alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 21002]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9723]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
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 Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel.
    Date: April 26, 2000.
    Time: 1 pm to 5 pm.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Sheraton University City Hotel Philadelphia, 36th and 
Chestnut Streets, Philadelphia, PA 19104-5939.
    Contact Person: Sheila O'Malley, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute 
of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., 
Room 6138, MSC 9606, Bethesda, MD 20892-9606, 301-443-6470.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.242, 
Mental Health Research Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development Award, 
Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, and Research Scientist 
Award; 93.282, Mental Health National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: April 11, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-9723 Filed 4-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### In the Matter of Town of Stony Point, Respondent, v Stony Point Policemen’s Benevolent Association, Inc., Appellant.

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Stolarik, J.), dated May 22, 1986, which granted the application and denied the cross application to compel arbitration.

*636Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, the application is denied and the cross application is granted.

The agreement in question provides for two means of dispute resolution. Article VI deals with questions or differences of opinion which may arise in the administration of the agreement. This article expressly provides for arbitration by PERB. Appendix A provides a mechanism for resolving grievances brought by individual employees.

At issue in this dispute is a difference of opinion between the parties as to the meaning of the word "charges” as used in the last sentence of article XIX. Clearly, this falls within the ambit of article VI permitting arbitration by PERB. We do not agree with the IAS court that a party to the agreement must resort to the grievance procedures in appendix A before invoking the interpretation provisions of article VI. Lawrence, J. P., Eiber, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
# C_2021030EN.01000501.xml

| 27.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/5

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

(2021/C 30/05)

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

| Date and time of closure | 27.10.2020 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 27.10.2020 – 31.12.2020 |
| Member State | France |
| Stock or Group of stocks | ALF/3X14- |
| Species | Alfonsinos (Beryx spp.) |
| Zone | Union and international waters of 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 14 |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | --- |
| Reference number | 31/TQ2025 |

Date and time of closure

27.10.2020

Duration

27.10.2020 – 31.12.2020

Member State

France

Stock or Group of stocks

ALF/3X14-

Species

Alfonsinos (Beryx spp.)

Zone

Union and international waters of 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 14

Type(s) of fishing vessels

---

Reference number

31/TQ2025

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, 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 Quarterly Report of ILEX Oncology, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Mark P. Mellin, Chief Financial 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: 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. /s/ Mark P. MellinName:
    Mark P. MellinTitle:
    Senior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDate:
    November 9, 2004 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 906), or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section
906, has been provided to ILEX Oncology, Inc. and will be retained by ILEX
Oncology, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

NO. 16-2832

JAMES C. CHILDERS, APPELLANT,

V.

DAVID J. SHULKIN, M.D.,

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.

Before SCHOELEN, BARTLEY, and GREENBERG, Judges.

O R D E R

On August 5, 2016, the appellant appealed an April 5, 2016, Board of Veterans' Appeals 

(Board) decision. On October 2, 2017, this matter was submitted to panel for a decision. On 

November 1, 2017, the Secretary notified the Court that the appellant died on September 22, 2017.

On November 11, 2017, the Court ordered the appellant's estate to respond and show cause 

as to why the appeal should not be dismissed. The Court also ordered the Secretary to respond 

and provide information relevant to whether there was a substitutable party in this case. 

On January 18, 2018, the Secretary advised the Court that VA was unaware of any eligible 

accrued beneficiaries and at the time of his death, the appellant was divorced and his two children 

were adults. Secretary's Response at 2. The Secretary also informed the Court that, although the 

appellant's estate had been notified of survivor benefits, VA had received no request for 

substitution. Secretary's Response at 3. On January 24, 2018, the appellant's estate provided a 

copy of the appellant's death certificate, but no evidence of a substitutable party.

