alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7670

RAPHAEL ADOLFO THOMAS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-97- 2053-AMD) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 25, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.Denise Charlotte Barrett, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Annabelle Louise Lisic, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The district court granted a certificate of appealability only as to whether it correctly applied the doctrine of procedural default to all but one of Thomas’s claims. It did not grant a certificate of appealability regarding the jury instruction issue, rather, the court found Thomas failed to meet his burden of showing this claim was not properly adjudicated in the state court’s post conviction review proceedings. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(d) (West Supp. 1998). 2 PER CURIAM: Raphael A. Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm that portion of the district court’s order finding all but one of Thomas’ claim procedurally defaulted; we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the portion of the district court’s order which held that the trial court’s jury instruction, regarding witness credibility, was not reversible error. * See Thomas v. Corcoran, No. CA-97-2053-AMD (D. Md. Oct. 22, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART
EXHIBIT 31.1 

Certifications of ChiefExecutive Officer 

I, Carl Spana, certifythat: 

I have reviewed this quarterly reporton Form 10-Q of Palatin Technologies, Inc.; 

Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have: 

(a)              Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure          controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that          material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated          subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly          during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b)              Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and          procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness          of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered          by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(c)              Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control          over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent          fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to          materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial          reporting; and 

The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors: 

(a)              All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation          of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to          adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and          report financial information; and 

(b)              Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees          who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over          financial reporting. 

Date: May 9, 2005 

/s/ Carl Spana            

Carl Spana, ChiefExecutive Officer
EXHIBIT 1

FILED UNDER SEAL

Case 5:23-cv-00032-RWS Document 110-1 Filed 05/17/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 1947
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT R OB ER TO HER

RER A, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. B . FLEM ING; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-16026 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-01965-WB SEFB M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia W illia m B . Shubb, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

April 7, 2014 * * B e fore : TASHIM A , GR AB ER , a nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. C a lifornia sta te prisone r R obe rto He rre ra a ppe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismi ssing his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c t ion a lle g ing dueproc e ss viola tions in c onne c tion with his ga ng va lida tion proc e e dings. W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo a dismi ssa l for fa ilure to 

# FIL ED APR 14 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).sta

te a c la im unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915A. Hamilton v . Brow n , 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th C ir. 2011). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d He rre ra ’ s due proc e ss c la i m be c a use , e ve n a s sum ing tha

t He rre ra ha d a libe rty inte re st in a

voiding c onfine m e nt in the Se c urity Housing Unit, He

rre ra fa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to show tha t he wa s de nie d due proc e s s. Se eBruc ev . Ylst , 351 F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th C ir. 2003) (prison offic ia ls ne e d only

provide the inm ate with notic e of the c ha rge s a ga inst him

and an opportunity to pre se nt his views a nd a prison ga ng va lida tion ne e d only be supporte d by “ som e e vide nc e ” ); Re snic k v . Hay e s , 213 F.3d 443, 448 (9th C ir. 2000) (a prisone r posse sse s a libe rty inte re st only whe n a c ha nge oc c urs in c onfine m e nt tha

t im pose s a n “ aty p ic a l a nd signific ant ha

rdship . . . in re lation to the o rdina ry inc i de nts of prison life ” (c i tation a n d inte rna l quota

tion m arks om i tte d)). To the e xte nt tha

t He rre ra inte nde d to a lle ge a

c l a im for re ta lia

tion, the distric t c o urt prope rly

dismisse d He rre ra ’ s re t a lia tion c la im be c a use He rre ra

fa ile d to a l le ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to show tha t de fe nda nts re ta lia te d a ga i nst him for e xe rc ising his c onstitutiona l rights. Se eBruc e , 351 F.3d a t 1288 (e xpla ining e le m e nts of a prison re t a lia tion c la im unde r § 1983).

2 1 3 - 1 6 0 2 6The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing He rre ra ’ s m otions for a p pointm e nt of c ounse l be c a use He rre ra fa ile d to de m onstra te e xc e ptiona l c irc um s ta nc e s . Se eTe rre ll v . Bre w e r , 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th C ir. 1991) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w a

nd e xpla i ning “ e xc e ptiona l c irc um sta nc e s” re quire m e nt). AFFIRM E D.

3 1 3 - 1 6 0 2 6
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1290 CA 15-00908** 
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

J.N.K. MACHINE CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

TBW, LTD., WOOLSCHLAGER, INC., AND BERNARD C. WOOLSCHLAGER, DEFENDANTS.

