal basis for this processing operation are Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/740 (2) and Council Regulation (EU) 2015/735 (3).

The controller of this processing operation is the Department RELEX.1.C in the Directorate-General for Foreign Affairs, Enlargement and Civil Protection – RELEX of the General Secretariat of the Council (GSC), that can be contacted at:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1.C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1.C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

The GSC’s Data Protection Officer can be contacted at:

Data Protection Officer

data.protection@consilium.europa.eu

The purpose of the processing operation is the establishment and updating of the list of persons subject to restrictive measures in accordance with Decision (CFSP) 2015/740 and Regulation (EU) 2015/735.

The data subjects are the natural persons who fulfil the listing criteria as laid down in Decision (CFSP) 2015/740 and Regulation (EU) 2015/735.

The personal data collected includes data necessary for the correct identification of the person concerned, the statement of reasons and any other data related thereto.

The personal data collected may be shared as necessary with the European External Action Service and the Commission.

Without prejudice to restrictions pursuant to Article 25 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, the exercise of the rights of the data subjects such as the right of access, as well as the rights to rectification or to object will be answered in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.

Personal data will be retained for 5 years from the moment the data subject has been removed from the list of persons subject to the restrictive measures or the validity of the measure has expired, or for the duration of court proceedings in the event they had been started.

Without prejudice to any judicial, administrative or non-judicial remedy, data subjects may lodge a complaint with the European Data Protection Supervisor in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 (edps@edps.europa.eu).

---

(1)  OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 39.

(2)  OJ L 117, 8.5.2015, p. 52.

(3)  OJ L 117, 8.5.2015, p. 13.

---
# C_2021173EN.01000501.xml

| 7.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/5

---

Commission notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Changes to public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 173/04)

| Member State | France |
| --- | --- |
| Route concerned | Brive – Paris (Orly) |
| Original date of entry into force of the public service obligation | 28 October 1995 |
| Date of entry into force of the changes | 5 January 2022 |
| Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public service obligation can be obtained | Order of 16 March 2021 amending the public service obligation imposed on scheduled air services between Brive and Paris (Orly)
  NOR: TRAA2104147A
  http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/initRechTexte.do
  For further information please contact:





  Direction Générale de l’Aviation Civile |
| DTA/SDS1 |
| 50 rue Henry Farman |
| 75720 Paris CEDEX 15 |
| FRANCE |

Member State

France

Route concerned

Brive – Paris (Orly)

Original date of entry into force of the public service obligation

28 October 1995

Date of entry into force of the changes

5 January 2022

Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public service obligation can be obtained

Order of 16 March 2021 amending the public service obligation imposed on scheduled air services between Brive and Paris (Orly)

NOR: TRAA2104147A

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/initRechTexte.do

For further information please contact:

Direction Générale de l’Aviation Civile

DTA/SDS1

50 rue Henry Farman

75720 Paris CEDEX 15

FRANCE

Tel. +33 158094321

osp-compagnies.dta@aviation-civile.gouv.fr

---
**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 eLinear, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for
the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael Lewis, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
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 results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 /s/
Michael Lewis ___________________
 Michael
Lewis,
 Chief
Executive Officer
 May 20,
2005
 
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
eLinear, Inc. and will be retained by eLinear, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 21

Hot Topic, Inc.

List of Subsidiaries



|                               |  |             |  |                             
|------------------------------ |  | ----------- |  | ----------------------------
|Entity                         |  | Entity Type |  | STATE/PLACE OF INCORPORATION
|                               |  |            
|Hot Topic Administration, Inc. |  | Corporation |  | California                  
|                               |  |            
|Hot Topic Merchandising, Inc.  |  | Corporation |  | California                  
|                               |  |            
|hottopic.com, Inc.             |  | Corporation |  | California                  
|                               |  |            
|Hot Topic Tennessee, Inc.      |  | Corporation |  | California
Exhibit 23.1


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-55180, 333-63268, 333-68718) of Sales Online
Direct, Inc. of our report dated March 24, 2002, on our audit of the
consolidated financial statements of Sales Online Direct, Inc., which report
appears in the December 31, 2001 annual report on Form 10-KSB of Sales Online
Direct, Inc.

Wolf & Company, P. C.


Boston, Massachusetts
March 29, 2002
# C_2021351EN.01001701.xml

| 1.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 351/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 351/17

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10204 — Total Produce/Dole Food Company)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 351/04)

On 7 June 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10204. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10204. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 Annual Report of TransAct Technologies Incorporated (the Company)
on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven A. DeMartino, Chief Financial 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 the best of 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 14, 2008



|                                           
|-------------------------------------------
|/s/    STEVEN A. DEMARTINO                 
|Steven A. DeMartino Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2287 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2287

  To require the National Credit Union Administration to hold public 
 hearings and receive comments from the public on its budget, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 13, 2015

  Mr. Mulvaney (for himself and Ms. Sinema) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the National Credit Union Administration to hold public 
 hearings and receive comments from the public on its budget, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``National Credit Union Administration 
Budget Transparency Act''.

SEC. 2. BUDGET TRANSPARENCY FOR THE NCUA.

    Section 209(b) of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1789) is 
amended--
            (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as paragraphs 
        (2) and (3), respectively;
            (2) by inserting before paragraph (2), as so redesignated, 
        the following:
            ``(1) on an annual basis and prior to the submission of the 
        detailed business-type budget required under paragraph (2)--
                    ``(A) make publicly available and cause to be 
                printed in the Federal Register a draft of such 
                detailed business-type budget; and
                    ``(B) hold a public hearing, with public notice 
                provided of such hearing, wherein the public can submit 
                comments on the draft of such detailed business-type 
                budget;''; and
            (3) in paragraph (2), as so redesignated--
                    (A) by inserting ``detailed'' after ``submit a''; 
                and
                    (B) by inserting ``, and where such budget shall 
                address any comments submitted by the public pursuant 
                to paragraph (1)(B)'' after ``Control Act''.
                                 <all>
```