When an appellant dies during the pendency of an appeal for disability compensation under 

chapter 11 of title 38, U.S. Code, the appropriate remedy is to vacate the appealed Board decision 

and dismiss the appeal unless there has been an appropriate substitution by a qualified accruedbenefits claimant. See Breedlove v. Shinseki, 24 Vet.App. 7, 21 (2010) (per curiam order); see 

also Padgett v. Nicholson, 473 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Accordingly, upon the death of 

a veteran-appellant, an individual who asserts he or she meets the eligibility requirements of an 

accrued-benefits claimant, 38 U.S.C. § 5121(a), may file with the Court a motion to be substituted 

in the appeal. See Breedlove, 24 Vet.App. at 20-21. 

Because this appeal has become moot by virtue of the death of the appellant, and the Court 

has not received a request for substitution or any other evidence of an eligible accrued beneficiary, 

the appeal will be dismissed. See Padgett, 473 F.3d at 1366; Breedlove, 24 Vet.App. at 20-21; 

Landicho, 7 Vet.App. at 53-54. 
2

Accordingly, the April 5, 2016, Board decision is VACATED with respect to the matters 

appealed to the Court and the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 

DATED: February 13, 2018 PER CURIAM.

Copies to:

The Estate of James C. Childers

VA General Counsel (027)
1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

_________________________________

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Complainant

vs.

WILLIAM DEMETRIUS OUTTEN

Respondent

_________________________________

Docket Number: 2023-0441

Enforcement Activity Number: 7802143

CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 

On January 5, 2024, the Coast Guard submitted a Motion for Approval of Settlement 

Agreement and Entry of Consent Order (Motion) to be approved as a settlement of the case 

under 33 C.F.R. § 20.502.1 

I have carefully reviewed the terms of the Settlement Agreement and find it is fair and 

reasonable and in substantial compliance with the requirements of 33 C.F.R. § 20.502.2

WHEREFORE,

1 Paragraph 2 of the Motion states the Coast Guard filed the Complaint on December 22, 2023. However, the record 

reveals December 14, 2023, as the actual date on which the Coast Guard filed its Complaint and served Respondent. 

2

In Paragraph 2.i.ii. of the Settlement Agreement, the subparagraph starting with “TEST 1,” states: “Respondent 

must provide the results of that test to the SAP [Substance Abuse Professional] who has conducted, or will conduct, 

the evaluation described in subparagraph [2]a.” I note that Paragraph 2.e. – not Paragraph 2.a. – refers to the SAP 

evaluation required under the terms and conditions of this agreement. Although reference to Paragraph 2.a. appears

to be a clerical error, the context and language in Paragraph 2.i.ii. make clear that hair test results must be submitted 

to the SAP referenced earlier in the agreement, specifically in Paragraph 2.e. Despite this error, it does not alter my 

determination that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and in substantial compliance with the relevant 

regulations.
2

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, the Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement and 

Entry of Consent Order is GRANTED, and the Settlement Agreement is APPROVED in full 

and incorporated herein by reference. This Consent Order shall constitute full, final, and 

complete adjudication of this proceeding.

Done and dated January 10, 2024

Baltimore, Maryland

 

_______________________________

HON. LINEKA N. QUIJANO

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17I0236. SHELLIELLE S. YOUHOING-NANAN v. THE STATE.

Shellielle S. Youhoing-Nanan was charged with obstructing an officer.

Youhoing-Nanan filed a motion to recuse the trial judge, which was denied on

February 6, 2017. On March 6, 2017, Youhoing-Nanan filed this application for

interlocutory appeal.

1 The State has filed a motion to dismiss, arguing inter alia that

Youhoing-Nanan failed to comply with the requisite appellate procedure. 

The trial court’s order denying Youhoing-Nanan’s motion to recuse is

interlocutory. See Murphy v. Murphy, 322 Ga. App. 829, 831-832 (747 SE2d 21)

(2013). An interlocutory order is not appealable without a certificate of immediate

review. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Atlanta Hanggliders &Ultralights, Inc. v. Rountree,

169 Ga. App. 647, 647 (314 SE2d 679) (1984). Here, Youhoing-Nanan failed to

obtain a certificate of immediate review. We thus lack jurisdiction to consider her

application for interlocutory appeal. See Murphy, supra. Accordingly, the State’s

motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and this application is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

1 Youhoing-Nanan filed her application in the Supreme Court, which

transferred the matter to this Court.