--------------------------------------------------- TBW, LTD., WOOLSCHLAGER, INC., AND BERNARD C. WOOLSCHLAGER, THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,

V

PAMELA LODESTRO, AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF G. MARV SCHUVER, THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT, AND BART SCHUVER, THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

ERICKSON WEBB SCOLTON & HAJDU, LAKEWOOD (PAUL V. WEBB, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS.

FESSENDEN, LAUMER & DEANGELO, JAMESTOWN (CHARLES S. DEANGELO OF COUNSEL), FOR THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Chautauqua County (Deborah A. Chimes, J.), entered September 16, 2014. The order granted the motion of third-party defendant Bart Schuver to dismiss the third-party complaint against him.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this breach of contract action, defendants-thirdparty plaintiffs (defendants) appeal from an order that granted themotion of third-party defendant Bart Schuver to dismiss the thirdparty complaint against him. We affirm. In a prior appeal, we affirmed an order denying defendants’ motion seeking leave to amend their answer to include additional allegations in their counterclaim, concluding that the proposed amendment “improperly sought relief that was inconsistent with this Court’s decision in the prior appeal” ( J.N.K. Mach. Corp. v TBW, Ltd. , 98 AD3d 1259, 1260). Inasmuch as the allegations and relief sought in the third-party complaint are substantially the same as the allegations and relief sought in defendants’ proposed amended answer, we agree with Schuver that the third-party complaint also improperly seeks relief inconsistent with this Court’s decision in the prior appeal. In any event, because the**-2- 1290 CA 15-00908** 

allegations in the third-party complaint allege that Schuver was acting as an agent for plaintiff, a disclosed principal, and there is no clear and explicit evidence of any intention by Schuver to “ ‘superadd his personal liability for, or to, that of [plaintiff]’ ” ( Salzman Sign Co. v Beck , 10 NY2d 63, 67; see Savoy Record Co. v Cardinal Export Corp ., 15 NY2d 1, 4-6; Jones v Archibald , 45 AD2d 532, 534), the third-party complaint also was properly dismissed for failure to state a cause of action against Schuver ( see CPLR 3211 [a] [7]).

Entered: December 31, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
```
 
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 04/23/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      381,591
COMMITMENTS
  95,340  165,713   72,352  189,942  117,041  357,634  355,106   23,957   26,485

CHANGES FROM 04/16/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:    -73,503)
 -14,407  -33,732    1,409  -54,757  -33,859  -67,755  -66,182   -5,748   -7,321

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    25.0     43.4     19.0     49.8     30.7     93.7     93.1      6.3      6.9

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      161)
      53       60       75       32       33      129      135
```

----

Updated April 26, 2013
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

MICHAEL MARTINEZ, #01710420, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

WARDEN B. RODRIGUEZ, 

 Respondent. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 6:23-cv-371-JDK-KNM 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Petitioner Michael Martinez, a former Texas Department of Criminal Justice 

inmate proceeding pro se, filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging 

the validity of a parole-revocation proceeding. The petition was referred to United 

States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact, conclusions of law, 

and recommendations for disposition. 

On November 1, 2023, Judge Mitchell issued a Report and Recommendation 

recommending that the Court deny the petition and dismiss this case without 

prejudice for failure to comply with a Court order and failure to prosecute. Judge 

Mitchell also recommended that a certificate of appealability be denied. Docket No. 7. 

A copy of this Report was mailed to Petitioner at his last-known address. To date, 

Petitioner has not objected to the Report. 

This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de 

novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and 

Case 6:23-cv-00371-JDK-KNM Document 13 Filed 10/02/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 40
2 

Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court 

examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. 

Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), 

superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to 

file objections from ten to fourteen days). 

Here, Petitioner did not object in the prescribed period. The Court therefore 

reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and 

reviews the legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See 

United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 

918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the 

standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). 

Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case, 

the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to 

law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the 

United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 9) as the findings of this Court. This 

petition for habeas corpus is hereby DENIED and this action is DISMISSED

without prejudice. The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability as to this case 

only and does not prevent refiling. 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2nd October, 2024.

Case 6:23-cv-00371-JDK-KNM Document 13 Filed 10/02/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 41
ex10-1.htm










Exhibit 10.1







Executive Salaries for 2012







On February 13, 2012, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Committee”) approved 2012 base salaries for the executive officers, effective April 1, 2012, as set forth below:








	
Executive Officer

	  	
Title

	  	
Salary


	
Richard J. Braun

	  	
President and Chief Executive Officer

	  	
$390,000


	
Kevin J. Wiersma

	  	
Vice President, Chief Administrative Officer, and Chief Financial Officer of MEDTOX Scientific, Inc. and Chief Operating Officer – Forensic Laboratory Operations

	  	
$235,800


	
James A. Schoonover

	  	
Vice President, Sales and Marketing and Chief Marketing Officer

	  	
$235,800


	
B. Mitchell Owens

	  	
Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of MEDTOX Diagnostics, Inc.

	  	
$235,800


	
Susan E. Puskas

	  	
Vice President, Quality Assurance, Regulatory Affairs, and Chief Operating Officer – Clinical  Laboratory Operations

	  	
$235,800


 


	
Angela M. Lacis

	  	
Corporate Controller

	  	
$142,872
```
 
 
MSCI EAFE MINI INDEX - NYSE LIFFE                                    Code-244041
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 07/17/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MSCI EAFE INDEX X $50)                              OPEN INTEREST:       67,127
COMMITMENTS
   6,818    2,376        0   55,894   61,882   62,712   64,258    4,415    2,869

CHANGES FROM 07/10/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:        334)
    -305     -291        0     -100      636     -405      345      739      -11

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    10.2      3.5      0.0     83.3     92.2     93.4     95.7      6.6      4.3

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       63)
       9        4        0       31       29       40       33
 
 
MSCI EMERGING MKTS MINI INDEX - NYSE LIFFE                           Code-244042
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 07/17/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(MSCI EAFE INDEX X $50)                              OPEN INTEREST:      116,891
COMMITMENTS
  20,183    8,309      789   84,404  100,784  105,376  109,882   11,515    7,009

CHANGES FROM 07/10/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:       -339)
     815     -124      454     -839      840      430    1,170     -769   -1,509

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    17.3      7.1      0.7     72.2     86.2     90.1     94.0      9.9      6.0

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       98)
      32       13        2       34       35       67       49
```

----

Updated July 20, 2012
```

```

----

Updated February 15, 2013
1

United States District Court

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

CHRISTINE LITTLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

INMODE, LTD., INMODE MD, LTD., 

and INVASIX, INC.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 4:23-CV-332

Judge Mazzant

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Christine Little’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. #48). 

Having considered the motion and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that the motion should 

be DENIED.

On August 14, 2023, the Court entered its Scheduling Order to control the disposition of 

the above-referenced case (Dkt. #45). To address discovery disputes, the Scheduling Order states: 

In the event the parties encounter a discovery dispute, no motions to compel may 

be filed until after the parties fulfill the “meet and confer” requirement imposed by 

this Court’s Local Rule CV-7(h). If the parties are unable to resolve the dispute 

without court intervention, the parties must then call the Court’s chambers to 

schedule a telephone conference regarding the subject matter of the dispute prior 

to filing any motion to compel. After reviewing the dispute, the Court will resolve 

the dispute, order the parties to file an appropriate motion, or direct the parties to 

call the discovery hotline. 

(Dkt. #45 at p. 4). Here, Plaintiffs did not call chambers to schedule a telephone conference before 

filing the present motion and thus did not follow the Court’s procedure under the Scheduling 

Order. As a result, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel should be denied. 

Case 4:23-cv-00332-ALM Document 49 Filed 11/16/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 818
2

It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff Christine Little’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. #48) is 

hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Case 4:23-cv-00332-ALM Document 49 Filed 11/16/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 819
##### 



LodgeNet Entertainment Corporation
    
    Form 10-Q
 Exhibit 32
 LODGENET ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
   
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of LodgeNet.
  /s/ Scott C. PetersenScott C. PetersenChief Executive Officer/s/ Gary H. RitondaroGary H. RitondaroChief Financial Officer
 Page 37
Phillip Dewayne STEWART, petitioner, v. Ronald John STUKEY.

No. 18-5611.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 15, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
In Re Steven A. WALCOTT, Jr., petitioner.

No. 18-6091.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 3, 2018.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
Frank PANNULLO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8485.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 102 (Thursday, May 26, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32032-32033]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11328]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Eye Institute; 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 Eye Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel; NEI RFA: Ocular Surface Innervation from Cell Types to 
Circuit Functions (U01).
    Date: June 8, 2022.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, 
6700B Rockledge Drive, Suite 3400, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual 
Meeting).
    Contact Person: Ashley Fortress, Ph.D., Designated Federal 
Official Division of Extramural Activities, National Eye Institute, 
National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Suite 3400, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 827-8613, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a8c9dbc0c4cdd186cec7dadcdacddbdbe8c6c1c086cfc7de"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d7b6a4bfbbb2aef9b1b8a5a3a5b2a4a497b9bebff9b0b8a1">[email protected]</span></a>.


[[Page 32033]]


(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.867, 
Vision Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 22, 2022.
Victoria E. Townsend,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-11328 Filed 5-25-22; 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>