June 01, 2017

06/01/2017
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A)
RAYTEL MEDICAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           8,493
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,406<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                47,751
<PP&E>                                          39,564
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,951
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 123,287
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,254
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             9
<OTHER-SE>                                      65,454
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   123,287
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                81,146
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   70,706
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   676
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F2>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,288
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,476
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,990
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,486
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,486
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.48
<FN>
<F1>Represents net receivables
<F2><LOSS PROVISION> Included in <TOTAL COSTS>
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

_________________________________

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Complainant

vs.

RYAN BRITT

Respondent

_________________________________

Docket Number: 2023-0201

MISLE ID: 7700694

CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On June 27, 2023, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval of Settlement 

Agreement and Entry of Consent Order, to be approved as a settlement of the case under 33 

C.F.R. § 20.502. 

I have carefully reviewed the terms of the Settlement Agreement and find that it is fair 

and reasonable and in substantial compliance with the requirements of 33 C.F.R. § 20.502. 

WHEREFORE,
2

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, the Settlement Agreement is APPROVED in full and 

incorporated herein by reference. This Consent Order shall constitute full, final, and complete 

adjudication of this proceeding.

Done and dated July 20, 2023

Baltimore, Maryland

_______________________________

HON. LINEKA N. QUIJANO

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SERVICE EXPERTS, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR  
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           8,408
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   59,505
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,050
<INVENTORY>                                     29,715
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               115,045
<PP&E>                                          55,903
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,283
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 356,555
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,008
<BONDS>                                        104,479
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           175
<OTHER-SE>                                     206,207
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   356,555
<SALES>                                        407,835
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               407,835
<CGS>                                          261,670
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  261,670
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,708
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 38,685
<INCOME-TAX>                                    15,260
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             23,425
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    23,425
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.37
        
    

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE QUARTERLY
REPORT FILED ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE FISCAL QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,382
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,465
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      5,599
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         122,899
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           124,437
<LOANS>                                         48,638
<ALLOWANCE>                                        652
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 184,215
<DEPOSITS>                                     136,781
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                946
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            41
<OTHER-SE>                                      46,447
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 184,215
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  1,847
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                4,130
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   177
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 6,154
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,876
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,278
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       30
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,678
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,682
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,682
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       956
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.33
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.64
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,410
<LOANS-PAST>                                       241
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   622
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  652
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               652
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
                                             

</TABLE>
#### Fiancé ALBRITTON, Plaintiff—Appellant v. Nathaniel QUARTERMAN; Warden Unknown Thompson; Warden Unknown Swift; Warden Unknown Wheat; P.A. Unknown Nolan, Health Services Provider; Unknown Frances, Chief of Unit Classification; Unknown Kyle, Hospital Administrator; Dr. Tito Orig, Coffield Unit Director, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 10-40435

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 6, 2011.

Fiancé Albritton, Livingston, TX, pro se.

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Fiancé Albritton, Texas prisoner # 1227150, appeals following the dismissal of his complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act and the court’s subsequent ruling that he had failed to file a timely notice of appeal. Albritton challenges only the court’s underlying judgment dismissing his complaint as frivolous. He does not challenge the court’s postjudgment order in which it rejected his claim that he had filed a notice of appeal on March 14, 2009.

For civil appeals, “[t]he filing of a timely notice of appeal, within thirty days after entry of the court’s judgment, is mandatory and jurisdictional.” *Kinsley v. Lakeview Reg’l Med. Ctr. LLC,*570 F.3d 586, 588 (5th Cir.2009). Because the record does not reveal a timely notice of appeal from the underlying judgment, this court lacks jurisdiction to review Albritton’s argument. *See id.*Although we have juris*354diction to review the court’s subsequent postjudgment order, Albritton has failed to brief any argument challenging the order and, therefore, has abandoned the only cognizable claim on appeal. *See Brinkmann v. Dall. Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

 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.